Player Races Leaks from Monsters of the Multiverse

Quote from iconarising >>

Quote from Lycaon1765p>>

Quote from iconarising>>

I have to wonder how much energy has been spent griping on these forums about floating ASIs...they made the system have more options.  Therefore, your traditional +2 CON +1 WIS Hill Dwarves?  They still freaking exist in canon.  So do all the other traditional ASI versions of every race ever published in 5e.  If you want to preserve those in your games, open an excel file, three columns (race, First ASI, second ASI) spend 5 minutes copying them down, and hand the printout to your players.

This just seems like the weirdest battle to be fighting...you don't have to change literally anything about how you play, but the thought of someone else being able to play differently is so offensive to you that multiple threads and posts have been made exclaiming the same opinions.

Seems like the other changes are primarily geared towards making some of the more rarely played races more playable.  I'm sure some I'll be happy with, others I won't, but the floating ASI thing just seems like a trivial thing, especially when it still allows the old way in canon, just not explicitly.

 I haven't seen anyone say that they want floating ASI's to be removed entirely. I'm most of use that object to the current way WotC is going would be gladly on the side of folks who love the floating ASI's if they still gave suggestions for Standard ASI's.

Did I say that?  No, I talked about griping about floating ASIs...which you are, because they are now in place of "traditional" ASIs.  The whole crux of my post was that you can still play with "traditional" ASIs with very little effort, so why are you so angry about it?  Also, when Tasha's came out there were some folks in these forums (I'm thinking of one in particular with this next statement) who were so angry over it they refused to even type out the books name.

Or if they added standard but actually went through with their claim that tasha's was optional and add language like "If you have Tasha's Cauldron of Everything you can choose to use the options for customized ability score increases there instead of the ones granted here." Because what we want is still there in both situations and the others have official support for their floating ASI's. So everyone has their fill. This isn't "the thought of someone else being able to play differently is so offensive to you" as you so condescendingly suggest.

 Just because something was optional in the past does not means it always has to be optional in the future. What you want is still there, its just not explicitly there.  So in reality, you are upset because there's a missing couple of sentences in one section of a book that are present in another form in another.  Its a waste of print space to support both just so you get to see your preferred numbers in print

And yeah, I was being condescending, and the reason I am is that its exactly this sort of ridiculous griping and grousing that drove me from the forums a few months ago in the first place.  I'm just amazed that this issue is still blowing up the forums now.  

 Your post makes it out to be that those of us who object to the direction of the latest races that we don't want floating scores at all and that no one should have that option at all. Which is an untrue assertion. 

"optional in the past" It was touted as optional from the get go and then immediately in the next book that was thrown out. This wasn't some gradual change, this was false advertising.

If Kenku can just talk like a normal race I'm in, but with this update which does change a lot I'm really wondering how many folks will lose their minds in 24 with the new version of the PHB. I'm thinking they gonna change magic Initiate to use whatever casting stat like in Strixhaven.

Quote from DataDwarf >>

Floating or fixed ASI is not a hill I am willing to die on. What has me more intrigued are the other changes to many of the races.

All of the changes to the races seem to make them a specific lineage that could have just been built with the custom lineage rule from Tasha's. If the only real difference between picking one race over another is the skinsuit, why bother to have them at all? Just print the custom lineage rules as the way to build a character and drop all of the races.

 I am not sure how you could build any of the races by using Custom Lineage.  All of them have more than Darkvision OR Skill and there aren't any Feats that replicate the various racial traits. As far as I know, the only race that you can duplicate with Custom Lineage is Variant Human.

Try making an Earth Genasi with this:

• Feat. You gain one feat of your choice for which you qualify.
• Variable Trait. You gain one of the following options of your choice: (a) darkvision with a range of 60 feet or (b) proficiency in one skill of your choice.

Quote from Jacqsynn >>

If Kenku can just talk like a normal race I'm in, but with this update which does change a lot I'm really wondering how many folks will lose their minds in 24 with the new version of the PHB. I'm thinking they gonna change magic Initiate to use whatever casting stat like in Strixhaven.

 I am sure that they will update Magic Initiate to match as well.  I wish they would just do an Errata for it and be done with it.

