I am don't know what to think about the Sub Races being their own thing. I don't see any issues from a mechanical stand point. They are still Gnomes or Dwarves and qualify for the Feats for example. BUT, is this just a temporary measure to separate the races from their "parent" race as listed in the PHB, or is this the way things will be going forward? Does it even really matter?
Business wise it might matter. As Yurei pointed out, it can make all the difference in terms of implementation - for us specifically, in terms of how DDB gets to or has to implement M³. Other than that, probably not so much. Some of the ones that 5E had as a subrace originally that will now get a separate racial entry were a separate race in previous editions. To me that made sense, deep gnomes are sufficiently different from the other gnomes that they warrant their own entry IMO. On the other hand, there are a couple of others (sea elves, eladrin) were a similar treatment could be justified as well. Either way, I don't see it becoming a general policy - stout halflings are going to remain a halfling variant, and so on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't know what to think about the Sub Races being their own thing. I don't see any issues from a mechanical stand point. They are still Gnomes or Dwarves and qualify for the Feats for example. BUT, is this just a temporary measure to separate the races from their "parent" race as listed in the PHB, or is this the way things will be going forward? Does it even really matter?
I would guess this is how things will be moving forward. It is closer to how other editions treated very distinct entities, such as Duergar and Dwarves, Drow and other Elves, Svirfneblin and Gnomes, etc. It was never a problem in 4e to have these distinct races be their own category--and it made some thing easier on new players who were not intimately aware of all the subraces since they could see "dark elf" right from the character creation page rather than peruse subraces trying to see what options were available. Overall, I only see a slight benefit from this change, and no actual drawback.
I can see it being far easier for new players to understand. I don't know how many times I had to correct a new player's sheet to include the core Elf abilities OR to include a Sub Race. I think that I just liked the concept itself more than the mechanics.
The inconsistent implementation of subspecies is a stumbling block that trips a lot of players up. I know Wizards was trying to avoid bloat by having certain critters fall under the overall blanket of an existing critter, but it really doesn't seem to've worked, and it sharply limits what new critters can do. Really feels like "subspecies" is more trouble than it's worth in most cases; if you want to make a new critter, make a new critter. Have an addendum to creature type, i.e "You are Humanoid, and you count as an elf for the purposes of abilities or items that interact with elves." Donezoes
The only issue with sub races being expanded out is thematic. I mean, do the Duergar even Dwarf? They don't really have that much in common anymore - they don't get Dwarven bonuses and show mo real connection other than they get treated as a Dwarf. Maybe if they did it for every subrace it wouldn't be the ugly duck syndrome quite so much.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The inconsistent implementation of subspecies is a stumbling block that trips a lot of players up. I know Wizards was trying to avoid bloat by having certain critters fall under the overall blanket of an existing critter, but it really doesn't seem to've worked, and it sharply limits what new critters can do. Really feels like "subspecies" is more trouble than it's worth in most cases; if you want to make a new critter, make a new critter. Have an addendum to creature type, i.e "You are Humanoid, and you count as an elf for the purposes of abilities or items that interact with elves." Donezoes
I could also see it opening up more possibilities if you drop the "Core" race concept. It would be easier to publish a Seafaring Dwarf if you don't have to deal with the excess baggage of things like Stone Cunning and the like.
Absolutely. The only thing a shared base race really does is make it easier to do racial feats, and since Wizards has abandoned the concept of racial feats...why stick with it?
I don't mind subraces being a thing. I don't mind no subraces being a thing.
What I really hate is the inconsistency of some types of dwarf being a subrace while others are not.
I get that and I am leaning heavily towards the opinion that "subraces" are going away completely in 2024. I did a quick review, and none of the races in the new book are subraces. The Gith have been fully split apart as have the Genasi.
Edit: This also matches how the new Dragonborn were done as well.
But to put it into perspective for you, if people didn’t like the old system they didn’t need to play D&D in the first place. It’s the same argument. What makes one “Gatekeeping” and the other not? The answer: the popularity of the sentiment.
It is a very short sighted view. D&D is a product. If it doesn't change to be relevant to a new generation of consumers, it will no longer make a profit and no longer be made. WotC can't depend on you to buy books from them for the next 50 years so that they can stay in business.
But, it's worked out great for the comic book industry! Wait . . .
- I like that all Genasi have darkvision, not just fire. I'd argue that air and water should keep their original ribbon cantrips, with the option to know Acid Splash/Shocking Grasp instead if they want.
- I'm not sure how I feel about ditching sunlight sensitivity, though I never knew of anyone who played duergar anyway, so I'll wait and see. And as Nerd Immersion noted, duergar NPCs still have it.
