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.
Oh! Y'know, I didn't even think of that. That's smart.
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?
Well - it's really an implementation of the origin lore of these races too. Obviously WotC could create separate racial blocks for every type of elf without significant overlap and still put them in the Big Box of Elves, but to me that'd feel weird.
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.
Hey, I have no bones with other groups doing whatever makes them warm and fuzzy. The only way to play wrong is to not have fun and all that. But WotC doing away with things just because groups who don't like it will ignore it gimps everybody else's experience, and if all it otherwise accomplishes is that those who'd ignore it wouldn't have to ignore a thing that wouldn't exist is ridiculous. That shouldn't be an argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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?
Well - it's really an implementation of the origin lore of these races too. Obviously WotC could create separate racial blocks for every type of elf without significant overlap and still put them in the Big Box of Elves, but to me that'd feel weird.
If they really are going to be more setting agnostic/multiverse friendly, lumping all Elf races in one box may not be the right way to go to accomplish that anyway.
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?
Well - it's really an implementation of the origin lore of these races too. Obviously WotC could create separate racial blocks for every type of elf without significant overlap and still put them in the Big Box of Elves, but to me that'd feel weird.
If they really are going to be more setting agnostic/multiverse friendly, lumping all Elf races in one box may not be the right way to go to accomplish that anyway.
That'd depend on the cosmology. If all elves across all the planes shared a common origin, they'd presumably share some genetic traits - just not cultural ones. And if they didn't, wouldn't we just be calling all of them elves only because that's convenient?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This is why I have decided to switch to PF 2e and stop playing 5e unless one of my friends runs it (which is unlikely given that all of my DM friends are just as fed up as I am). I want a balanced game that is not hard for me to run. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the game is balanced (I'd argue it had forgivable balance issues at day 1), after all, when is the last time a high-level party put up against a challenge following the encounter-building guidelines was actually challenging? And as for not being difficult to run, the encounter building guidelines aren't good, magic items aren't assumed given according to the designers but a lot (nearly all) high-level monsters have resistance to non-magic damage, and the cherry on top is that officially published adventures while not great at first have just contained to go downhill and have started turning into idea guides that the DM must put together and modify extensively to work. All of that is somewhat forgivable, though, and I wouldn't almost entirely swear off 5e just for that, no, the worst part is that I'm at page 6 of this discussion, and everyone expressing the same concerns as I have/had are getting drug through the mud (for the most part). I entirely expect to have the same mud-dragging happen to me for posting this but I feel the need to air my grievances even if it would be better to stay silent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly
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?
Well - it's really an implementation of the origin lore of these races too. Obviously WotC could create separate racial blocks for every type of elf without significant overlap and still put them in the Big Box of Elves, but to me that'd feel weird.
If they really are going to be more setting agnostic/multiverse friendly, lumping all Elf races in one box may not be the right way to go to accomplish that anyway.
That'd depend on the cosmology. If all elves across all the planes shared a common origin, they'd presumably share some genetic traits - just not cultural ones. And if they didn't, wouldn't we just be calling all of them elves only because that's convenient?
To be fair, we already do that. There are a lot of Elves in various lore as well as a variety of different elves in books and movies that have nothing in common with one another beyond being called an elf.
I don’t understand why people hated sunlight sensitivity. To quote Colville: “it’s called ‘Dungeons & Dragons,’ not ‘Daylight & Dragons.’”
The problem for me was that it was a hard, conditional nerf.
I wanted to play a Drow, but due to SS, that was a really harsh nerf for any campaign that involves being out in daylight. That's pretty much all my prepublished campaigns. Until RotFM anyway, where there is no direct sunlight. So now I play a Drow Paladin...and the nerf is nonexistent. So, net affect of SS?
I didn't play Drow in some campaigns that I might have otherwise. That's not really the purpose of the drawback.
When I did play the Drow, it was in a situation where SS effectively didn't exist, so it doesn't counterbalance the OP parts of the race.