I . . . I don't get the whining. I just don't. I didn't when people whined about the options in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, when they whined about the recent errata, when they whined about the Spelljammer Races UA, and I really don't now, when people are whining about these updated races. I can understand criticism, and frequently give constructive criticism over changes/updates/added-options that Wizards of the Coast makes to the game, but the whining is so annoying and unconstructive. I'm no stranger to changing how D&D works at my table. My homebrew rules are extensive and change depending on who is at my table (some players will prefer my homebrewed way of determining ability score improvements, some will prefer how the PHB does it, and some will prefer the post-Tasha's version). If I don't like anything Wizards of the Coast does (lore, mechanical tweaks or rulings, the presence of certain races in my campaigns, etc), I just change it. I change it, explain the change to my players, and then I'm done with it. No need to whine to/about Wizards of the Coast, no need to attack them or call them names, and no need to claim that D&D is "leaving me behind/abandoning me" because something in their books doesn't directly support the minutia of how I run my games. 

Sure, it's nice when they support what I do in my games, but it's not a deal breaker when they don't. It's a privilege, not a right, to have Wizards of the Coast directly cater towards your specific playstyle and design the books around what you think "true D&D" is/should be. 

There's a lot of constructive criticism to be had about this change (and most things Wizards of the Coast does). I don't like a few of these change and will adjust my games accordingly. I will allow my players that choose the updated Genasi race to pick the damaging cantrips or the elemental-control cantrips. I'll allow my players to choose whether or not they want to use the Old Aasimar vs the New Aasimar. I'll have Duergar count as Dwarves and Shadar-Kai, Sea Elves, and Eladrin count as Elves (I'll also make Eladrin fey, because they should be fey). If one of my players really wants to have Sunlight Sensitivity when playing a Duergar or Kobold (or Drow if this change continues in the reprinted PHB in 2024), I'll let them. If they really don't want it, I will allow them to use the updated races. If they want to play an Aarakocra with a 50-foot fly speed and 25-foot walking speed, I'll let them. It's no big deal to me, and I can adjust my DM style and games to allow for this to not wreck the campaign. 

I like a lot of these changes, and I don't like some of them, and I'm entirely neutral on others. I don't care about Sunlight Sensitivity or Small races having a slower walking speed than Medium races. I don't care if subraces are now printed as entirely different stand-alone races. I really don't care if the new races no longer have random height and weight generators, as there's already quite a few in the PHB and Volo's Guide to Monsters. I especially don't care about the removal of listed age ranges of the newer races. There's no mechanics for the ages of D&D races, so there's no reason to freak out/overreact about this. 

And I also can see how people wouldn't like some these things. If you don't like them, don't use the new changes. Don't freak out about it, but do give your feedback when WotC has surveys for this kind of stuff. Who knows, maybe they'll eventually add it back in, like they did for Alignment in the monster stat blocks in The Wild Beyond the Witchlight. Don't whine about it, don't go on a tirade about how the end of D&D is nigh, and don't attack people that do like these changes (or the ones that made them), but keep playing your game how you want to and ignore the stuff that Wizards of the Coast puts out, because it won't affect your game unless you let it. Treat it like how you would if a 3rd party homebrewer published that thing. Ignore it, because it won't change your games unless you let it. 

And if you're in a situation where you don't like these changes and they aren't entirely optional for you (you only play in Adventurers' League or you only have digital copies of your books and the website ends up treating these changes like an errata). . . that sucks for you, but you signed up for it. I'm sorry, but you should have know that this was a possibility. It was a risk you chose to take, and as much as I empathize with your situation, there's no amount of whining that will get it to change. You might want to re-evaluate how you play right now, if you can and are really determined to not use these changes. And I wish you all in that unfortunate situation luck in your endeavor to purify how you play D&D to better suit your table. 

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.

Quote from IamSposta >>

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.

Quote from Samedi_of_Orleans >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

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.

Quote from Jacqsynn >>

If Kenku can just talk like a normal race I'm in, but with this update which does change a lot I'm really wondering how many folks will lose their minds in 24 with the new version of the PHB. I'm thinking they gonna change magic Initiate to use whatever casting stat like in Strixhaven.

 I'm hoping that Paladin and Ranger spells get opened up for magic initiate in 2024.

All those juicy smite and strike spells which are currently barred for the arcane classes. They're a perfect spellstrike drop in.

Fire genasi eldritch knight + searing smite = awesome.

Quote from DataDwarf >>

[...]All of the changes to the races seem to make them a specific lineage that could have just been built with the custom lineage rule from Tasha's. If the only real difference between picking one race over another is the skinsuit, why bother to have them at all? Just print the custom lineage rules as the way to build a character and drop all of the races.

