I don't think anyone is trying to remove race from the game, or even the concept of different people having different abilities. It definitely makes sense for an Aarakocra to have a talon attack while a halfling has none, because they have different physiology. The thing is, the change to alignments or ability scores determined on race/species doesn't really add much to the game, and what it does add is shortsighted and a very small benefit.
I don't understand exactly what you mean. As in a Half-Orc having a higher starting Strength than a Halfling. Are you saying that shouldn't be there and/or make sense and add to the game?
I think he means that races should remain as is, and I agree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I don't think anyone is trying to remove race from the game, or even the concept of different people having different abilities. It definitely makes sense for an Aarakocra to have a talon attack while a halfling has none, because they have different physiology. The thing is, the change to alignments or ability scores determined on race/species doesn't really add much to the game, and what it does add is shortsighted and a very small benefit.
I don't understand exactly what you mean. As in a Half-Orc having a higher starting Strength than a Halfling. Are you saying that shouldn't be there and/or make sense and add to the game?
Half orcs as a base should have a higher Strength than Halflings, but that's already replicated in small creatures not being able to use heavy weapons as well. I don't think Half-Orcs should be stuck with a +2 to Strength and +1 to Constitution, and a Lightfoot Halfling with a +2 to Dexterity and +1 to Charisma. I think if the Halfling wants to be a wizard or artificer, they should be able to get a +2 to Intelligence and +1 to Constitution instead.
Races should exist, and different abilities and features should be assigned to different ones, but I don't think Ability Scores should be based off of race as much as they are now. Orcs from Volo's shouldn't get a -2 to Intelligence, Kobolds shouldn't get a -2 to Strength, and so on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I don't think anyone is trying to remove race from the game, or even the concept of different people having different abilities. It definitely makes sense for an Aarakocra to have a talon attack while a halfling has none, because they have different physiology. The thing is, the change to alignments or ability scores determined on race/species doesn't really add much to the game, and what it does add is shortsighted and a very small benefit.
I don't understand exactly what you mean. As in a Half-Orc having a higher starting Strength than a Halfling. Are you saying that shouldn't be there and/or make sense and add to the game?
Half orcs as a base should have a higher Strength than Halflings, but that's already replicated in small creatures not being able to use heavy weapons as well. I don't think Half-Orcs should be stuck with a +2 to Strength and +1 to Constitution, and a Lightfoot Halfling with a +2 to Dexterity and +1 to Charisma. I think if the Halfling wants to be a wizard or artificer, they should be able to get a +2 to Intelligence and +1 to Constitution instead.
Races should exist, and different abilities and features should be assigned to different ones, but I don't think Ability Scores should be based off of race as much as they are now. Orcs from Volo's shouldn't get a -2 to Intelligence, Kobolds shouldn't get a -2 to Strength, and so on.
I think that they should be though, It really is the biggest factor, more than class. Should classes maybe get a bonus, yes, but let's not act like a half-orc should get less strength because it's a wizard, and not a barbarian.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I don't think anyone is trying to remove race from the game, or even the concept of different people having different abilities. It definitely makes sense for an Aarakocra to have a talon attack while a halfling has none, because they have different physiology. The thing is, the change to alignments or ability scores determined on race/species doesn't really add much to the game, and what it does add is shortsighted and a very small benefit.
I don't understand exactly what you mean. As in a Half-Orc having a higher starting Strength than a Halfling. Are you saying that shouldn't be there and/or make sense and add to the game?
Half orcs as a base should have a higher Strength than Halflings, but that's already replicated in small creatures not being able to use heavy weapons as well. I don't think Half-Orcs should be stuck with a +2 to Strength and +1 to Constitution, and a Lightfoot Halfling with a +2 to Dexterity and +1 to Charisma. I think if the Halfling wants to be a wizard or artificer, they should be able to get a +2 to Intelligence and +1 to Constitution instead.
Races should exist, and different abilities and features should be assigned to different ones, but I don't think Ability Scores should be based off of race as much as they are now. Orcs from Volo's shouldn't get a -2 to Intelligence, Kobolds shouldn't get a -2 to Strength, and so on.
I think that they should be though, It really is the biggest factor, more than class. Should classes maybe get a bonus, yes, but let's not act like a half-orc should get less strength because it's a wizard, and not a barbarian.