- I feel deep gnomes were fine the way they were. I'd say give them the spellcasting that Nerd Immersion reported, but keep their former Stone Camouflage as it was.
- I'd say no to making everyone have 30 feet movement speed. One of my first characters in 5e was a dwarven wizard, and the slower movement was only an occasional burden.
- Gith were fine as they were. Have floating ASIs and let them use whatever stat they want for their innate spellcasting, and they're fine. Maybe for Githzerai give them +1 to unarmored AC like they had in the Unearthed Arcana. No need to give them psychic resistance, since if you incorporate their backstory as DM, that feature will be busted.
- For kobolds, you get a choice from one of three features. All but the sorcerer cantrip are weak. I'd say give them the choice of Pack Tactics rather than Defiance.
Not entirely the case. The deep gnomes have a feature that says they are treated as gnomes for any effects or feats that require you to be a gnome, so I wouldn't say it's gone.
Not entirely the case. The deep gnomes have a feature that says they are treated as gnomes for any effects or feats that require you to be a gnome, so I wouldn't say it's gone.
I meant as a mechanic. The Elves are all still Elves and Dwarves are all still Dwarves. The mechanic of picking a race and then a subrace seems to be going.
Alright, I'm bored enough to jump into this discussion! The leaks look pretty legit, though it's not hard to match official formatting these days, so they could be fake. The new genasi are interesting. Earth genasi is extremely exciting to me. Interesting to let people be small. I would imagine most children of medium races would be small. I wonder if this is meant to reflect, like, IRL dwarfism? Or if certain races just come in various sizes? Or if it's just for children?
It seems they're still keeping some races defined as uncommon or "ask your DM," which is not getting any attention but I feel like it's important. I appreciate the removal of sunlight sensitivity... Adventurers being unique and all, it makes sense that someone with that trait wouldn't make it as an adventurer. And everyone hates it. People can talk about min maxing and taking penalities to get more powerful features all they like, but everyone hates sunlight sensitivity. Get it out of here!
I’m not entirely sure, but I think it was something Colville said. I think someone had asked him what D&D was and he didn’t know how to answer at first. After a time he eventually landed upon the answer:
Start taking things away from D&D one at a time and whenever you take away something that makes it not D&D anymore, put it back. Keep doing that until all that’s left are the things that you have specifically put back, and whatever is left in that little pile is D&D.
The very first thing I ever put back was Racial ASIs.
Quite literally, one of the few things that I felt was most intrinsically D&D is being discarded from D&D.
So you decided the ship wasn't the one of Thesus when the first board you stepped on was placed. Nevermind all the boards that had been taken out before that one, those where fine, just THAT one was the defining one to you. So you have to have that specific little board to call it the Ship of Theseus. And that's fine, for you.
Personally I've always found the Ship of Theseus paradox a little silly. To me, the answer was always "Both"
So the argument over "This is the TRUE Ship of Theseus because it still has the board I originally stepped on on it" when that board itself was kinda replacement, is really odd to me.
No. But certain things are D&D for me. (Racial ASIs, Classes, Levels, the 6 Ability scores, Hit Points & Hit Dice, Saving Throws, Spells with levels and leveled Spell Slots) To use your Ship of Theseus analogy, those are the Keel, and the Keel is the ship.
See, I can respect that those things are D&D for you, but I'd still say the first board you stepped on is a better analogy than the keel. The ASI's are not the keel, I'm no D&D historian, but from what little I've tried to look up, those where not in the original version of D&D. If I'm wrong, please do correct me, I seek to be wrong about as few things as I can be before I die.
Not to get too nautical, but I'd really say if the ship will still run just fine for the majority of people on the ship, if tons of people won't even notice that part is gone, then it's hardly the 'keel', no matter how attached people who've been on the ship for ages are to that piece.
You can both have that piece be very important to you, define the entire thing for you, AND realize it's not some vitally important piece objectively. I'll use a thing I'm a fan of. I love the original comic Young Justice. It had a cast of characters I loved, that defined that comic for me. The cartoon Young Justice? It (at least originally) included literally none of those characters, very little of the tone and none of stuff I really loved about the comic.
It's still Young Justice, it's not MY Young Justice, but it's still Young Justice.
Because the real 'keel' of Young Justice is younger DC heroes, a team, maturing and having their friendships and lives shown. Sure, it may not be "Young Justice" to me because it doesn't feature Tim Drake, Kon-El, and Bart as the founding members, or as many weird jokes about saving the world via baseball. I will never be a fan of it, it will never be MY YJ, but it's still Young Justice.
and D&D without predetermined ASIs is still D&D, even if it's not yours.
