5.0 Just Works at this Point. 5.5 is too Broken.

No one took away your pencil and paper.

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Quote from CunningSmile >>

 But that sort of species determinism doesn’t even work for the official settings, never mind home brew ones. What about Eberron where barbarians are more likely to be Halflings than anything else whilst orcs are wise Druids? Lore should be tied to a setting, not to species, because as soon as you change the settings those restrictions you’re so fond of stop making sense. The 5.5 solution of tying stat boosts to background isn’t perfect, they needed a lot more backgrounds in the PHB if they were going to do that, but from a story telling and backstory point of view it makes a lot more sense that an elf who spent their life as a soldier would be stronger than an orc who spent their life as a librarian and is far more applicable to a wider range of settings 

 

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

I'm not persuaded by arguments in favor of forcing character builds to adhere to species-based stereotypes. That's not really core to D&D. What's core to D&D is playing exceptional characters. Several editions point out that even a level 1 character stands out from the average person in these fantasy worlds. It never made any sense to tell players their character have amazing capabilities beyond the average people around them, but they'll still always be penalized for being a certain species. Similarly, I'm not impressed by the "they took away roleplaying because now anybody can be anything" argument because having more options doesn't track with the assertion that it's harder to roleplay.

This all fits neatly under "it's bad because it's too different from what I'm familiar with." Which means it can be safely ignored.

 
Not really.. It's bad because it doesn't adhere to the source material.  Character creation in D&D has always been about meaningful choices, that is the core premise of the game.  5.5 removed that entiretly.  There are no meaningful choices when it comes to choosing backgrounds or Species..  These things no longer matter.

Its not about forcing builds, its about forcing benefits and drawbacks to your choices.

 What source material? As I said your genetic determinism doesn’t even apply to all the official settings, never mind the host of home brew worlds out there. 

Quote from LinkArcher >>

Quote from Wtfdndad >>

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

This all fits neatly under "it's bad because it's too different from what I'm familiar with." Which means it can be safely ignored.

 10 years from now, the norm might be to make Zombie Paladins. Some of you are already there but, I'm willing to bet most are not. If the majority truly believes in the shifts taking place or grows up with it, that's what will become the norm. The rest will adapt or get left behind. Are either wrong in there opinions? I would say, they are not.

 I agree. Although, you don’t have to get left behind. You can strike out on your own. You don’t have to follow the norm.

 You kind of missed the point. What I'm saying is: eventually things will change enough(for most of you) that you will become the "old school" curmudgeon. And when that happens, this point of view will make more sense.

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Quote from CunningSmile >>

 But that sort of species determinism doesn’t even work for the official settings, never mind home brew ones. What about Eberron where barbarians are more likely to be Halflings than anything else whilst orcs are wise Druids? Lore should be tied to a setting, not to species, because as soon as you change the settings those restrictions you’re so fond of stop making sense. The 5.5 solution of tying stat boosts to background isn’t perfect, they needed a lot more backgrounds in the PHB if they were going to do that, but from a story telling and backstory point of view it makes a lot more sense that an elf who spent their life as a soldier would be stronger than an orc who spent their life as a librarian and is far more applicable to a wider range of settings 

 

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

I'm not persuaded by arguments in favor of forcing character builds to adhere to species-based stereotypes. That's not really core to D&D. What's core to D&D is playing exceptional characters. Several editions point out that even a level 1 character stands out from the average person in these fantasy worlds. It never made any sense to tell players their character have amazing capabilities beyond the average people around them, but they'll still always be penalized for being a certain species. Similarly, I'm not impressed by the "they took away roleplaying because now anybody can be anything" argument because having more options doesn't track with the assertion that it's harder to roleplay.

This all fits neatly under "it's bad because it's too different from what I'm familiar with." Which means it can be safely ignored.

 
Not really.. It's bad because it doesn't adhere to the source material.  Character creation in D&D has always been about meaningful choices, that is the core premise of the game.  5.5 removed that entiretly.  There are no meaningful choices when it comes to choosing backgrounds or Species..  These things no longer matter.

Its not about forcing builds, its about forcing benefits and drawbacks to your choices.