Oh, I agree they shouldn't be less strong because they're a Wizard (by this, I mean that Wizards shouldn't have automatic ability score increases to Intelligence) but the player should be able to choose what ability score improvements they have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I don't think anyone is trying to remove race from the game, or even the concept of different people having different abilities. It definitely makes sense for an Aarakocra to have a talon attack while a halfling has none, because they have different physiology. The thing is, the change to alignments or ability scores determined on race/species doesn't really add much to the game, and what it does add is shortsighted and a very small benefit.
I don't understand exactly what you mean. As in a Half-Orc having a higher starting Strength than a Halfling. Are you saying that shouldn't be there and/or make sense and add to the game?
Half orcs as a base should have a higher Strength than Halflings, but that's already replicated in small creatures not being able to use heavy weapons as well. I don't think Half-Orcs should be stuck with a +2 to Strength and +1 to Constitution, and a Lightfoot Halfling with a +2 to Dexterity and +1 to Charisma. I think if the Halfling wants to be a wizard or artificer, they should be able to get a +2 to Intelligence and +1 to Constitution instead.
Races should exist, and different abilities and features should be assigned to different ones, but I don't think Ability Scores should be based off of race as much as they are now. Orcs from Volo's shouldn't get a -2 to Intelligence, Kobolds shouldn't get a -2 to Strength, and so on.
I think that they should be though, It really is the biggest factor, more than class. Should classes maybe get a bonus, yes, but let's not act like a half-orc should get less strength because it's a wizard, and not a barbarian.
Oh, I agree they shouldn't be less strong because they're a Wizard (by this, I mean that Wizards shouldn't have automatic ability score increases to Intelligence) but the player should be able to choose what ability score improvements they have.
Ok, see what your saying, but i think that in general, the scores are inherent, and kind of a big deal, are sure, there exceptions to rules in real life, but a hippo's always gonna be stronger than a horse. I'm only speaking for myself, but that's my rationale for saying species/race makes a huge difference, and can't be chosen, because the stats are inherent.
Ok, see what your saying, but i think that in general, the scores are inherent, and kind of a big deal, are sure, there exceptions to rules in real life, but a hippo's always gonna be stronger than a horse. I'm only speaking for myself, but that's my rationale for saying species/race makes a huge difference, and can't be chosen, because the stats are inherent.
Sure, but Hippos and Horses are completely different creatures without similar characteristics. Humanoids are all fairly similar in diet, physiology, and brain size. What physical differences between races/species make creatures have a bonus to Charisma or Wisdom? Intelligence could be based on larger brain, but Gnomes are smaller and get a bonus to Intelligence. Goliaths and Firbolgs are taller, which in D&D equals stronger, which isn't true in real life, as I'm taller than the average person, but weaker than someone 6 inches shorter than me. I could see how Constitution could be based on species/race, but that still doesn't seem like something that a player has to be stuck with a birth. Dexterity seems like the ability score tied to physiology that makes the least sense being tied to race/species.
My point is, sure, it can make sense for certain abilities to be based on what type of creature you are, but it is more fun for players to be able to choose which ability scores they get, instead of it being tied to their race. I want to play a Lizardfolk with a +2 to Intelligence and +1 Constitution, so I can be a good tribal-artificer. I want to have a sneaky dexterity based dwarf ranger or a Half-Orc with a +2 to Charisma and +1 to Dexterity so that I can be a good Sorcerer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Ok, see what your saying, but i think that in general, the scores are inherent, and kind of a big deal, are sure, there exceptions to rules in real life, but a hippo's always gonna be stronger than a horse. I'm only speaking for myself, but that's my rationale for saying species/race makes a huge difference, and can't be chosen, because the stats are inherent.
Sure, but Hippos and Horses are completely different creatures without similar characteristics. Humanoids are all fairly similar in diet, physiology, and brain size. What physical differences between races/species make creatures have a bonus to Charisma or Wisdom? Intelligence could be based on larger brain, but Gnomes are smaller and get a bonus to Intelligence. Goliaths and Firbolgs are taller, which in D&D equals stronger, which isn't true in real life, as I'm taller than the average person, but weaker than someone 6 inches shorter than me. I could see how Constitution could be based on species/race, but that still doesn't seem like something that a player has to be stuck with a birth. Dexterity seems like the ability score tied to physiology that makes the least sense being tied to race/species.