Both of those makes it pointless, or worse than pointless, to include it. Kobold with pack tactics were in a better situation (I wouldn't have minded having to adapt my play, I just didn't like the fact that the Drow was stuck with it), but mostly SS didn't achieve goal: to counterbalance the OP parts of the race.
Also, I think there is an aversion to negative traits. They got rid of negative ASIs as well. I can understand that, but I think it's a shame - you can get moreminteresting builds if you can balance strong points with weaker ones.
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.
This is why I have decided to switch to PF 2e and stop playing 5e unless one of my friends runs it (which is unlikely given that all of my DM friends are just as fed up as I am). I want a balanced game that is not hard for me to run. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the game is balanced (I'd argue it had forgivable balance issues at day 1), after all, when is the last time a high-level party put up against a challenge following the encounter-building guidelines was actually challenging? And as for not being difficult to run, the encounter building guidelines aren't good, magic items aren't assumed given according to the designers but a lot (nearly all) high-level monsters have resistance to non-magic damage, and the cherry on top is that officially published adventures while not great at first have just contained to go downhill and have started turning into idea guides that the DM must put together and modify extensively to work. All of that is somewhat forgivable, though, and I wouldn't almost entirely swear off 5e just for that, no, the worst part is that I'm at page 6 of this discussion, and everyone expressing the same concerns as I have/had are getting drug through the mud (for the most part). I entirely expect to have the same mud-dragging happen to me for posting this but I feel the need to air my grievances even if it would be better to stay silent.
I feel that saying people are being drug through the mud might be exaggerating a bit too much on my part. While there are a few posts that toe a bit too close to the line of civility, most of the responses are just frank dismissals of our concerns. Which is still an issue, as I feel no one is giving any thought to any valid concerns we may have or to why we feel that our concerns are valid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly
This is why I have decided to switch to PF 2e and stop playing 5e unless one of my friends runs it (which is unlikely given that all of my DM friends are just as fed up as I am). I want a balanced game that is not hard for me to run. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the game is balanced (I'd argue it had forgivable balance issues at day 1), after all, when is the last time a high-level party put up against a challenge following the encounter-building guidelines was actually challenging? And as for not being difficult to run, the encounter building guidelines aren't good, magic items aren't assumed given according to the designers but a lot (nearly all) high-level monsters have resistance to non-magic damage, and the cherry on top is that officially published adventures while not great at first have just contained to go downhill and have started turning into idea guides that the DM must put together and modify extensively to work. All of that is somewhat forgivable, though, and I wouldn't almost entirely swear off 5e just for that, no, the worst part is that I'm at page 6 of this discussion, and everyone expressing the same concerns as I have/had are getting drug through the mud (for the most part). I entirely expect to have the same mud-dragging happen to me for posting this but I feel the need to air my grievances even if it would be better to stay silent.
Your concerns are valid, your grievances are valid and your thoughts are valid. If anyone is going to drag you through the mud for having an opinion, then they should reconsider their words.
This post is a good example of a self contained thought bubble. I had issues with 5e, here is what I did to fix those issues for my table(go to Pathfinder 2E).
As to your mudslinging comment, I understand that but at the same time you have to look at this thread for what it is: It's about 8 people who are posting back and forth, at least since page six. They don't represent a lot of these forums, and with now two warnings for this thread I expect it to come to a timely close before long.
Enjoy your Pathfinder. When the Pathfinder Nexus Character builder comes out, I might be joining you.