I started in 2e, and they weren’t “ASIs,” but there were Racial Ability score adjustments, mostly both positive and negative.
And like I said, I don’t mind if people have floating ASIs, I’m upset because there won’t be official Racial ASIs. I want both as options, just like there are three options for generating base Ability scores, and an entire chapter of optional rules in the PHB regarding Multiclassing and Feats. I don’t mind that they’re adding the option other people want, I’m ticked off that they’re removing the other one entirely. Have your cake, leave me mine too.
I can get that, but a friendly kinda counterpoint.
Haven't the ASI's changed since 2e? Going off what I found on via google search on 2e DND races. High elves where +1Dex, -1Con. Now they're +2Dex, +1Int.
In fact, if the source I found is accurate, literally no race has the same racial ASIs as in 2e. Some even now have pluses where they used to have minuses. According to the thing I'm looking at (please correct me if I found a bad source) Forest Gnomes had +1Dex & Wis, and -1Str and Int. They've literally gone from having a -1 to a +2 in int.
I feel like if the races official rankings could vary that much between editions, that there where ALWAYS floating ASIs. It's just who gets to do the floating has shuffled.
The variability of what a race could be was inherent between editions.
So? (They do still follow the general feels across editions, nimble elves, stout dwarves, strong orcs, meh humans.) I don’t care that they’re somewhat different from one edition to the next. I care that they exist.
Alright, I'm bored enough to jump into this discussion! The leaks look pretty legit, though it's not hard to match official formatting these days, so they could be fake. The new genasi are interesting. Earth genasi is extremely exciting to me. Interesting to let people be small. I would imagine most children of medium races would be small. I wonder if this is meant to reflect, like, IRL dwarfism? Or if certain races just come in various sizes? Or if it's just for children?
It seems they're still keeping some races defined as uncommon or "ask your DM," which is not getting any attention but I feel like it's important. I appreciate the removal of sunlight sensitivity... Adventurers being unique and all, it makes sense that someone with that trait wouldn't make it as an adventurer. And everyone hates it. People can talk about min maxing and taking penalities to get more powerful features all they like, but everyone hates sunlight sensitivity. Get it out of here!
I think the Small or Medium thing makes a lot of sense. If being born a Genasi is a side effect of a extraplanar bloodline, then Gnome and Halflings could have Genasi children as well. I could see this happening for Tieflings and Aasimar as well.
I don’t understand why people hated sunlight sensitivity. To quote Colville: “it’s called ‘Dungeons & Dragons,’ not ‘Daylight & Dragons.’”
It isn't a thing that has bothered me, but I have a couple of players that want to play Kobolds, because they always love my Kobold NPCs, but they didn't care for the abilities OR the Sunlight Sensitivity. I think the new Kobold abilities alone would have been enough to get them to play the race, but removing Sunlight Sensitivity pretty much guarantees it. Drow were already fairly popular so I don't think it was big a problem over all though.
Personally, I don't really care one way or the other. It is still a factor in the Monster Stat Block, so not exactly gone.
The inconsistent implementation of subspecies is a stumbling block that trips a lot of players up. I know Wizards was trying to avoid bloat by having certain critters fall under the overall blanket of an existing critter, but it really doesn't seem to've worked, and it sharply limits what new critters can do. Really feels like "subspecies" is more trouble than it's worth in most cases; if you want to make a new critter, make a new critter. Have an addendum to creature type, i.e "You are Humanoid, and you count as an elf for the purposes of abilities or items that interact with elves." Donezoes
I could also see it opening up more possibilities if you drop the "Core" race concept. It would be easier to publish a Seafaring Dwarf if you don't have to deal with the excess baggage of things like Stone Cunning and the like.
As much as I'd like more official content regarding races, both as a per setting deal and slightly more generic, this feels like a prime candidate for a case by case DM ruling or, ideally, an actual erratum for a couple of races. Stone Cunning is among only half a dozen or so racial abilities that feel more like the result of active learning than of some kind of genetically imparted quality (dwarves actually get two of them, with their Combat Training, and they get their choice of an artisan's proficiency as well). There's always concepts that will have players clamour that there's no reason their X race character knows this Y type thing because they didn't really grow up under Z type influence. That's more of a problem with WotC deciding to put a few culture-based qualities under the race umbrella, where they don't really belong (they've now officially said to be aware of the fact that certain racial aspects that until now applied to all specimen everywhere really shouldn't, and I'd say these qualities fit that bill too), than with anything else. For the most part, core races with variants are fine IMO. It's just a matter of where to draw the line: wood elves and high elves being variant elves is ok with me, sea elves and eladrin possibly not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Players dislike anything that makes it harder to see. Note how often tables dismiss any/all light source/condition rules, as well. Parties with darkvision just assume they can see everything all the time, and parties without darkvision typically don't bother engaging with threats in the dark. If they can't bring enough light to ignore vision rules? They don't do the thing.