My point is, sure, it can make sense for certain abilities to be based on what type of creature you are, but it is more fun for players to be able to choose which ability scores they get, instead of it being tied to their race. I want to play a Lizardfolk with a +2 to Intelligence and +1 Constitution, so I can be a good tribal-artificer. I want to have a sneaky dexterity based dwarf ranger or a Half-Orc with a +2 to Charisma and +1 to Dexterity so that I can be a good Sorcerer.
Neanderthals and Humans existed at the same time for several thousand years and they had measurably different physiological and mental capabilities from one another. They were both humanoid and capable of interbreeding. I think they are a very fine example of the differences between Orcs, Elves, Dwarves and Humans being quiet possible.
I just don't really think that is necessary to have Stat Mods be the way we differentiate fantasy races in D&D. Leave that to abilities like Dark Vision and Powerful Build.
Ok, see what your saying, but i think that in general, the scores are inherent, and kind of a big deal, are sure, there exceptions to rules in real life, but a hippo's always gonna be stronger than a horse. I'm only speaking for myself, but that's my rationale for saying species/race makes a huge difference, and can't be chosen, because the stats are inherent.
Sure, but Hippos and Horses are completely different creatures without similar characteristics. Humanoids are all fairly similar in diet, physiology, and brain size. What physical differences between races/species make creatures have a bonus to Charisma or Wisdom? Intelligence could be based on larger brain, but Gnomes are smaller and get a bonus to Intelligence. Goliaths and Firbolgs are taller, which in D&D equals stronger, which isn't true in real life, as I'm taller than the average person, but weaker than someone 6 inches shorter than me. I could see how Constitution could be based on species/race, but that still doesn't seem like something that a player has to be stuck with a birth. Dexterity seems like the ability score tied to physiology that makes the least sense being tied to race/species.
My point is, sure, it can make sense for certain abilities to be based on what type of creature you are, but it is more fun for players to be able to choose which ability scores they get, instead of it being tied to their race. I want to play a Lizardfolk with a +2 to Intelligence and +1 Constitution, so I can be a good tribal-artificer. I want to have a sneaky dexterity based dwarf ranger or a Half-Orc with a +2 to Charisma and +1 to Dexterity so that I can be a good Sorcerer.
So you just want to min/max your character better? This would only make sense, if your base values for all attributes were the same, but they are not. You choose which of your stats you assign to which attribute. You want your half-orc to be a good sorcerer? Assign the 17 you rolled to charisma. Done. Will there be better sorcerers of other races? Sure. Will he be an outstanding half-orc sorcerer and still better than the average sorcerer? Also yes.
Letting players choose which stat to boost will not lead to more diversity, just to better minmaxing.
But hey, I think a character is more than his stats. In my group we have a gnome barbarian. Odd choice, but I will surely not disencourage the player by killing the gnome because duh, why didn't you pick half-orc for race?
Ok, see what your saying, but i think that in general, the scores are inherent, and kind of a big deal, are sure, there exceptions to rules in real life, but a hippo's always gonna be stronger than a horse. I'm only speaking for myself, but that's my rationale for saying species/race makes a huge difference, and can't be chosen, because the stats are inherent.
Sure, but Hippos and Horses are completely different creatures without similar characteristics. Humanoids are all fairly similar in diet, physiology, and brain size. What physical differences between races/species make creatures have a bonus to Charisma or Wisdom? Intelligence could be based on larger brain, but Gnomes are smaller and get a bonus to Intelligence. Goliaths and Firbolgs are taller, which in D&D equals stronger, which isn't true in real life, as I'm taller than the average person, but weaker than someone 6 inches shorter than me. I could see how Constitution could be based on species/race, but that still doesn't seem like something that a player has to be stuck with a birth. Dexterity seems like the ability score tied to physiology that makes the least sense being tied to race/species.
My point is, sure, it can make sense for certain abilities to be based on what type of creature you are, but it is more fun for players to be able to choose which ability scores they get, instead of it being tied to their race. I want to play a Lizardfolk with a +2 to Intelligence and +1 Constitution, so I can be a good tribal-artificer. I want to have a sneaky dexterity based dwarf ranger or a Half-Orc with a +2 to Charisma and +1 to Dexterity so that I can be a good Sorcerer.
I just don't really think that is necessary to have Stat Mods be the way we differentiate fantasy races in D&D. Leave that to abilities like Dark Vision and Powerful Build.
While this is all true, that would require a massive overhaul of the game systems to accommodate. There are some races, like the Aarakocra, which are literally Flight and an ASI and that's the entire race. There's also overloaded races like the Yuan-ti that have Magic Resist and innate spellcasting and immunity to poison. All of this would need to be reconciled.