 There are still benefits and drawbacks to choices in character creation. Every choice is a road not taken. Every ASI is a gamble on what saves and skill checks might come up. Every feat needs to be weighed for what abilities or effects it provides and compared against others. But some of those benefits and drawbacks are going to be more story-heavy than mechanics-heavy and that's a good thing. Being mechanically punished for species choice isn't good design just because it's old design. "Your character can't be too good at this because of their species" is bad game design when a core element of the game is "your character stands out as exceptional compared to average, everyday people in this world." It's good that the game has grown past it, not least because it's tied to similar nonsensical, outdated beliefs about people in the real world.

Quote from Wtfdndad >>

Quote from LinkArcher >>

Quote from Wtfdndad >>

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

This all fits neatly under "it's bad because it's too different from what I'm familiar with." Which means it can be safely ignored.

 10 years from now, the norm might be to make Zombie Paladins. Some of you are already there but, I'm willing to bet most are not. If the majority truly believes in the shifts taking place or grows up with it, that's what will become the norm. The rest will adapt or get left behind. Are either wrong in there opinions? I would say, they are not.

 I agree. Although, you don’t have to get left behind. You can strike out on your own. You don’t have to follow the norm.

 You kind of missed the point. What I'm saying is: eventually things will change enough(for most of you) that you will become the "old school" curmudgeon. And when that happens, this point of view will make more sense.

 For most of us is the key term here.

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

No one took away your pencil and paper.

 Exactly!

Quote from LinkArcher >>

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

No one took away your pencil and paper.

 Exactly!

 And let's see what you say when D&D no longer allows you to play the way that you like. Will you just go back to whatever edition you prefer and pencil and paper without a gripe?

Quote from Wtfdndad >>

Quote from LinkArcher >>

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

No one took away your pencil and paper.

 Exactly!

 And let's see what you say when D&D not longer allows you to play the way that you like. Will you just go back to whatever edition you prefer and pencil and paper without a gripe?

 You can still play 5e here just by turning off all the 5.5 markers on character creation. If you’re complaining you can’t play older editions on here you never could so seems like an odd complaint 

Quote from CunningSmile >>

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Quote from CunningSmile >>

 But that sort of species determinism doesn’t even work for the official settings, never mind home brew ones. What about Eberron where barbarians are more likely to be Halflings than anything else whilst orcs are wise Druids? Lore should be tied to a setting, not to species, because as soon as you change the settings those restrictions you’re so fond of stop making sense. The 5.5 solution of tying stat boosts to background isn’t perfect, they needed a lot more backgrounds in the PHB if they were going to do that, but from a story telling and backstory point of view it makes a lot more sense that an elf who spent their life as a soldier would be stronger than an orc who spent their life as a librarian and is far more applicable to a wider range of settings 

 

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

I'm not persuaded by arguments in favor of forcing character builds to adhere to species-based stereotypes. That's not really core to D&D. What's core to D&D is playing exceptional characters. Several editions point out that even a level 1 character stands out from the average person in these fantasy worlds. It never made any sense to tell players their character have amazing capabilities beyond the average people around them, but they'll still always be penalized for being a certain species. Similarly, I'm not impressed by the "they took away roleplaying because now anybody can be anything" argument because having more options doesn't track with the assertion that it's harder to roleplay.

This all fits neatly under "it's bad because it's too different from what I'm familiar with." Which means it can be safely ignored.

 
Not really.. It's bad because it doesn't adhere to the source material.  Character creation in D&D has always been about meaningful choices, that is the core premise of the game.  5.5 removed that entiretly.  There are no meaningful choices when it comes to choosing backgrounds or Species..  These things no longer matter.

Its not about forcing builds, its about forcing benefits and drawbacks to your choices.

 What source material? As I said your genetic determinism doesn’t even apply to all the official settings, never mind the host of home brew worlds out there. 

 
Ok well lets take a different approach.  How do you feel about a player who wants to create a Wizard class character but insists that they are a better warrior than a Fighter?  Would you have a problem with that?  No drawbacks of any kind, you're still as good at spell casting, but you're now also just an amazing fighter because of "story reasons".   

Don't make me choose.. I want to be awesome at both because of story reasons... don't tell me I can't because, then you're limiting my choices and thats unfair!

Somehow.. we made it ok to do that with races/species.. but somehow we still insist on balance for classes.

Its a silly thing.  Yes, there are limitations, restrictions.. some species are better at fighting, some worse... just like classes.  Why is it ok to do this to species but not to classes?

Quote from CunningSmile >>

Quote from Wtfdndad >>

Quote from LinkArcher >>

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

No one took away your pencil and paper.

 Exactly!