 While this is hyperbole, looking at the changes that have come during 5e's lifetime, I think this is where they'll be heading. Maybe in 2024, or maybe after. Rather than having fixed races with stats and abilities, you'll have a point buy system. You get 10 point, darkvision is worth 3 points, a cantrip is worth 2, elemental resistance is 5, etc. Go build your own. Or a list or array of things and you can pick a certain number of things, if they're lazy.

It will possibly be started off as an optional side thing like floating ASIs in Tasha's was, and then will be made integral to the game like floating ASIs are now.

Quote from Linklite >>

Quote from DataDwarf >>

[...]All of the changes to the races seem to make them a specific lineage that could have just been built with the custom lineage rule from Tasha's. If the only real difference between picking one race over another is the skinsuit, why bother to have them at all? Just print the custom lineage rules as the way to build a character and drop all of the races.

 While this is hyperbole, looking at the changes that have come during 5e's lifetime, I think this is where they'll be heading. Maybe in 2024, or maybe after. Rather than having fixed races with stats and abilities, you'll have a point buy system. You get 10 point, darkvision is worth 3 points, a cantrip is worth 2, elemental resistance is 5, etc. Go build your own. Or a list or array of things and you can pick a certain number of things, if they're lazy.

It will possibly be started off as an optional side thing like floating ASIs in Tasha's was, and then will be made integral to the game like floating ASIs are now.

Yeah I legitimately think that this is where things are heading long term. And I hate it. Player species ceasing to exist, just to be replaced by a goodie grab bag (which will inevitably allow for less diversity than the actual player species ever did).

I don't think it's coming in 2024. It will happen later than that as they've committed to rewriting all the player species for 2024 with MotM and PHB2.

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from Samedi_of_Orleans >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

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.

Quote from Comrade_Jenkens >>

Quote from Linklite >>

Quote from DataDwarf >>

[...]All of the changes to the races seem to make them a specific lineage that could have just been built with the custom lineage rule from Tasha's. If the only real difference between picking one race over another is the skinsuit, why bother to have them at all? Just print the custom lineage rules as the way to build a character and drop all of the races.

 While this is hyperbole, looking at the changes that have come during 5e's lifetime, I think this is where they'll be heading. Maybe in 2024, or maybe after. Rather than having fixed races with stats and abilities, you'll have a point buy system. You get 10 point, darkvision is worth 3 points, a cantrip is worth 2, elemental resistance is 5, etc. Go build your own. Or a list or array of things and you can pick a certain number of things, if they're lazy.

It will possibly be started off as an optional side thing like floating ASIs in Tasha's was, and then will be made integral to the game like floating ASIs are now.

 

Yeah I legitimately think that this is where things are heading long term. And I hate it. Player species ceasing to exist, just to be replaced by a goodie grab bag (which will inevitably allow for less diversity than the actual player species ever did).

I don't think it's coming in 2024. It will happen later than that as they've committed to rewriting all the player species for 2024 with MotM and PHB2.

 It will allow for greater diversity, but will result in less. In theory, you could make a lot more different builds, but the posts I've seen so far quite strongly support the conclusion that people will optimise and we'll see only a few common builds that are centred around what's the best combination, with the occasional person who will break that mould.

As for 2024, I'm assuming that you're referring to how it's only two years away and they'd have to go back on what they've just released? If so, then I wouldn't count on it. They literally just released Fairy and Harengon in September, and they're revising them now (although we weren't shown what changes there are). I don't know if it's intentional or just the chaotic nature of their management, but they aren't  too adverse to changing things pretty much straight after release. That's one thing that does annoy me - I bought TWBtW, but within six months they've changed the stats and want me to pay over a hundred pounds to get the current version. Not even six months.

Anyway, they're talking about massive changes to way the game works while allowing current content to be usable. I think this fits that bill perfectly.

For me the Floating ASI is fine, I always (and when I say always I been playing DnD for 30 years, second generation player, my dad was my first DM) found it weird that every Dwarf, Elf or whatever had the same racial bonuses. I am sorry but that doesn't happen in real life with humans, your physical and mental abilities are part genetics part upbringing and cultural. If you live somewhere where you walking day after day miles, you CON going to be higher than someone living in a city, getting a car everywhere. Either before Tasha came along I had removed them, gone down the root of Ancenstrial and Cultural Bonuses, which combined to give you abilities. a Dwarf growing up in a Mountain Mine is 100% not going to be the same as one that grown up in a Human city with parents who are highly skill artisan.