Does anyone expect any of this to occur before 6e? And we know that 6e is nowhere near coming to pass. So if that's really where everyone wants this to head, you're going to be waiting for quite some time to see it happen.
They announced that they had plans for the next book coming out later this year.
"Later this year, we will release a product (not yet announced) that offers a way for a player to customize their character’s origin, including the option to change the ability score increases that come from being an elf, a dwarf, or one of D&D's many other playable folk. This option emphasizes that each person in the game is an individual with capabilities all their own."
They announced that they had plans for the next book coming out later this year.
"Later this year, we will release a product (not yet announced) that offers a way for a player to customize their character’s origin, including the option to change the ability score increases that come from being an elf, a dwarf, or one of D&D's many other playable folk. This option emphasizes that each person in the game is an individual with capabilities all their own."
That only addresses the racial ASIs, not the racial abilities.
Ok, see what your saying, but i think that in general, the scores are inherent, and kind of a big deal, are sure, there exceptions to rules in real life, but a hippo's always gonna be stronger than a horse. I'm only speaking for myself, but that's my rationale for saying species/race makes a huge difference, and can't be chosen, because the stats are inherent.
Sure, but Hippos and Horses are completely different creatures without similar characteristics. Humanoids are all fairly similar in diet, physiology, and brain size. What physical differences between races/species make creatures have a bonus to Charisma or Wisdom? Intelligence could be based on larger brain, but Gnomes are smaller and get a bonus to Intelligence. Goliaths and Firbolgs are taller, which in D&D equals stronger, which isn't true in real life, as I'm taller than the average person, but weaker than someone 6 inches shorter than me. I could see how Constitution could be based on species/race, but that still doesn't seem like something that a player has to be stuck with a birth. Dexterity seems like the ability score tied to physiology that makes the least sense being tied to race/species.
My point is, sure, it can make sense for certain abilities to be based on what type of creature you are, but it is more fun for players to be able to choose which ability scores they get, instead of it being tied to their race. I want to play a Lizardfolk with a +2 to Intelligence and +1 Constitution, so I can be a good tribal-artificer. I want to have a sneaky dexterity based dwarf ranger or a Half-Orc with a +2 to Charisma and +1 to Dexterity so that I can be a good Sorcerer.
So you just want to min/max your character better? This would only make sense, if your base values for all attributes were the same, but they are not. You choose which of your stats you assign to which attribute. You want your half-orc to be a good sorcerer? Assign the 17 you rolled to charisma. Done. Will there be better sorcerers of other races? Sure. Will he be an outstanding half-orc sorcerer and still better than the average sorcerer? Also yes.
Letting players choose which stat to boost will not lead to more diversity, just to better minmaxing.
But hey, I think a character is more than his stats. In my group we have a gnome barbarian. Odd choice, but I will surely not disencourage the player by killing the gnome because duh, why didn't you pick half-orc for race?
I don’t like minmaxing, and I don’t think every member of a species should get exactly the same ability score adjustments, but I do think a half-orc sorcerer with 17 or 18 charisma would make a great character (and so would a gnome barbarian with 17 or 18 strength, also an awesome character idea 😊).
I do approve rewriting of the general "evil" or "personality traits" of different species. However, I do not like the change in freely appointable ability modifiers.
Maybe if you can shift one +1 around. But generally, I think species ability modifiers are good in my opinion.
They announced that they had plans for the next book coming out later this year.
"Later this year, we will release a product (not yet announced) that offers a way for a player to customize their character’s origin, including the option to change the ability score increases that come from being an elf, a dwarf, or one of D&D's many other playable folk. This option emphasizes that each person in the game is an individual with capabilities all their own."
That only addresses the racial ASIs, not the racial abilities.
*Face Palm*
I said: "I just don't really think that is necessary to have Stat Mods be the way we differentiate fantasy races in D&D. Leave that to abilities like Dark Vision and Powerful Build."
and you said it wasn't going to happen before 6e. Which is obviously wrong
I do think that certain fantasy races are generally meant to be villains, and thats OK, but you don't always have to go with the recommended alignments, I do evil aasimars or good warlocks, or aasimar warlocks from time to time, and so i see those as suggestions, but the traits/bonuses should not be messed with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I do approve rewriting of the general "evil" or "personality traits" of different species. However, I do not like the change in freely appointable ability modifiers.