This is why I have decided to switch to PF 2e and stop playing 5e unless one of my friends runs it (which is unlikely given that all of my DM friends are just as fed up as I am). I want a balanced game that is not hard for me to run. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the game is balanced (I'd argue it had forgivable balance issues at day 1), after all, when is the last time a high-level party put up against a challenge following the encounter-building guidelines was actually challenging? And as for not being difficult to run, the encounter building guidelines aren't good, magic items aren't assumed given according to the designers but a lot (nearly all) high-level monsters have resistance to non-magic damage, and the cherry on top is that officially published adventures while not great at first have just contained to go downhill and have started turning into idea guides that the DM must put together and modify extensively to work. All of that is somewhat forgivable, though, and I wouldn't almost entirely swear off 5e just for that, no, the worst part is that I'm at page 6 of this discussion, and everyone expressing the same concerns as I have/had are getting drug through the mud (for the most part). I entirely expect to have the same mud-dragging happen to me for posting this but I feel the need to air my grievances even if it would be better to stay silent.
Your concerns are valid, your grievances are valid and your thoughts are valid. If anyone is going to drag you through the mud for having an opinion, then they should reconsider their words.
This post is a good example of a self contained thought bubble. I had issues with 5e, here is what I did to fix those issues for my table(go to Pathfinder 2E).
As to your mudslinging comment, I understand that but at the same time you have to look at this thread for what it is: It's about 8 people who are posting back and forth, at least since page six. They don't represent a lot of these forums, and with now two warnings for this thread I expect it to come to a timely close before long.
Enjoy your Pathfinder. When the Pathfinder Nexus Character builder comes out, I might be joining you.
I'd have switched ages ago if my group was interested in it. But where I live even finding a DnD 5e group isn't easy.
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?
Well - it's really an implementation of the origin lore of these races too. Obviously WotC could create separate racial blocks for every type of elf without significant overlap and still put them in the Big Box of Elves, but to me that'd feel weird.
If they really are going to be more setting agnostic/multiverse friendly, lumping all Elf races in one box may not be the right way to go to accomplish that anyway.
That'd depend on the cosmology. If all elves across all the planes shared a common origin, they'd presumably share some genetic traits - just not cultural ones. And if they didn't, wouldn't we just be calling all of them elves only because that's convenient?
To be fair, we already do that. There are a lot of Elves in various lore as well as a variety of different elves in books and movies that have nothing in common with one another beyond being called an elf.
Absolutely, but at least for now D&D elves do have things in common. Are we ready and willing to part with that notion? Because half a dozen races in separate racial entries with little or nothing in common yet all titled "X Elf" is an odd idea to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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?
Well - it's really an implementation of the origin lore of these races too. Obviously WotC could create separate racial blocks for every type of elf without significant overlap and still put them in the Big Box of Elves, but to me that'd feel weird.
If they really are going to be more setting agnostic/multiverse friendly, lumping all Elf races in one box may not be the right way to go to accomplish that anyway.
That'd depend on the cosmology. If all elves across all the planes shared a common origin, they'd presumably share some genetic traits - just not cultural ones. And if they didn't, wouldn't we just be calling all of them elves only because that's convenient?
To be fair, we already do that. There are a lot of Elves in various lore as well as a variety of different elves in books and movies that have nothing in common with one another beyond being called an elf.
Absolutely, but at least for now D&D elves do have things in common. Are we ready and willing to part with that notion? Because half a dozen races in separate racial entries with little or nothing in common yet all titled "X Elf" is an odd idea to me.
I don't disagree with you. But is the Mechanical attributes of a race in a game the way we define the relationship between species in said game, or is there deeper underlining attributes that don't require definition to make a game function, yet binds all elves together?
I don't disagree with you. But is the Mechanical attributes of a race in a game the way we define the relationship between species in said game, or is there deeper underlining attributes that don't require definition to make a game function, yet binds all elves together?
Presumably yes, since simply naming a race "elf" evokes a number of expectations - ageless, graceful, wise, pointy eared humanoids, often distant from the rest of the world. Not sure of that's a good thing or bad though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm wondering if the "radical" reworking folks are seeing in the elimination of organizing subraces under a main race is actually organizational as opposed to some "rework" of races.