With Floating ASI I will probably move over to to them and ask the players to give me a reason they chose x.

The rest Once I get the book in my hand or screen I will take what I want and ignore the rest as I have done for 4 editions..

Quote from Enazel >>

For me the Floating ASI is fine, I always (and when I say always I been playing DnD for 30 years, second generation player, my dad was my first DM) found it weird that every Dwarf, Elf or whatever had the same racial bonuses. I am sorry but that doesn't happen in real life with humans, your physical and mental abilities are part genetics part upbringing and cultural. If you live somewhere where you walking day after day miles, you CON going to be higher than someone living in a city, getting a car everywhere. Either before Tasha came along I had removed them, gone down the root of Ancenstrial and Cultural Bonuses, which combined to give you abilities. a Dwarf growing up in a Mountain Mine is 100% not going to be the same as one that grown up in a Human city with parents who are highly skill artisan.

With Floating ASI I will probably move over to to them and ask the players to give me a reason they chose x.

The rest Once I get the book in my hand or screen I will take what I want and ignore the rest as I have done for 4 editions..

I mean it does work that way with real species. Yes, some humans will be stronger or more dexterous than each other. But a dwarf is a different species to a human, and so why is it surprising that every member of one species has traits in common in comparison to a different species. Why would it be surprising that every human is weaker than every dwarf? Humans are a weird outlier among primates in that we're exceptionally weak for our size.

Like it's safe to say that every mountain lion is stronger than every cheetah, despite them being extremely closely related and the same subfamily. 

And you can replicate the fact that one goliath would have been sedentary while a halfling worked out constantly. That halfling starts at strength 15 due to putting their points in it. That goliath starts at strength 10 due to neglecting it.

(Just clarifying that I think that the Tasha's floating scores should be the default rule. I just find it silly that people think it's unrealistic that some species will be inherently stronger or faster than other species).

Quote from Comrade_Jenkens >>

Quote from Enazel >>

For me the Floating ASI is fine, I always (and when I say always I been playing DnD for 30 years, second generation player, my dad was my first DM) found it weird that every Dwarf, Elf or whatever had the same racial bonuses. I am sorry but that doesn't happen in real life with humans, your physical and mental abilities are part genetics part upbringing and cultural. If you live somewhere where you walking day after day miles, you CON going to be higher than someone living in a city, getting a car everywhere. Either before Tasha came along I had removed them, gone down the root of Ancenstrial and Cultural Bonuses, which combined to give you abilities. a Dwarf growing up in a Mountain Mine is 100% not going to be the same as one that grown up in a Human city with parents who are highly skill artisan.

With Floating ASI I will probably move over to to them and ask the players to give me a reason they chose x.

The rest Once I get the book in my hand or screen I will take what I want and ignore the rest as I have done for 4 editions..

I mean it does work that way with real species. Yes, some humans will be stronger or more dexterous than each other. But a dwarf is a different species to a human, and so why is it surprising that every member of one species has traits in common in comparison to a different species. Why would it be surprising that every human is weaker than every dwarf? Humans are a weird outlier among primates in that we're exceptionally weak for our size.

Like it's safe to say that every mountain lion is stronger than every cheetah, despite them being extremely closely related and the same subfamily. 

And you can replicate the fact that one goliath would have been sedentary while a halfling worked out constantly. That halfling starts at strength 15 due to putting their points in it. That goliath starts at strength 10 due to neglecting it.

(Just clarifying that I think that the Tasha's floating scores should be the default rule. I just find it silly that people think it's unrealistic that some species will be inherently stronger or faster than other species).

 
I'd argue that even among species you'd think would always be stronger, there will be weaker ones born though.
Now, in OUR world, a mountain lion that is born physically weaker than a cheetah, or a cheetah born with some muscle condition that makes it stronger, will probably actually die early on because of whatever birth defect caused those conditions.

But, in a fantasy game like D&D, you can absolutely argue that any playable race is possibly civilized enough to not just kill off the 'defects'.

Even if you're going with the classic "bunch of brutes" style of Orc, the Orcs realize that having some small weak Orc can be useful.
Maybe they survive because they're not as big so they can get in smaller spaces easier (has DEX plus instead of STR or CON), maybe they are smart and come up with good plans (WIS or INT) or just are really good at being likable (CHA).
Whatever it is, this Orc isn't as strong, but has focused on some other trait to survive.
The Daredevil-ish blind but with hearing senses to the rest of the Orcs sighted world.

