There is no replacement for WotC establishing a official baseline
Harengons are bipedal, with the characteristic long feet of the rabbits they resemble and fur in a variety of colors. They share the keen senses and powerful legs of leporine creatures and are full of energy, like a wound-up spring. Harengons are blessed with a little fey luck, and they often find themselves a few fortunate feet away from dangers during adventures.
That tells you everything you need to come up with set ASIs, if you want them in your campaign
That's not how "WotC establishing a official baseline" works by definition, as it would be my homebrew & not from WotC.
It's WotC's official description of the harengon, and they told you in clear, plain, concise language what they're generally good at
Honestly, what difference does it make if you came up with the numbers or they did? How does that in any way change the character or the campaign?
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)
There is no replacement for WotC establishing a official baseline
Harengons are bipedal, with the characteristic long feet of the rabbits they resemble and fur in a variety of colors. They share the keen senses and powerful legs of leporine creatures and are full of energy, like a wound-up spring. Harengons are blessed with a little fey luck, and they often find themselves a few fortunate feet away from dangers during adventures.
That tells you everything you need to come up with set ASIs, if you want them in your campaign
That's not how "WotC establishing a official baseline" works by definition, as it would be my homebrew & not from WotC.
It's WotC's official description of the harengon, and they told you in clear, plain, concise language what they're generally good at
Honestly, what difference does it make if you came up with the numbers or they did? How does that in any way change the character or the campaign?
Because then its not "official" anymore. It no longer has the endorsed backing of WoTC saying "yes, this is the intended way to play". Whatever prestige, and I use that word as lightly as I can, using that method once had over going with someones homebrew approach to character creation gone.
Like lets not beat around the bush. A couple numbers that change other numbers on your character sheet are not the reason why these threads turn into flame wars. Its what people interpret those numbers meaning, and what they think the changes to them mean, that gets everyone riled up.
Because then its not "official" anymore. It no longer has the endorsed backing of WoTC saying "yes, this is the intended way to play".
But it's not the intended way to play
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)
Yurei was debating her side well considering it's the clear minority in this thread. But I guess y'all didn't like her arguments because boy did she get called out and jumped on a lot (She didn't specifically call out anyone in the thread by name, but I counted 2-3 times where others called her out for... debating I guess).
I won't wade into the debate proper except to say that feats aren't what's being discussed here as they have nothing to do with the presumed bonuses of any PC race. Though for what it's worth, I'm in Yurei's camp.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Because then its not "official" anymore. It no longer has the endorsed backing of WoTC saying "yes, this is the intended way to play".
But it's not the intended way to play
Neither are feats but we have optional rules for them.
Fair I suppose, but feats are also mostly considered the default. DMs have to specify that their campaign doesn't use feats, because otherwise it's assumed they do
No one's really answered the question why you need it to be official, though, other than to say, "well, that makes it official! Otherwise it's just homebrew!"
Explain to me the circumstance in which that distinction matters, where a DM going "For this campaign, we're going to be using set racial ASIs instead of floating ASIs" is going to get a wildly different reaction from players if the list of racial ASIs is in an appendix of the DMG alongside Hero Points or something, rather than being a list they hand the group themselves
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)
The crux of the issue seems to be what some people refer to as "Bioessentialism". There is a sub-set of the community that feels strongly that Bioessesntialism in the game (All members of species X are Y) is a reflection of the real world, and vice-versa.
In the real world we (I feel like it's mainly Americans) tend to equate the word "Race" with humans of different colours, ancestry, or ethnicity (however you like to say it), which is the basis of Racism, which I believe we can agree is bad. Some players equate D&D "Races" with this IRL understanding of "Race", when others of us see it differently.
Many of us feel that what we call "Race" in D&D is the equivalent of the term "Species" in the real world. IRL humans and dogs are not the same species. They are Essentially Biologically different. Dogs have way better hearing that humans. That's just a thing about dogs. We (those who see the D&D races as different species) accept that Humans, Orcs, Demons, Illithids, Gnolls etc, can all be essentially biologically different. Orcs are predisposed to be stronger, and less intelligent.