MMM when announced also said they were going to do strict alphabetization of monsters instead of grouping say varieties of demons, devils, and dinosaurs under headings of "demons devils and dinosaurs" so if you were looking up a Tyrannosaurus Rex, you'd look under T instead of searching out the dinosaurs under D. The team at Celebration called this stream lining ... I'm not convinced. Like I could understand looking up dinosaurs by specific type, maybe, but I'm pretty sure I'd want to read the general demon section before looking of Glabrazu or whatever.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm wondering if the "radical" reworking folks are seeing in the elimination of organizing subraces under a main race is actually organizational as opposed to some "rework" of races.
MMM when announced also said they were going to do strict alphabetization of monsters instead of grouping say varieties of demons, devils, and dinosaurs under headings of "demons devils and dinosaurs" so if you were looking up a Tyrannosaurus Rex, you'd look under T instead of searching out the dinosaurs under D. The team at Celebration called this stream lining ... I'm not convinced. Like I could understand looking up dinosaurs by specific type, maybe, but I'm pretty sure I'd want to read the general demon section before looking of Glabrazu or whatever.
I don't see any benefit here. Alfabetizing the actual name in the index, absolutely, but other than that? Why add a level of confusion for newer DMs who've never heard half of the names in the book and don't have a clue which monsters to look up first if they need an undead critter or a demon?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm wondering if the "radical" reworking folks are seeing in the elimination of organizing subraces under a main race is actually organizational as opposed to some "rework" of races.
MMM when announced also said they were going to do strict alphabetization of monsters instead of grouping say varieties of demons, devils, and dinosaurs under headings of "demons devils and dinosaurs" so if you were looking up a Tyrannosaurus Rex, you'd look under T instead of searching out the dinosaurs under D. The team at Celebration called this stream lining ... I'm not convinced. Like I could understand looking up dinosaurs by specific type, maybe, but I'm pretty sure I'd want to read the general demon section before looking of Glabrazu or whatever.
I don't see any benefit here. Alfabetizing the actual name in the index, absolutely, but other than that? Why add a level of confusion for newer DMs who've never heard half of the names in the book and don't have a clue which monsters to look up first if they need an undead critter or a demon?
Well, they usually include tables for monster types, right? And environments, too. Start there.
This is why I have decided to switch to PF 2e and stop playing 5e unless one of my friends runs it (which is unlikely given that all of my DM friends are just as fed up as I am). I want a balanced game that is not hard for me to run. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the game is balanced (I'd argue it had forgivable balance issues at day 1), after all, when is the last time a high-level party put up against a challenge following the encounter-building guidelines was actually challenging? And as for not being difficult to run, the encounter building guidelines aren't good, magic items aren't assumed given according to the designers but a lot (nearly all) high-level monsters have resistance to non-magic damage, and the cherry on top is that officially published adventures while not great at first have just contained to go downhill and have started turning into idea guides that the DM must put together and modify extensively to work. All of that is somewhat forgivable, though, and I wouldn't almost entirely swear off 5e just for that, no, the worst part is that I'm at page 6 of this discussion, and everyone expressing the same concerns as I have/had are getting drug through the mud (for the most part). I entirely expect to have the same mud-dragging happen to me for posting this but I feel the need to air my grievances even if it would be better to stay silent.
I feel that saying people are being drug through the mud might be exaggerating a bit too much on my part. While there are a few posts that toe a bit too close to the line of civility, most of the responses are just frank dismissals of our concerns. Which is still an issue, as I feel no one is giving any thought to any valid concerns we may have or to why we feel that our concerns are valid.
I'm going to be honest. I can't relate to the idea that 5e is "difficult to run" at all
Even in the instances in the campaign I'm DMing where rules have been unclear or there seemed to be a conflict, I simply decided what made the most sense to keep the game flowing and then researched afterward to see if I'd missed something that would impact future rulings
I hadn't DMed since 2e, and hadn't even played at all since a smidge of 3.5. With 5e I went from playing in a couple one-shots to jumping back in to DMing with no trouble at all
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don't disagree with you. But is the Mechanical attributes of a race in a game the way we define the relationship between species in said game, or is there deeper underlining attributes that don't require definition to make a game function, yet binds all elves together?