This thread, nor this forum, is the place to discuss bioessentialist notions, evolutionary biology, racial essentialism or any other such topics.

Additionally, there has been a prior warning to stay on topic for this thread and remain civil. Any further failure to follow this requirement will result in the thread being locked

Lemme see if I can come at this from another direction.

Coleville's method, as laid out by Sposta, is a good one.  That's how someone can tell "What D&D Is" for them.  Ship of Theseus nonsense aside, taking everything out and putting back the things it actively hurts to lose is a good place to start.

But.  And there's a big 'but'.

A person's game experience is subjective.  That isn't a bad thing.  Internet dipshits like to say that 'subjective' anything doesn't hold weight, but they're Internet dipshits who have no idea what they're talking about.  Someone's subjective game experience is why they're playing the game in the first place, and if their game experience is bad?  There's no reason for them to play.  And for a lot of people, fixed species-based ability score modifiers does not feel good.  It's a negative to their game experience.  It makes their experience worse.  For some players, it actively pains them due to bad IRL experiences with bioessentialism, racism, and all those things we've been fighting over since Tasha's Cauldron was first released.

For others, it's much simpler.  Waste feels bad.

Having species modifiers that don't line up with, clash with, or outright sabotage your class is wasteful.  It is wasting an advantage you could have otherwise had, and for a lot of people that simply does not feel good.  It makes them feel bad about their character, makes them feel like they made the wrong decision, and it can absolutely sour someone on an idea they'd otherwise like.  Some other  people find this outrageous.  Many words have been typed in oft-violent backlash to this notion of wastefulness - "a 15 is perfectly fine!", "misaligned class/species makes for a better story!", "it's not WASTEFUL to be strong somewhere other than your main thing!", so on and so forth.  People for whom it does not feel wasteful to voluntary blow up an edge you could have otherwise had, but who do feel that fixed species ability modifiers are a net positive on their game experience, will go nine rounds on the mat trying to convince, cajole, or castigate people into believing that it's not "wasteful" to have points go somewhere.  They will try and beat other folks with a club made of logic into believing that their bad feeling about waste is itself bad.

Needless to say, that does not work.

You can't change a gut reaction with logic.  You can't browbeat a stranger on the Internet into believing it's okay to waste points by telling him he's an idiot for believing it's wasteful to waste points.  Some folks are going to feel bad about wasting those points no matter how strenuously armchair DMs try to convince them it's not a waste, because those folks aren't wired the same way that armchair DM is wired and they simply can't get over how bad, wrong, and unfun it feels to waste resources like that.  You can call those people optimancers, munchkins, powergamers, whatever dirty nasty epithet you like best, and it won't change their subjective personal view that waste feels bad.  It will just ensure they don't bother playing at your table.

For these folks?  TC-style floatable modifiers is a balm that allows them to stop playing the same one or two "acceptable" combinations of any given class/species.  It stops the waste, and lets them explore more of the game.  Especially as previously?  It was not stated anywhere - anywhere - and let me repeat this once again for emphasis, A.N.Y.W.H.E.R.E. - that a player was allowed to even so much as broach the subject of altering species ability modifiers with their DM.  Not one single place in any pre-Tasha's book said "these abilities represent a typical adventurer of this species.  If your adventurer is not typical of their kind, talk to your DM and work out abilities that better fit your story."  Yes, the books made mention that any given rule is up to DM interpretation and homebrew and species is part of that, but while there are tools, primers, pointers, or at least some small form of acknowledgement on this subject for things like homebrew monsters, homebrew magic items, spells, and the like?  It was never even hinted at as being remotely okay to mess with species.  I know there were folks out there who, when they learned that Critical Role Campaign 2's Jester was a tiefling with cold resistance instead of fire and whose racial Hellish Rebuke spell dealt cold damage, were absolutely flummoxed.  "You can do that?!" was a noticeable refrain.

Two lines in the PHB would've solved all of this, or at least prevented a lot of the stress.  But Wizards never bothered with those two lines, and so for 'bout six and a half, seven years, people had to conform to the "right" combination of class and species or feel bad about being wasteful.  Now they don't have to feel bad, and they're going to resist efforts by Internet armchair DMs to force them to feel bad again.

Quote from Samedi_of_Orleans >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from Samedi_of_Orleans >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

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. 

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Lemme see if I can come at this from another direction.