The sub-set of players worried about Bio-essentialism are worried that players who believe a non-human species can be characterized as "All X are Y" will apply that in-game "bioessentialist belief" to real world people (ie. Racism).
I personally have been accused in thinly-veiled ways of being a real world Racist because I believe that in game D&D "races" are different species that can be essentially biologically different, and that "All X are Y" is possible.
I have tried to present this position as calmly and non-antagonistically as possible, but it seems it all comes down to this, and it is why these conversations usually devolve into partisanship.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I personally have been accused in thinly-veiled ways of being a real world Racist because I believe that in game D&D "races" are different species that can be essentially biologically different, and that "All X are Y" is possible.
While I think it's true that all members of a race may have certain abilities (like darkvision, innate magic, or similar), the idea that they all are strong, beautiful, or hardy isn't. I believe all races can have physical or mental variations at their birth that makes them stronger/weaker or charismatic/uncouth than others of their race. Therefore, I don't believe the "All X are Y" statement with regard to ability scores.
If people want to use fixed ability scores for their own games, that's fine. But I think flexible racial ability scores make sense, because even within the same race, there can be differences at birth (before any training).
Also, I would suggest even if it's brought up again, don't discuss the bioessentialism, because that could easily devolve into an argument that many people would regret.
OP did ask nicely
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)
Because then its not "official" anymore. It no longer has the endorsed backing of WoTC saying "yes, this is the intended way to play". Whatever prestige, and I use that word as lightly as I can, using that method once had over going with someones homebrew approach to character creation gone.
There is no intended way to play, there is no official way of playing a game of D&D. None of these rulebooks and a huge number of these classes and playable races even existed back when the game was created. It was literally a few sheets of paper, some shared dice and a few pencils. And everyone else hoped that one of the other players remembered to bring the eraser. People these days seem to want to be given absolutely everything on a spoon so that they don't need to think, or use their imagination, they are terrified that if they make the wrong deccision the world will end. It's a fantasy game of make believe, originally intended for Gygax to tell his grandchildren fun stories. People need to stop being so precious and just have fun with friends playing the game.
Because then its not "official" anymore. It no longer has the endorsed backing of WoTC saying "yes, this is the intended way to play". Whatever prestige, and I use that word as lightly as I can, using that method once had over going with someones homebrew approach to character creation gone.
It was literally a few sheets of paper, some shared dice and a few pencils. And everyone else hoped that one of the other players remembered to bring the eraser.
Oh man, the eraser thing... funny because it was true, I had forgotten all about that. Thanks for the laugh Beardsinger. (I was missing out on D&D for many years, finding DDB was a big part of what brought me back to it, hence the eraser thing really did take me back a looong way.)
I like the Tasha's rule because it seems to me like it prevents or lessens the likelihood of players picking a particular race solely because they want the ability score boost to match their class. That said, it does seem to me like a quick DM or group session 0 discussion and you're sorted. I mostly DM and I allow each player to use whichever they prefer. If I was at a table of players that wanted to use the pre-Tasha's method, I wouldn't have a problem with that either.
Also, I would suggest even if it's brought up again, don't discuss the bioessentialism, because that could easily devolve into an argument that many people would regret.
OP did ask nicely
Unfortuantely that's what this discussion is about. We are debating whether or not different D&D races/species should have default ability adjustments. That is, as Yurei puts it, bioessentialism, and there seem to be ay least two very distinct sides to this. Even if we don't use the word bioessentialism, itr's still what we're talking about.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I prefer having your ability score increases not depend on race. You can play how you want to play, but in many cases, it does not make sense for some races to be wiser or smarter than others. Also, people should be able to play their favorite fantasy race without suffering because the ability score increase does not go well with their class.