 And let's see what you say when D&D not longer allows you to play the way that you like. Will you just go back to whatever edition you prefer and pencil and paper without a gripe?

 You can still play 5e here just by turning off all the 5.5 markers on character creation. If you’re complaining you can’t play older editions on here you never could so seems like an odd complaint 

 Nothing like that. It just seems like there would be a lot of money to be made by producing a backwards compatible system at some point. All the way back to the 1st rule set.

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Ok well lets take a different approach.  How do you feel about a player who wants to create a Wizard class character but insists that they are a better warrior than a Fighter?  Would you have a problem with that?  No drawbacks of any kind, you're still as good at spell casting, but you're now also just an amazing fighter because of "story reasons".   

Don't make me choose.. I want to be awesome at both because of story reasons... don't tell me I can't because, then you're limiting my choices and thats unfair!

Somehow.. we made it ok to do that with races/species.. but somehow we still insist on balance for classes.

Its a silly thing.  Yes, there are limitations, restrictions.. some species are better at fighting, some worse... just like classes.  Why is it ok to do this to species but not to classes?

 There are many magic/spell based melee now. The further homogenization will continue. It's just the matter of when each individual refuses to accept it as a meaningful choice.

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Quote from CunningSmile >>

 But that sort of species determinism doesn’t even work for the official settings, never mind home brew ones. What about Eberron where barbarians are more likely to be Halflings than anything else whilst orcs are wise Druids? Lore should be tied to a setting, not to species, because as soon as you change the settings those restrictions you’re so fond of stop making sense. The 5.5 solution of tying stat boosts to background isn’t perfect, they needed a lot more backgrounds in the PHB if they were going to do that, but from a story telling and backstory point of view it makes a lot more sense that an elf who spent their life as a soldier would be stronger than an orc who spent their life as a librarian and is far more applicable to a wider range of settings 

 

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

I'm not persuaded by arguments in favor of forcing character builds to adhere to species-based stereotypes. That's not really core to D&D. What's core to D&D is playing exceptional characters. Several editions point out that even a level 1 character stands out from the average person in these fantasy worlds. It never made any sense to tell players their character have amazing capabilities beyond the average people around them, but they'll still always be penalized for being a certain species. Similarly, I'm not impressed by the "they took away roleplaying because now anybody can be anything" argument because having more options doesn't track with the assertion that it's harder to roleplay.

This all fits neatly under "it's bad because it's too different from what I'm familiar with." Which means it can be safely ignored.

 
Not really.. It's bad because it doesn't adhere to the source material.  Character creation in D&D has always been about meaningful choices, that is the core premise of the game.  5.5 removed that entiretly.  There are no meaningful choices when it comes to choosing backgrounds or Species..  These things no longer matter.

Its not about forcing builds, its about forcing benefits and drawbacks to your choices.

 
I see posts like this a lot. Every time, I read it as a confession of lack of imagination - either on the player’s part or the DM.

I have never once seen a player who does not treat their species and background as a real choice that influences their decision. Not in prior editions. Not in 5e. Not in 5.5e. Not ever. Even the players I have played with who dislike the roleplaying aspect of the game and are not great at it still treat “I am playing as a Warforged Soldier background” as something that influences their character.  I have also never seen a DM who does not look at their party’s species and make those choices meaningful within the world.

I do not think this is a real problem - at least, not in a meaningful way.  I suppose there could be a player so utterly incompetent at roleplaying for this concern to be valid… but I expect that hypothetical player would be so out of their depth nothing would ever help them.

As for mechanics, every species has their own with different places they shine or are not helpful. Also not a real problem.

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Quote from CunningSmile >>

 But that sort of species determinism doesn’t even work for the official settings, never mind home brew ones. What about Eberron where barbarians are more likely to be Halflings than anything else whilst orcs are wise Druids? Lore should be tied to a setting, not to species, because as soon as you change the settings those restrictions you’re so fond of stop making sense. The 5.5 solution of tying stat boosts to background isn’t perfect, they needed a lot more backgrounds in the PHB if they were going to do that, but from a story telling and backstory point of view it makes a lot more sense that an elf who spent their life as a soldier would be stronger than an orc who spent their life as a librarian and is far more applicable to a wider range of settings 

 

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

I'm not persuaded by arguments in favor of forcing character builds to adhere to species-based stereotypes. That's not really core to D&D. What's core to D&D is playing exceptional characters. Several editions point out that even a level 1 character stands out from the average person in these fantasy worlds. It never made any sense to tell players their character have amazing capabilities beyond the average people around them, but they'll still always be penalized for being a certain species. Similarly, I'm not impressed by the "they took away roleplaying because now anybody can be anything" argument because having more options doesn't track with the assertion that it's harder to roleplay.