Presumably yes, since simply naming a race "elf" evokes a number of expectations - ageless, graceful, wise, pointy eared humanoids, often distant from the rest of the world. Not sure of that's a good thing or bad though.
Then it would be those types of traits that make an Elf an Elf, and the mechanical traits that only really function as part of a game can be as diverse as they like and have something or nothing in common between the various elves.
I'm wondering if the "radical" reworking folks are seeing in the elimination of organizing subraces under a main race is actually organizational as opposed to some "rework" of races.
MMM when announced also said they were going to do strict alphabetization of monsters instead of grouping say varieties of demons, devils, and dinosaurs under headings of "demons devils and dinosaurs" so if you were looking up a Tyrannosaurus Rex, you'd look under T instead of searching out the dinosaurs under D. The team at Celebration called this stream lining ... I'm not convinced. Like I could understand looking up dinosaurs by specific type, maybe, but I'm pretty sure I'd want to read the general demon section before looking of Glabrazu or whatever.
It very much could be a side effect of reorganizing things. It could be a combination of that and realizing that it opens up more possible "races" if they don't have to work around the abilities of a "Core" Race to make a new "Subrace". Kind of like how Subclass mechanics are restricted by Core Class Mechanics.
Oh! Y'know, I didn't even think of that. That's smart.
Well - it's really an implementation of the origin lore of these races too. Obviously WotC could create separate racial blocks for every type of elf without significant overlap and still put them in the Big Box of Elves, but to me that'd feel weird.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Hey, I have no bones with other groups doing whatever makes them warm and fuzzy. The only way to play wrong is to not have fun and all that. But WotC doing away with things just because groups who don't like it will ignore it gimps everybody else's experience, and if all it otherwise accomplishes is that those who'd ignore it wouldn't have to ignore a thing that wouldn't exist is ridiculous. That shouldn't be an argument.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If they really are going to be more setting agnostic/multiverse friendly, lumping all Elf races in one box may not be the right way to go to accomplish that anyway.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
That'd depend on the cosmology. If all elves across all the planes shared a common origin, they'd presumably share some genetic traits - just not cultural ones. And if they didn't, wouldn't we just be calling all of them elves only because that's convenient?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This is why I have decided to switch to PF 2e and stop playing 5e unless one of my friends runs it (which is unlikely given that all of my DM friends are just as fed up as I am). I want a balanced game that is not hard for me to run. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the game is balanced (I'd argue it had forgivable balance issues at day 1), after all, when is the last time a high-level party put up against a challenge following the encounter-building guidelines was actually challenging? And as for not being difficult to run, the encounter building guidelines aren't good, magic items aren't assumed given according to the designers but a lot (nearly all) high-level monsters have resistance to non-magic damage, and the cherry on top is that officially published adventures while not great at first have just contained to go downhill and have started turning into idea guides that the DM must put together and modify extensively to work. All of that is somewhat forgivable, though, and I wouldn't almost entirely swear off 5e just for that, no, the worst part is that I'm at page 6 of this discussion, and everyone expressing the same concerns as I have/had are getting drug through the mud (for the most part). I entirely expect to have the same mud-dragging happen to me for posting this but I feel the need to air my grievances even if it would be better to stay silent.
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly
To be fair, we already do that. There are a lot of Elves in various lore as well as a variety of different elves in books and movies that have nothing in common with one another beyond being called an elf.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The problem for me was that it was a hard, conditional nerf.
I wanted to play a Drow, but due to SS, that was a really harsh nerf for any campaign that involves being out in daylight. That's pretty much all my prepublished campaigns. Until RotFM anyway, where there is no direct sunlight. So now I play a Drow Paladin...and the nerf is nonexistent. So, net affect of SS?