And yes, Volo's and Mordenkainen's should NOT have been discontinued. It's unfair to the people who spent their money on the official product to make it discontinued and no longer canon, and it's unfair to newbies to remove a whole set of lore from them.
So, i'm not a fan of Tasha's Not-Optional rule, because I like ASI's that are assigned as part of their race selection. I think, like many, that it is a species trait that defines a fantasy viewpoint, or "trope" for those that like to think that is a negative word. That being said, because D&D is a communal event, at my table everyone wanted floating ASI's, and so Tasha's non-optional rule became the rule. For me, as the DM, my requirement was that their backstory identified those traits. Elf with +2 Strength, +1 constitution? No problem, give me the backstory for it. Dragonborn with +2 Int and +1 Cha? Sounds great, give me a backstory to go with it.
I think rather than Tasha's rule, we should all be upset with the substandard quality of lore development by WoTC during 5e.
Hate the the new Monster Compendium...Mr. Gygax and J.R.R Tolkien just rolled over.
This is not the topic to hate the new Monster Compendium. Also, what do those people have to do with each other? Tolkien made a bunch of the things that Gygax used for the first edition of D&D(And honestly, Tolkien probably took a bunch of inspiration from myths and folklore, so you can't even say he invented a lot of the stuff in his books). First edition D&D is not the D&D of today. Again, what does what you said have to do with what is being discussed?
Sorry if I'm being aggressive, I just don't know why you came in here just spouting hate and not contributing to the discussion.
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
Hate the the new Monster Compendium...Mr. Gygax and J.R.R Tolkien just rolled over.
This is not the topic to hate the new Monster Compendium. Also, what do those people have to do with each other? Tolkien made a bunch of the things that Gygax used for the first edition of D&D(And honestly, Tolkien probably took a bunch of inspiration from myths and folklore, so you can't even say he invented a lot of the stuff in his books). First edition D&D is not the D&D of today. Again, what does what you said have to do with what is being discussed?
Sorry if I'm being aggressive, I just don't know why you came in here just spouting hate and not contributing to the discussion.
No, offense taken on my part. No, Mr. Tolkien did not invent folklore and mythology, but goblins and orcs were the foundations of the evil in his world. Yes, Mr. Gygax used this for his inspiration for the invention of the game we play today. You original post stated you were not happy with the removal of Volo's and MToF. Not the new Monster Compendium, but it is where the game is headed. No more Drizzt....not more Kaz....more more good versus evil. It is a shame. I will remove the post if you wish.
Hate the the new Monster Compendium...Mr. Gygax and J.R.R Tolkien just rolled over.
This is not the topic to hate the new Monster Compendium. Also, what do those people have to do with each other? Tolkien made a bunch of the things that Gygax used for the first edition of D&D(And honestly, Tolkien probably took a bunch of inspiration from myths and folklore, so you can't even say he invented a lot of the stuff in his books). First edition D&D is not the D&D of today. Again, what does what you said have to do with what is being discussed?
Sorry if I'm being aggressive, I just don't know why you came in here just spouting hate and not contributing to the discussion.
No, offense taken on my part. No, Mr. Tolkien did not invent folklore and mythology, but goblins and orcs were the foundations of the evil in his world. Yes, Mr. Gygax used this for his inspiration for the invention of the game we play today. You original post stated you were not happy with the removal of Volo's and MToF. Not the new Monster Compendium, but it is where the game is headed. No more Drizzt....not more Kaz....more more good versus evil. It is a shame. I will remove the post if you wish.
Thank you for being understanding. I just don't like it when people simply say, "I hate this." Without contributing to the discussion.
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
I personally have been accused in thinly-veiled ways of being a real world Racist because I believe that in game D&D "races" are different species that can be essentially biologically different, and that "All X are Y" is possible.
While I think it's true that all members of a race may have certain abilities (like darkvision, innate magic, or similar), the idea that they all are strong, beautiful, or hardy isn't.
