Quote from Fjw70 >>

 I would say that we need to remove it for (almost) everyone and maybe bring back low light vision. 

 
I would love it if half the races who currently have darkvision lost it and got low-light vision instead. They could even give that to a few more races I think too.

Quote from IamSposta >>

I would love it if half the races who currently have darkvision lost it and got low-light vision instead. They could even give that to a few more races I think too.

 Looking at the phb races in 5e with darkvision compared to prior editions:

• In 3e and 3.5e, the only basic races with darkvision were dwarves and half-orcs, everyone else had low light vision.
• In 4e, almost nothing had darkvision (this was apparently an aesthetic decision; they wanted their dwarves and orcs to be carrying around lanterns and torches); in low tier the only opponents you were likely to run across with darkvision were kobolds and undead.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

I would love it if half the races who currently have darkvision lost it and got low-light vision instead. They could even give that to a few more races I think too.

 Looking at the phb races in 5e with darkvision compared to prior editions:

• In 3e and 3.5e, the only basic races with darkvision were dwarves and half-orcs, everyone else had low light vision.
• In 4e, almost nothing had darkvision (this was apparently an aesthetic decision; they wanted their dwarves and orcs to be carrying around lanterns and torches); in low tier the only opponents you were likely to run across with darkvision were kobolds and undead.

 I prefer the 4e approach. 

They gave the gnome too much and took too much away from the old loved halfling.

As for dark vision and low light vision. They should have just the orcs and dwarves with low light and the Drow with darkvision. No one else gets either because all other races spent most if not all of their time above ground.

Maybe you could give Elves eagle like distance vision. Maybe.

Quote from Linklite >>

One of the difficulties of the new format is that it would be difficult to retroactively add lineages to races that didn't have them. In MotM style races, you just created a new statblock, because they were all treated as new races. If they released the Halflings as they are in the playtest, then they'd have to create a parallel Halfling with the stats laid out in the form of having lineages and just have two versions.

I suppose that was one strength of the MotM method. If a race they'd had no intention of expanding takes off and later they decide they want to add more subraces, it fitted quite naturally into the setup.

 This certainly is difficult if your primary format is print, but if the primary format were digital it would only take errata that would automatically update the base race.

Considering the level of commitment they have professed with the VTT and the overall theme of 1D&D iteration, I wonder if this could be indicative to a shift in format that sidesteps these kinds of issues.

I like and respect the MoM approach, but people have a visceral reaction to content bloat and all it took was one book for the race selection page to feel kind of ridiculously long. I don't think people want 200 races - even those who want 200 choices.

Quote from scatterbraind >>

Quote from Linklite >>

One of the difficulties of the new format is that it would be difficult to retroactively add lineages to races that didn't have them. In MotM style races, you just created a new statblock, because they were all treated as new races. If they released the Halflings as they are in the playtest, then they'd have to create a parallel Halfling with the stats laid out in the form of having lineages and just have two versions.

I suppose that was one strength of the MotM method. If a race they'd had no intention of expanding takes off and later they decide they want to add more subraces, it fitted quite naturally into the setup.

 This certainly is difficult if your primary format is print, but if the primary format were digital it would only take errata that would automatically update the base race.

Considering the level of commitment they have professed with the VTT and the overall theme of 1D&D iteration, I wonder if this could be indicative to a shift in format that sidesteps these kinds of issues.

I like and respect the MoM approach, but people have a visceral reaction to content bloat and all it took was one book for the race selection page to feel kind of ridiculously long. I don't think people want 200 races - even those who want 200 choices.

 
That’s why I preferred the old subrace/variant system. It allowed for 200 choices with a fraction of the races.

Quote from Damian_Magecraft >>

Quote from ChoirOfFire >>

Imagine this: subrace 1 is halflings... Subrace 2 is gnomes. ;P

 This is pretty much how I run it in my setting. In 40 years of DMing I never once had anyone play a halfling (until 5e) but loads of gnomes to the point that they (gnomes) ended up taking over their (halflings) niche. At this point in my games halflings are just another offshoot of gnomes.

 

 I feel like gnomes are generally more flavorful than halflings as well

Gnomes are more interesting than Halflings, that’s part of why I feel Halflings need a little sumptin sumptin.