They hate Sunlight Sensitivity because it effectively blinds them in the places most players feel they're the best off - in bright, powerful sunlight. Given that darkvision is technically still 'sight with disadvantage' in total darkness, I imagine most of them don't consider the enhanced darkvision to be a worthwhile trade-off. 'Course, I'd posit that they should then maybe reconsider whether they want to play a sunlight-sensitive species, I'm just someone who just got done building a drow PC that fights with a blade, while having no intention of ducking or hijinks-ing Sunlight Sensitivity on top of explicitly telling the DM not to pull any punches when it came to SS, because that's the price one pays for playing a powerfully dark-adapted creature writes words on the Internet. What do I know.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Business wise it might matter. As Yurei pointed out, it can make all the difference in terms of implementation - for us specifically, in terms of how DDB gets to or has to implement M³. Other than that, probably not so much. Some of the ones that 5E had as a subrace originally that will now get a separate racial entry were a separate race in previous editions. To me that made sense, deep gnomes are sufficiently different from the other gnomes that they warrant their own entry IMO. On the other hand, there are a couple of others (sea elves, eladrin) were a similar treatment could be justified as well. Either way, I don't see it becoming a general policy - stout halflings are going to remain a halfling variant, and so on.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I would guess this is how things will be moving forward. It is closer to how other editions treated very distinct entities, such as Duergar and Dwarves, Drow and other Elves, Svirfneblin and Gnomes, etc. It was never a problem in 4e to have these distinct races be their own category--and it made some thing easier on new players who were not intimately aware of all the subraces since they could see "dark elf" right from the character creation page rather than peruse subraces trying to see what options were available. Overall, I only see a slight benefit from this change, and no actual drawback.
I can see it being far easier for new players to understand. I don't know how many times I had to correct a new player's sheet to include the core Elf abilities OR to include a Sub Race. I think that I just liked the concept itself more than the mechanics.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The inconsistent implementation of subspecies is a stumbling block that trips a lot of players up. I know Wizards was trying to avoid bloat by having certain critters fall under the overall blanket of an existing critter, but it really doesn't seem to've worked, and it sharply limits what new critters can do. Really feels like "subspecies" is more trouble than it's worth in most cases; if you want to make a new critter, make a new critter. Have an addendum to creature type, i.e "You are Humanoid, and you count as an elf for the purposes of abilities or items that interact with elves." Donezoes
Please do not contact or message me.
The only issue with sub races being expanded out is thematic. I mean, do the Duergar even Dwarf? They don't really have that much in common anymore - they don't get Dwarven bonuses and show mo real connection other than they get treated as a Dwarf. Maybe if they did it for every subrace it wouldn't be the ugly duck syndrome quite so much.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I could also see it opening up more possibilities if you drop the "Core" race concept. It would be easier to publish a Seafaring Dwarf if you don't have to deal with the excess baggage of things like Stone Cunning and the like.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Absolutely. The only thing a shared base race really does is make it easier to do racial feats, and since Wizards has abandoned the concept of racial feats...why stick with it?
Please do not contact or message me.
I don't mind subraces being a thing. I don't mind no subraces being a thing.
What I really hate is the inconsistency of some types of dwarf being a subrace while others are not.
I get that and I am leaning heavily towards the opinion that "subraces" are going away completely in 2024. I did a quick review, and none of the races in the new book are subraces. The Gith have been fully split apart as have the Genasi.
Edit: This also matches how the new Dragonborn were done as well.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
But, it's worked out great for the comic book industry! Wait . . .
Some thoughts:
- I like that all Genasi have darkvision, not just fire. I'd argue that air and water should keep their original ribbon cantrips, with the option to know Acid Splash/Shocking Grasp instead if they want.
- I'm not sure how I feel about ditching sunlight sensitivity, though I never knew of anyone who played duergar anyway, so I'll wait and see. And as Nerd Immersion noted, duergar NPCs still have it.
- I feel deep gnomes were fine the way they were. I'd say give them the spellcasting that Nerd Immersion reported, but keep their former Stone Camouflage as it was.