It’s not an idea, it’s a real world fact. A properly nourished tiger will always have a massive bite compared to a human and will generate muscle while being sedentary for a significant portion of the day. IMO: you’re still thinking of the colloquial race and not the species. Birth defects do happen in nature but players can account for that themselves. Fixed ASIs just adhere to what is obvious to any reader of the species descriptions.
I personally have been accused in thinly-veiled ways of being a real world Racist because I believe that in game D&D "races" are different species that can be essentially biologically different, and that "All X are Y" is possible.
While I think it's true that all members of a race may have certain abilities (like darkvision, innate magic, or similar), the idea that they all are strong, beautiful, or hardy isn't. I believe all races can have physical or mental variations at their birth that makes them stronger/weaker or charismatic/uncouth than others of their race. Therefore, I don't believe the "All X are Y" statement with regard to ability scores.
If people want to use fixed ability scores for their own games, that's fine. But I think flexible racial ability scores make sense, because even within the same race, there can be differences at birth (before any training).
You're making a bit of a false distinction here. Eyesight (a therefore "darkvision") is just as variable as things like strength. Sure, most grizzly bears have worse vision than humans (iirc, at least, the principle still stands if I'm wrong though), most grizzlies can take my head off with a single swipe. Both have normal ranges where some are better or worse than others, they also have relative strengths and weaknesses to other species. Your rolls/point buys/arrays are what are meant to account for the former while racial ASIs are for the latter (albeit it favouring individual idiosyncrasies over "racial" ones compared to reality, and that's absolutely fine with me).
The thing is, I want my players to explain their stats and incorporate them into their backstory. You get a 20 (roll 18 plus 2 for ASI) for strength? Why are you so freakishly strong then? Doesn't matter if they didn't come up with anything novel or interesting, but it encourages them to engage and explore their character, give new plot points, and so forth. If their racial ASAP was +2 to strength, then that's 2 points they don't have to think about ("I'm a Bugbear so I'm strongly anyway"). Now that there aren't even suggested ones, it just complicates things. I'm fine with Tasha's and allowed the floating ASIs, but if there was just and easier way of explaining your character's stats when there was a suggestion. Now there's not, we don't have that explanation to make those shortcuts.
I wouldn't have minded the making it even more explicitly optional to use their ASIs. I'd have welcomed them actually making an effort to teach what rule 0actually means, rather than hiding it away somewhere and hoping players get it rather than taking the shortcut and just taking tools away.
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.
You're making a bit of a false distinction here. Eyesight (a therefore "darkvision") is just as variable as things like strength.
No, you're conflating two different things. One cat might have better eyesight than another in terms of the kinds of things that would go into a Perception check, but they both still have the equivalent of darkvision
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)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's WotC's official description of the harengon, and they told you in clear, plain, concise language what they're generally good at
Honestly, what difference does it make if you came up with the numbers or they did? How does that in any way change the character or the campaign?
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)
Because then its not "official" anymore. It no longer has the endorsed backing of WoTC saying "yes, this is the intended way to play". Whatever prestige, and I use that word as lightly as I can, using that method once had over going with someones homebrew approach to character creation gone.
Like lets not beat around the bush. A couple numbers that change other numbers on your character sheet are not the reason why these threads turn into flame wars. Its what people interpret those numbers meaning, and what they think the changes to them mean, that gets everyone riled up.
But it's not the intended way to play
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)
Neither are feats but we have optional rules for them.
PR style responses are considered hostile intent.
Yurei was debating her side well considering it's the clear minority in this thread. But I guess y'all didn't like her arguments because boy did she get called out and jumped on a lot (She didn't specifically call out anyone in the thread by name, but I counted 2-3 times where others called her out for... debating I guess).
I won't wade into the debate proper except to say that feats aren't what's being discussed here as they have nothing to do with the presumed bonuses of any PC race. Though for what it's worth, I'm in Yurei's camp.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Fair I suppose, but feats are also mostly considered the default. DMs have to specify that their campaign doesn't use feats, because otherwise it's assumed they do
No one's really answered the question why you need it to be official, though, other than to say, "well, that makes it official! Otherwise it's just homebrew!"