Both of those makes it pointless, or worse than pointless, to include it. Kobold with pack tactics were in a better situation (I wouldn't have minded having to adapt my play, I just didn't like the fact that the Drow was stuck with it), but mostly SS didn't achieve goal: to counterbalance the OP parts of the race.
Also, I think there is an aversion to negative traits. They got rid of negative ASIs as well. I can understand that, but I think it's a shame - you can get moreminteresting builds if you can balance strong points with weaker ones.
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 feel that saying people are being drug through the mud might be exaggerating a bit too much on my part. While there are a few posts that toe a bit too close to the line of civility, most of the responses are just frank dismissals of our concerns. Which is still an issue, as I feel no one is giving any thought to any valid concerns we may have or to why we feel that our concerns are valid.
call me Anna or Kerns, (she/her), usually a DM, lgbtq+ friendly
Your concerns are valid, your grievances are valid and your thoughts are valid. If anyone is going to drag you through the mud for having an opinion, then they should reconsider their words.
This post is a good example of a self contained thought bubble. I had issues with 5e, here is what I did to fix those issues for my table(go to Pathfinder 2E).
As to your mudslinging comment, I understand that but at the same time you have to look at this thread for what it is: It's about 8 people who are posting back and forth, at least since page six. They don't represent a lot of these forums, and with now two warnings for this thread I expect it to come to a timely close before long.
Enjoy your Pathfinder. When the Pathfinder Nexus Character builder comes out, I might be joining you.
I'd have switched ages ago if my group was interested in it. But where I live even finding a DnD 5e group isn't easy.
Absolutely, but at least for now D&D elves do have things in common. Are we ready and willing to part with that notion? Because half a dozen races in separate racial entries with little or nothing in common yet all titled "X Elf" is an odd idea to me.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't disagree with you. But is the Mechanical attributes of a race in a game the way we define the relationship between species in said game, or is there deeper underlining attributes that don't require definition to make a game function, yet binds all elves together?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Presumably yes, since simply naming a race "elf" evokes a number of expectations - ageless, graceful, wise, pointy eared humanoids, often distant from the rest of the world. Not sure of that's a good thing or bad though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm wondering if the "radical" reworking folks are seeing in the elimination of organizing subraces under a main race is actually organizational as opposed to some "rework" of races.
MMM when announced also said they were going to do strict alphabetization of monsters instead of grouping say varieties of demons, devils, and dinosaurs under headings of "demons devils and dinosaurs" so if you were looking up a Tyrannosaurus Rex, you'd look under T instead of searching out the dinosaurs under D. The team at Celebration called this stream lining ... I'm not convinced. Like I could understand looking up dinosaurs by specific type, maybe, but I'm pretty sure I'd want to read the general demon section before looking of Glabrazu or whatever.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I don't see any benefit here. Alfabetizing the actual name in the index, absolutely, but other than that? Why add a level of confusion for newer DMs who've never heard half of the names in the book and don't have a clue which monsters to look up first if they need an undead critter or a demon?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Well, they usually include tables for monster types, right? And environments, too. Start there.
I'm going to be honest. I can't relate to the idea that 5e is "difficult to run" at all
Even in the instances in the campaign I'm DMing where rules have been unclear or there seemed to be a conflict, I simply decided what made the most sense to keep the game flowing and then researched afterward to see if I'd missed something that would impact future rulings
I hadn't DMed since 2e, and hadn't even played at all since a smidge of 3.5. With 5e I went from playing in a couple one-shots to jumping back in to DMing with no trouble at all
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Then it would be those types of traits that make an Elf an Elf, and the mechanical traits that only really function as part of a game can be as diverse as they like and have something or nothing in common between the various elves.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It very much could be a side effect of reorganizing things. It could be a combination of that and realizing that it opens up more possible "races" if they don't have to work around the abilities of a "Core" Race to make a new "Subrace". Kind of like how Subclass mechanics are restricted by Core Class Mechanics.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master