Maybe if you can shift one +1 around. But generally, I think species ability modifiers are good in my opinion.
I agree, and luckily the new book will be optional, but it is happening. I really think it is more about how it will be done than if.
Its not only the good and evil traits. They're also changing vices. In CoS
When you visit the vistani camp there will be no alcohol or drunk-ness. You will instead encounter 'Generic Guarded Camp A'.
Are we going to remove everything from the game that's harsher than PG-13.. actually i think Sea of Thieves is rated T+ (which means 10 years old +) for use of Alcohol. It's like we can't handle adult themes or imperfect societies. Are we really that fragile and need watered down source material because a group of people love to party?
The destination or eventual conclusion of this thought process is that you're expecting players to be immersed in a perfect world with perfect societies and every group of bad guys is the same diverse modge-podge of every race. That scene from LotR where they enter the old elven tunnel and attacked by Goblins.. no more! Can't do it! Because Goblins are 'Humanoids'. Are we going to make Dwarves stop loving ale too? There's legit real world humans who are dwarves and were made fun of for centuries as unlicensed 'natural' fools. To be mocked and laughed at. Guess its pretty rood to make dwarves have an alcohol vice. Next up is Druids, we use the term Tree-Hugger here in the real world as a derogatory term against those kinds of people. Guess we need to remove Druids from the game.
Grow. Up. And learn to handle themes that are in a fictional world. Now that I've typed this out it... it feels almost identical to the discussions had about gaming over the past decade about guns, violence, drugs, and etc in gaming. You'll hear one side yelling "Guns in games encourage real world violence!". And the answer to that is..
Do not mix fantasy and real world.
edit: Failed to add what camp I was talking about in the spoiler.
I think he means that races should remain as is, and I agree.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Half orcs as a base should have a higher Strength than Halflings, but that's already replicated in small creatures not being able to use heavy weapons as well. I don't think Half-Orcs should be stuck with a +2 to Strength and +1 to Constitution, and a Lightfoot Halfling with a +2 to Dexterity and +1 to Charisma. I think if the Halfling wants to be a wizard or artificer, they should be able to get a +2 to Intelligence and +1 to Constitution instead.
Races should exist, and different abilities and features should be assigned to different ones, but I don't think Ability Scores should be based off of race as much as they are now. Orcs from Volo's shouldn't get a -2 to Intelligence, Kobolds shouldn't get a -2 to Strength, and so on.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think that they should be though, It really is the biggest factor, more than class. Should classes maybe get a bonus, yes, but let's not act like a half-orc should get less strength because it's a wizard, and not a barbarian.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
I see Levi. I disagree but appreciate the clarification.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
Oh, I agree they shouldn't be less strong because they're a Wizard (by this, I mean that Wizards shouldn't have automatic ability score increases to Intelligence) but the player should be able to choose what ability score improvements they have.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I too disagree with levirocks, but i respect his opinion and would love to continue this discussion.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Ok, see what your saying, but i think that in general, the scores are inherent, and kind of a big deal, are sure, there exceptions to rules in real life, but a hippo's always gonna be stronger than a horse. I'm only speaking for myself, but that's my rationale for saying species/race makes a huge difference, and can't be chosen, because the stats are inherent.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
Sure, but Hippos and Horses are completely different creatures without similar characteristics. Humanoids are all fairly similar in diet, physiology, and brain size. What physical differences between races/species make creatures have a bonus to Charisma or Wisdom? Intelligence could be based on larger brain, but Gnomes are smaller and get a bonus to Intelligence. Goliaths and Firbolgs are taller, which in D&D equals stronger, which isn't true in real life, as I'm taller than the average person, but weaker than someone 6 inches shorter than me. I could see how Constitution could be based on species/race, but that still doesn't seem like something that a player has to be stuck with a birth. Dexterity seems like the ability score tied to physiology that makes the least sense being tied to race/species.
My point is, sure, it can make sense for certain abilities to be based on what type of creature you are, but it is more fun for players to be able to choose which ability scores they get, instead of it being tied to their race. I want to play a Lizardfolk with a +2 to Intelligence and +1 Constitution, so I can be a good tribal-artificer. I want to have a sneaky dexterity based dwarf ranger or a Half-Orc with a +2 to Charisma and +1 to Dexterity so that I can be a good Sorcerer.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Neanderthals and Humans existed at the same time for several thousand years and they had measurably different physiological and mental capabilities from one another. They were both humanoid and capable of interbreeding. I think they are a very fine example of the differences between Orcs, Elves, Dwarves and Humans being quiet possible.