This all fits neatly under "it's bad because it's too different from what I'm familiar with." Which means it can be safely ignored.

 
Not really.. It's bad because it doesn't adhere to the source material.  Character creation in D&D has always been about meaningful choices, that is the core premise of the game.  5.5 removed that entiretly.  There are no meaningful choices when it comes to choosing backgrounds or Species..  These things no longer matter.

Its not about forcing builds, its about forcing benefits and drawbacks to your choices.

 Are you actually playing 5.5? Because my character in one campaign plays really differently from my friend in a different group playing the same class/subclass as a different species with a different background. Those choices were very meaningful. 

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Not really.. It's bad because it doesn't adhere to the source material.  Character creation in D&D has always been about meaningful choices, that is the core premise of the game.  5.5 removed that entiretly.  There are no meaningful choices when it comes to choosing backgrounds or Species..  These things no longer matter.

Its not about forcing builds, its about forcing benefits and drawbacks to your choices.

"It's bad because it doesn't adhere to the source material" is definitionally saying the same thing as "It's bad because it's different from how I like it." It is not a persuasive argument because it's completely subjective. I completely disagree that being mechanically discouraged from specific species choosing certain classes allows for more meaningful choices. I think that's the complete opposite.

You might be able to make an argument to realism about smaller sized creatures being less advantageous in close-quarters combat versus larger creatures, but that's not the only issue. Spellcasting stats have nothing to do with how large or small a species is, but because of inherent racial bonuses, some races are good and others aren't, regardless of an individual PC's origin. For instance, the source material has Halflings as literate and educated, so why is at Halfling PC inherently mechanically penalized to be a wizard?

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

In 5e if you wanted to play a melee character you were heavily incentivised to choose an orc or a dwarf because of the racial bonuses, similarly elves leant themselves to Dex based range builds and gnomes to being wizards. 
EXACTLY!  That is D&D.. Dwarves and Orcs made better fighters... Gnomes were crappy ones, it's an element of D&D ethos.  Its how you know your playing D&D and not some other fantasy game.

As an "ethos" that's called biological determinism (or bioessentialism, or... but Gygax called himself a biological determinist), which is a new-fangled whitewashed name for "scientific racism," which was just racist dirtbags pretending to be "scientific." It was a bad tradition of the game design, and it's good to move away from it.

This idea that "you can be anything, so everyone will be the same" is just nonsense.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >> 

I see posts like this a lot. Every time, I read it as a confession of lack of imagination - either on the player’s part or the DM.

I have never once seen a player who does not treat their species and background as a real choice that influences their decision. Not in prior editions. Not in 5e. Not in 5.5e. Not ever. Even the players I have played with who dislike the roleplaying aspect of the game and are not great at it still treat “I am playing as a Warforged Soldier background” as something that influences their character.  I have also never seen a DM who does not look at their party’s species and make those choices meaningful within the world.

I do not think this is a real problem - at least, not in a meaningful way.  I suppose there could be a player so utterly incompetent at roleplaying for this concern to be valid… but I expect that hypothetical player would be so out of their depth nothing would ever help them.

As for mechanics, every species has their own with different places they shine or are not helpful. Also not a real problem.

 Your opening line could be misconstrued as condescending with an air of superiority. Completely unnecessary. As to your example put forth:

I have never seen anyone make a Warforged for a non-mechanical, roleplay targeted reason. We don't all encounter the same things in our games, and certainly someone has made a Warforged for story only.

Ok well let’s take a different approach.  How do you feel about a player who wants to create a Wizard class character but insists that they are a better warrior than a Fighter?  Would you have a problem with that?  No drawbacks of any kind, you're still as good at spell casting, but you're now also just an amazing fighter because of "story reasons".   

Don't make me choose.. I want to be awesome at both because of story reasons... don't tell me I can't because, then you're limiting my choices and thats unfair!

Somehow.. we made it ok to do that with races/species.. but somehow we still insist on balance for classes.

Its a silly thing.  Yes, there are limitations, restrictions.. some species are better at fighting, some worse... just like classes.  Why is it ok to do this to species but not to classes?