Coleville's method, as laid out by Sposta, is a good one.  That's how someone can tell "What D&D Is" for them.  Ship of Theseus nonsense aside, taking everything out and putting back the things it actively hurts to lose is a good place to start.

But.  And there's a big 'but'.

A person's game experience is subjective.  That isn't a bad thing.  Internet dipshits like to say that 'subjective' anything doesn't hold weight, but they're Internet dipshits who have no idea what they're talking about.  Someone's subjective game experience is why they're playing the game in the first place, and if their game experience is bad?  There's no reason for them to play.  And for a lot of people, fixed species-based ability score modifiers does not feel good.  It's a negative to their game experience.  It makes their experience worse.  For some players, it actively pains them due to bad IRL experiences with bioessentialism, racism, and all those things we've been fighting over since Tasha's Cauldron was first released.

For others, it's much simpler.  Waste feels bad.

Having species modifiers that don't line up with, clash with, or outright sabotage your class is wasteful.  It is wasting an advantage you could have otherwise had, and for a lot of people that simply does not feel good.  It makes them feel bad about their character, makes them feel like they made the wrong decision, and it can absolutely sour someone on an idea they'd otherwise like.  Some other  people find this outrageous.  Many words have been typed in oft-violent backlash to this notion of wastefulness - "a 15 is perfectly fine!", "misaligned class/species makes for a better story!", "it's not WASTEFUL to be strong somewhere other than your main thing!", so on and so forth.  People for whom it does not feel wasteful to voluntary blow up an edge you could have otherwise had, but who do feel that fixed species ability modifiers are a net positive on their game experience, will go nine rounds on the mat trying to convince, cajole, or castigate people into believing that it's not "wasteful" to have points go somewhere.  They will try and beat other folks with a club made of logic into believing that their bad feeling about waste is itself bad.

Needless to say, that does not work.

You can't change a gut reaction with logic.  You can't browbeat a stranger on the Internet into believing it's okay to waste points by telling him he's an idiot for believing it's wasteful to waste points.  Some folks are going to feel bad about wasting those points no matter how strenuously armchair DMs try to convince them it's not a waste, because those folks aren't wired the same way that armchair DM is wired and they simply can't get over how bad, wrong, and unfun it feels to waste resources like that.  You can call those people optimancers, munchkins, powergamers, whatever dirty nasty epithet you like best, and it won't change their subjective personal view that waste feels bad.  It will just ensure they don't bother playing at your table.

For these folks?  TC-style floatable modifiers is a balm that allows them to stop playing the same one or two "acceptable" combinations of any given class/species.  It stops the waste, and lets them explore more of the game.  Especially as previously?  It was not stated anywhere - anywhere - and let me repeat this once again for emphasis, A.N.Y.W.H.E.R.E. - that a player was allowed to even so much as broach the subject of altering species ability modifiers with their DM.  Not one single place in any pre-Tasha's book said "these abilities represent a typical adventurer of this species.  If your adventurer is not typical of their kind, talk to your DM and work out abilities that better fit your story."  Yes, the books made mention that any given rule is up to DM interpretation and homebrew and species is part of that, but while there are tools, primers, pointers, or at least some small form of acknowledgement on this subject for things like homebrew monsters, homebrew magic items, spells, and the like?  It was never even hinted at as being remotely okay to mess with species.  I know there were folks out there who, when they learned that Critical Role Campaign 2's Jester was a tiefling with cold resistance instead of fire and whose racial Hellish Rebuke spell dealt cold damage, were absolutely flummoxed.  "You can do that?!" was a noticeable refrain.

Two lines in the PHB would've solved all of this, or at least prevented a lot of the stress.  But Wizards never bothered with those two lines, and so for 'bout six and a half, seven years, people had to conform to the "right" combination of class and species or feel bad about being wasteful.  Now they don't have to feel bad, and they're going to resist efforts by Internet armchair DMs to force them to feel bad again.

 That boils down to is:

1. WotC didn't do what it could have to give some people what they wanted from the game, do now, rather than let everyone have their cookie by putting the instructions in that they're simply suggestions or defaults that can and should be changed if desired, they're taking someone else's cookie away and that's OK and people should just accept it because...someone else didn't have their cookie? Sounds more like a justification for people pushing back than anything to me.

2. People are going to feel how they feel, and telling them that how they're feeling is wrong isn't going to go anywhere. Well, that (the discussion isn't going to go anywhere and it's just fostering ill will) was said several pages ago. Good luck.