- I'd say no to making everyone have 30 feet movement speed. One of my first characters in 5e was a dwarven wizard, and the slower movement was only an occasional burden.
- Gith were fine as they were. Have floating ASIs and let them use whatever stat they want for their innate spellcasting, and they're fine. Maybe for Githzerai give them +1 to unarmored AC like they had in the Unearthed Arcana. No need to give them psychic resistance, since if you incorporate their backstory as DM, that feature will be busted.
- For kobolds, you get a choice from one of three features. All but the sorcerer cantrip are weak. I'd say give them the choice of Pack Tactics rather than Defiance.
Not entirely the case. The deep gnomes have a feature that says they are treated as gnomes for any effects or feats that require you to be a gnome, so I wouldn't say it's gone.
I meant as a mechanic. The Elves are all still Elves and Dwarves are all still Dwarves. The mechanic of picking a race and then a subrace seems to be going.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Alright, I'm bored enough to jump into this discussion! The leaks look pretty legit, though it's not hard to match official formatting these days, so they could be fake. The new genasi are interesting. Earth genasi is extremely exciting to me. Interesting to let people be small. I would imagine most children of medium races would be small. I wonder if this is meant to reflect, like, IRL dwarfism? Or if certain races just come in various sizes? Or if it's just for children?
It seems they're still keeping some races defined as uncommon or "ask your DM," which is not getting any attention but I feel like it's important. I appreciate the removal of sunlight sensitivity... Adventurers being unique and all, it makes sense that someone with that trait wouldn't make it as an adventurer. And everyone hates it. People can talk about min maxing and taking penalities to get more powerful features all they like, but everyone hates sunlight sensitivity. Get it out of here!
So? (They do still follow the general feels across editions, nimble elves, stout dwarves, strong orcs, meh humans.) I don’t care that they’re somewhat different from one edition to the next. I care that they exist.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think the Small or Medium thing makes a lot of sense. If being born a Genasi is a side effect of a extraplanar bloodline, then Gnome and Halflings could have Genasi children as well. I could see this happening for Tieflings and Aasimar as well.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I don’t understand why people hated sunlight sensitivity. To quote Colville: “it’s called ‘Dungeons & Dragons,’ not ‘Daylight & Dragons.’”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It isn't a thing that has bothered me, but I have a couple of players that want to play Kobolds, because they always love my Kobold NPCs, but they didn't care for the abilities OR the Sunlight Sensitivity. I think the new Kobold abilities alone would have been enough to get them to play the race, but removing Sunlight Sensitivity pretty much guarantees it. Drow were already fairly popular so I don't think it was big a problem over all though.
Personally, I don't really care one way or the other. It is still a factor in the Monster Stat Block, so not exactly gone.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
As much as I'd like more official content regarding races, both as a per setting deal and slightly more generic, this feels like a prime candidate for a case by case DM ruling or, ideally, an actual erratum for a couple of races. Stone Cunning is among only half a dozen or so racial abilities that feel more like the result of active learning than of some kind of genetically imparted quality (dwarves actually get two of them, with their Combat Training, and they get their choice of an artisan's proficiency as well). There's always concepts that will have players clamour that there's no reason their X race character knows this Y type thing because they didn't really grow up under Z type influence. That's more of a problem with WotC deciding to put a few culture-based qualities under the race umbrella, where they don't really belong (they've now officially said to be aware of the fact that certain racial aspects that until now applied to all specimen everywhere really shouldn't, and I'd say these qualities fit that bill too), than with anything else. For the most part, core races with variants are fine IMO. It's just a matter of where to draw the line: wood elves and high elves being variant elves is ok with me, sea elves and eladrin possibly not.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Players dislike anything that makes it harder to see. Note how often tables dismiss any/all light source/condition rules, as well. Parties with darkvision just assume they can see everything all the time, and parties without darkvision typically don't bother engaging with threats in the dark. If they can't bring enough light to ignore vision rules? They don't do the thing.
They hate Sunlight Sensitivity because it effectively blinds them in the places most players feel they're the best off - in bright, powerful sunlight. Given that darkvision is technically still 'sight with disadvantage' in total darkness, I imagine most of them don't consider the enhanced darkvision to be a worthwhile trade-off. 'Course, I'd posit that they should then maybe reconsider whether they want to play a sunlight-sensitive species, I'm just someone who
just got done building a drow PC that fights with a blade, while having no intention of ducking or hijinks-ing Sunlight Sensitivity on top of explicitly telling the DM not to pull any punches when it came to SS, because that's the price one pays for playing a powerfully dark-adapted creaturewrites words on the Internet. What do I know.Please do not contact or message me.