 It seems odd that I need to explain this but people who lead different lives have different physical abilities. I spend my life in an office and rarely go to the gym and so I’m not capable of doing things that John Cena can. Being a wizard is a career. Being a fighter is a career. If you’ve chosen one over the other you’ll have different abilities regardless of your species. That’s why there are restrictions tied to classes but not species. 

You just described Valor Bards, Eldritch Knight Fighters, Arcane Trickster Rogues, Bladesinger Wizards, Battlesmith Artificers, Paladins, Rangers, Pact of the Blade Warlocks, Protector Clerics, and Warden Druids and that’s 5.5 e

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from OSR4Ever >>

Quote from CunningSmile >>

 But that sort of species determinism doesn’t even work for the official settings, never mind home brew ones. What about Eberron where barbarians are more likely to be Halflings than anything else whilst orcs are wise Druids? Lore should be tied to a setting, not to species, because as soon as you change the settings those restrictions you’re so fond of stop making sense. The 5.5 solution of tying stat boosts to background isn’t perfect, they needed a lot more backgrounds in the PHB if they were going to do that, but from a story telling and backstory point of view it makes a lot more sense that an elf who spent their life as a soldier would be stronger than an orc who spent their life as a librarian and is far more applicable to a wider range of settings 

 

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

I'm not persuaded by arguments in favor of forcing character builds to adhere to species-based stereotypes. That's not really core to D&D. What's core to D&D is playing exceptional characters. Several editions point out that even a level 1 character stands out from the average person in these fantasy worlds. It never made any sense to tell players their character have amazing capabilities beyond the average people around them, but they'll still always be penalized for being a certain species. Similarly, I'm not impressed by the "they took away roleplaying because now anybody can be anything" argument because having more options doesn't track with the assertion that it's harder to roleplay.

This all fits neatly under "it's bad because it's too different from what I'm familiar with." Which means it can be safely ignored.

 
Not really.. It's bad because it doesn't adhere to the source material.  Character creation in D&D has always been about meaningful choices, that is the core premise of the game.  5.5 removed that entiretly.  There are no meaningful choices when it comes to choosing backgrounds or Species..  These things no longer matter.

Its not about forcing builds, its about forcing benefits and drawbacks to your choices.

 
I see posts like this a lot. Every time, I read it as a confession of lack of imagination - either on the player’s part or the DM.

I have never once seen a player who does not treat their species and background as a real choice that influences their decision. Not in prior editions. Not in 5e. Not in 5.5e. Not ever. Even the players I have played with who dislike the roleplaying aspect of the game and are not great at it still treat “I am playing as a Warforged Soldier background” as something that influences their character.  I have also never seen a DM who does not look at their party’s species and make those choices meaningful within the world.

I do not think this is a real problem - at least, not in a meaningful way.  I suppose there could be a player so utterly incompetent at roleplaying for this concern to be valid… but I expect that hypothetical player would be so out of their depth nothing would ever help them.

As for mechanics, every species has their own with different places they shine or are not helpful. Also not a real problem.

 
Of course and you ever wonder why that is?  How do people know how to play a Gnome?  Where did that information come from, what guides it?

Its not a coincidence that everyone understands the difference between a Dwarf and an Elf.  People have the common understanding that Dwarfs are tough, rugged while Elves are graceful, dexterous and intelligent.  These are definitions that were created and maintained as part of the cohesive ethos of Dungeons and Dragons.

Now imagine a future in which there is no distinction of any kind between a Dwarf and an Elf except what they kind of look like.  

That is what 5.5 is giving us.  Right now, everyone understands the difference because we have decades of D&D, which have infused this culture and ethos with that information.. but if you pick up a 5.5 Player's Handbook, there is ZERO information that distinguishes a Gnome from a Dwarf or Elf.  They are just hamroginze blobs.. "fantasy people" not based on anything or referenced by anything, stick figures indistinguishable from each other in any meaningful way.

That is the basis on which future players will determine how one plays a Gnome or an Elf.  It's... soulless - empty.  The 5.5 Player's Handbook is the most lifeless and pointless book ever created. It's an indexed reference of arbitrary powers unconnected to anything meaningful.  It's the ultimate take on bland, generic fantasy.

Brian May is a professional guitar player who has been touring since the 1970s and has a doctorate in astrophysics and gives lectures on the subject.  People can have vastly different and still be experts at both things