Explain to me the circumstance in which that distinction matters, where a DM going "For this campaign, we're going to be using set racial ASIs instead of floating ASIs" is going to get a wildly different reaction from players if the list of racial ASIs is in an appendix of the DMG alongside Hero Points or something, rather than being a list they hand the group themselves
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)
The crux of the issue seems to be what some people refer to as "Bioessentialism". There is a sub-set of the community that feels strongly that Bioessesntialism in the game (All members of species X are Y) is a reflection of the real world, and vice-versa.
In the real world we (I feel like it's mainly Americans) tend to equate the word "Race" with humans of different colours, ancestry, or ethnicity (however you like to say it), which is the basis of Racism, which I believe we can agree is bad. Some players equate D&D "Races" with this IRL understanding of "Race", when others of us see it differently.
Many of us feel that what we call "Race" in D&D is the equivalent of the term "Species" in the real world. IRL humans and dogs are not the same species. They are Essentially Biologically different. Dogs have way better hearing that humans. That's just a thing about dogs. We (those who see the D&D races as different species) accept that Humans, Orcs, Demons, Illithids, Gnolls etc, can all be essentially biologically different. Orcs are predisposed to be stronger, and less intelligent.
The sub-set of players worried about Bio-essentialism are worried that players who believe a non-human species can be characterized as "All X are Y" will apply that in-game "bioessentialist belief" to real world people (ie. Racism).
I personally have been accused in thinly-veiled ways of being a real world Racist because I believe that in game D&D "races" are different species that can be essentially biologically different, and that "All X are Y" is possible.
I have tried to present this position as calmly and non-antagonistically as possible, but it seems it all comes down to this, and it is why these conversations usually devolve into partisanship.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
While I think it's true that all members of a race may have certain abilities (like darkvision, innate magic, or similar), the idea that they all are strong, beautiful, or hardy isn't. I believe all races can have physical or mental variations at their birth that makes them stronger/weaker or charismatic/uncouth than others of their race. Therefore, I don't believe the "All X are Y" statement with regard to ability scores.
If people want to use fixed ability scores for their own games, that's fine. But I think flexible racial ability scores make sense, because even within the same race, there can be differences at birth (before any training).
OP did ask nicely
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)
There is no intended way to play, there is no official way of playing a game of D&D. None of these rulebooks and a huge number of these classes and playable races even existed back when the game was created. It was literally a few sheets of paper, some shared dice and a few pencils. And everyone else hoped that one of the other players remembered to bring the eraser. People these days seem to want to be given absolutely everything on a spoon so that they don't need to think, or use their imagination, they are terrified that if they make the wrong deccision the world will end. It's a fantasy game of make believe, originally intended for Gygax to tell his grandchildren fun stories. People need to stop being so precious and just have fun with friends playing the game.
Oh man, the eraser thing... funny because it was true, I had forgotten all about that. Thanks for the laugh Beardsinger. (I was missing out on D&D for many years, finding DDB was a big part of what brought me back to it, hence the eraser thing really did take me back a looong way.)
I like the Tasha's rule because it seems to me like it prevents or lessens the likelihood of players picking a particular race solely because they want the ability score boost to match their class. That said, it does seem to me like a quick DM or group session 0 discussion and you're sorted. I mostly DM and I allow each player to use whichever they prefer. If I was at a table of players that wanted to use the pre-Tasha's method, I wouldn't have a problem with that either.
Unfortuantely that's what this discussion is about. We are debating whether or not different D&D races/species should have default ability adjustments. That is, as Yurei puts it, bioessentialism, and there seem to be ay least two very distinct sides to this. Even if we don't use the word bioessentialism, itr's still what we're talking about.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I prefer having your ability score increases not depend on race. You can play how you want to play, but in many cases, it does not make sense for some races to be wiser or smarter than others. Also, people should be able to play their favorite fantasy race without suffering because the ability score increase does not go well with their class.