I just don't really think that is necessary to have Stat Mods be the way we differentiate fantasy races in D&D. Leave that to abilities like Dark Vision and Powerful Build.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
So you just want to min/max your character better? This would only make sense, if your base values for all attributes were the same, but they are not. You choose which of your stats you assign to which attribute. You want your half-orc to be a good sorcerer? Assign the 17 you rolled to charisma. Done. Will there be better sorcerers of other races? Sure. Will he be an outstanding half-orc sorcerer and still better than the average sorcerer? Also yes.
Letting players choose which stat to boost will not lead to more diversity, just to better minmaxing.
But hey, I think a character is more than his stats. In my group we have a gnome barbarian. Odd choice, but I will surely not disencourage the player by killing the gnome because duh, why didn't you pick half-orc for race?
While this is all true, that would require a massive overhaul of the game systems to accommodate. There are some races, like the Aarakocra, which are literally Flight and an ASI and that's the entire race. There's also overloaded races like the Yuan-ti that have Magic Resist and innate spellcasting and immunity to poison. All of this would need to be reconciled.
Does anyone expect any of this to occur before 6e? And we know that 6e is nowhere near coming to pass. So if that's really where everyone wants this to head, you're going to be waiting for quite some time to see it happen.
They announced that they had plans for the next book coming out later this year.
"Later this year, we will release a product (not yet announced) that offers a way for a player to customize their character’s origin, including the option to change the ability score increases that come from being an elf, a dwarf, or one of D&D's many other playable folk. This option emphasizes that each person in the game is an individual with capabilities all their own."
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
That only addresses the racial ASIs, not the racial abilities.
In the end it doesn't really matter, homebrew a variant orc with higher charisma if you want a sorcerer.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
I don’t like minmaxing, and I don’t think every member of a species should get exactly the same ability score adjustments, but I do think a half-orc sorcerer with 17 or 18 charisma would make a great character (and so would a gnome barbarian with 17 or 18 strength, also an awesome character idea 😊).
I do approve rewriting of the general "evil" or "personality traits" of different species. However, I do not like the change in freely appointable ability modifiers.
Maybe if you can shift one +1 around. But generally, I think species ability modifiers are good in my opinion.
*Face Palm*
I said: "I just don't really think that is necessary to have Stat Mods be the way we differentiate fantasy races in D&D. Leave that to abilities like Dark Vision and Powerful Build."
and you said it wasn't going to happen before 6e. Which is obviously wrong
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I do think that certain fantasy races are generally meant to be villains, and thats OK, but you don't always have to go with the recommended alignments, I do evil aasimars or good warlocks, or aasimar warlocks from time to time, and so i see those as suggestions, but the traits/bonuses should not be messed with.
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
I agree, and luckily the new book will be optional, but it is happening. I really think it is more about how it will be done than if.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Its not only the good and evil traits. They're also changing vices. In CoS
When you visit the vistani camp there will be no alcohol or drunk-ness. You will instead encounter 'Generic Guarded Camp A'.
Are we going to remove everything from the game that's harsher than PG-13.. actually i think Sea of Thieves is rated T+ (which means 10 years old +) for use of Alcohol. It's like we can't handle adult themes or imperfect societies. Are we really that fragile and need watered down source material because a group of people love to party?
The destination or eventual conclusion of this thought process is that you're expecting players to be immersed in a perfect world with perfect societies and every group of bad guys is the same diverse modge-podge of every race. That scene from LotR where they enter the old elven tunnel and attacked by Goblins.. no more! Can't do it! Because Goblins are 'Humanoids'. Are we going to make Dwarves stop loving ale too? There's legit real world humans who are dwarves and were made fun of for centuries as unlicensed 'natural' fools. To be mocked and laughed at. Guess its pretty rood to make dwarves have an alcohol vice. Next up is Druids, we use the term Tree-Hugger here in the real world as a derogatory term against those kinds of people. Guess we need to remove Druids from the game.
Grow. Up. And learn to handle themes that are in a fictional world. Now that I've typed this out it... it feels almost identical to the discussions had about gaming over the past decade about guns, violence, drugs, and etc in gaming. You'll hear one side yelling "Guns in games encourage real world violence!". And the answer to that is..
Do not mix fantasy and real world.
edit: Failed to add what camp I was talking about in the spoiler.