And yes, Volo's and Mordenkainen's should NOT have been discontinued. It's unfair to the people who spent their money on the official product to make it discontinued and no longer canon, and it's unfair to newbies to remove a whole set of lore from them.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.So, i'm not a fan of Tasha's Not-Optional rule, because I like ASI's that are assigned as part of their race selection. I think, like many, that it is a species trait that defines a fantasy viewpoint, or "trope" for those that like to think that is a negative word. That being said, because D&D is a communal event, at my table everyone wanted floating ASI's, and so Tasha's non-optional rule became the rule. For me, as the DM, my requirement was that their backstory identified those traits. Elf with +2 Strength, +1 constitution? No problem, give me the backstory for it. Dragonborn with +2 Int and +1 Cha? Sounds great, give me a backstory to go with it.
I think rather than Tasha's rule, we should all be upset with the substandard quality of lore development by WoTC during 5e.
This is not the topic to hate the new Monster Compendium. Also, what do those people have to do with each other? Tolkien made a bunch of the things that Gygax used for the first edition of D&D(And honestly, Tolkien probably took a bunch of inspiration from myths and folklore, so you can't even say he invented a lot of the stuff in his books). First edition D&D is not the D&D of today. Again, what does what you said have to do with what is being discussed?
Sorry if I'm being aggressive, I just don't know why you came in here just spouting hate and not contributing to the discussion.
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
No, offense taken on my part. No, Mr. Tolkien did not invent folklore and mythology, but goblins and orcs were the foundations of the evil in his world. Yes, Mr. Gygax used this for his inspiration for the invention of the game we play today. You original post stated you were not happy with the removal of Volo's and MToF. Not the new Monster Compendium, but it is where the game is headed. No more Drizzt....not more Kaz....more more good versus evil. It is a shame. I will remove the post if you wish.
D. Travis Friesen
Thank you for being understanding. I just don't like it when people simply say, "I hate this." Without contributing to the discussion.
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
It’s not an idea, it’s a real world fact. A properly nourished tiger will always have a massive bite compared to a human and will generate muscle while being sedentary for a significant portion of the day. IMO: you’re still thinking of the colloquial race and not the species. Birth defects do happen in nature but players can account for that themselves. Fixed ASIs just adhere to what is obvious to any reader of the species descriptions.
You're making a bit of a false distinction here. Eyesight (a therefore "darkvision") is just as variable as things like strength. Sure, most grizzly bears have worse vision than humans (iirc, at least, the principle still stands if I'm wrong though), most grizzlies can take my head off with a single swipe. Both have normal ranges where some are better or worse than others, they also have relative strengths and weaknesses to other species. Your rolls/point buys/arrays are what are meant to account for the former while racial ASIs are for the latter (albeit it favouring individual idiosyncrasies over "racial" ones compared to reality, and that's absolutely fine with me).
The thing is, I want my players to explain their stats and incorporate them into their backstory. You get a 20 (roll 18 plus 2 for ASI) for strength? Why are you so freakishly strong then? Doesn't matter if they didn't come up with anything novel or interesting, but it encourages them to engage and explore their character, give new plot points, and so forth. If their racial ASAP was +2 to strength, then that's 2 points they don't have to think about ("I'm a Bugbear so I'm strongly anyway"). Now that there aren't even suggested ones, it just complicates things. I'm fine with Tasha's and allowed the floating ASIs, but if there was just and easier way of explaining your character's stats when there was a suggestion. Now there's not, we don't have that explanation to make those shortcuts.
I wouldn't have minded the making it even more explicitly optional to use their ASIs. I'd have welcomed them actually making an effort to teach what rule 0actually means, rather than hiding it away somewhere and hoping players get it rather than taking the shortcut and just taking tools away.
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.
No, you're conflating two different things. One cat might have better eyesight than another in terms of the kinds of things that would go into a Perception check, but they both still have the equivalent of darkvision
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)