Proficiencies are the first thing that should've been allowed to flex to fit character concept. An elf who wasn't raised in a sylvan forest has no heckin' business carrying Elf Weapon Training. Frankly, most of those sorts of things should be culled from the game completely, and I'm betting they will in any prospective 5.5/6e's in the future. Cultural junk being baked into the biological stat block for a species is a relic of editions past and rightly needs to be taken out. My only real beef with this rule, and it's a minor beef at best, is that species with cultural baggage baked into their stat blocks get a hefty noncombat edge over species that don't. Elf/Dwarf Weapon Training is worth four separate tool proficiencies, which is a bit bonko. Hopefully Tasha's has some edge case fixes for stuff like that. Frankly I'm not even really worried about it, given how rarely anybody gives a single fat donkey doo for tool proficiencies, but ehh. If it happens, it happens.
Yeah right. I remember someone talking about these being optional rules, when presto, they are not. And BTW, a Mountain Dwarf that grew up living with hobbits, or garden trolls, or humans, would not only lose all the species specific features, but also a +2 on two separate attributes, since he was not living in a tough environment. He would get the standard +2 and +1, at best. The best option, and it is not an option at all, is to ignore completely anything that comes of this Nov 17th book.
I wonder if being so toxic all the time is healthy but I digress. They are optional. If it says it in the document if you had bothered to read it. “If you’d like your character to follow their own path, you may ignore your Ability Score Increase trait and assign“. There is nothing in that sentence that says you have to. You are actually about that statement about species specific features. You are confusing culture and species again. I love how you start off complaining that these are not optional and then go ahead and state the “the best option, and it is not an option at all.” This is hypocrisy at its finest. “Don’t do what they tell you to do, do what I tell you to do.”
They are not optional, from the DM's perspective. It explicitly states that all DM's will follow the new rules. The players can choose to opt out. The DM has zero recourse if players decide to go with this madness. And as for "the best option, and it is not an option at all.", I am referring to my table. As a DM, deciding this will not be at my table, no matter how players whine.
These changes make the game now 6e. It is inevitable a new PHB will be published with these fundamental changes to how a char is created. And anything that so fundamentally changes a game is a new edition. XTGE expanded classes and subclasses, so could be called 5.1. This, alters the game in a massive way. So then, when I say "nope", at my table, my RAW table becomes a Homebrew table, or one playing 5th edition still, while you are playing 6e.
Sure, like I said, it's optional. Don't let it at your table if you think the features are "madness"
Also I am a DM, and from what I see is if you don't allow it players don't do it. Unless the players are unwilling.
Frankly, I would not care one iota about this whole thing, except for even a blind man can see where this is heading. Tell me, when new PHB's are published (I have no real clue how often a new run of PHB's are published, but clearly it happens, given the errata additions/ corrections), what do you think they will have in the details for each species?
a. No mention of Tasha's at all?
b. The existing set of rules, plus a whole new section talking about these "optional" rules found in Tasha's.
c. Zero mention of the existing rules, and exclusively the new, supposedly optional Tasha rules.
Me, I can see where this is going, and the answer will be c.
I don't know if anyone will respond to that, but I surely won't. Talking already about 5.5/6e PHB is worrying about something you don't know anything about. If you prefer the original 5e phb rules, then don't allow Tasha's! Which is what I've been keep repeating.
Also I agree with the past posts that your posts are filled with venom. Everyone has their opinion and you should respect it.
Proficiencies are the first thing that should've been allowed to flex to fit character concept. An elf who wasn't raised in a sylvan forest has no heckin' business carrying Elf Weapon Training. Frankly, most of those sorts of things should be culled from the game completely, and I'm betting they will in any prospective 5.5/6e's in the future. Cultural junk being baked into the biological stat block for a species is a relic of editions past and rightly needs to be taken out. My only real beef with this rule, and it's a minor beef at best, is that species with cultural baggage baked into their stat blocks get a hefty noncombat edge over species that don't. Elf/Dwarf Weapon Training is worth four separate tool proficiencies, which is a bit bonko. Hopefully Tasha's has some edge case fixes for stuff like that. Frankly I'm not even really worried about it, given how rarely anybody gives a single fat donkey doo for tool proficiencies, but ehh. If it happens, it happens.
Yeah right. I remember someone talking about these being optional rules, when presto, they are not. And BTW, a Mountain Dwarf that grew up living with hobbits, or garden trolls, or humans, would not only lose all the species specific features, but also a +2 on two separate attributes, since he was not living in a tough environment. He would get the standard +2 and +1, at best. The best option, and it is not an option at all, is to ignore completely anything that comes of this Nov 17th book.
I wonder if being so toxic all the time is healthy but I digress. They are optional. If it says it in the document if you had bothered to read it. “If you’d like your character to follow their own path, you may ignore your Ability Score Increase trait and assign“. There is nothing in that sentence that says you have to. You are actually about that statement about species specific features. You are confusing culture and species again. I love how you start off complaining that these are not optional and then go ahead and state the “the best option, and it is not an option at all.” This is hypocrisy at its finest. “Don’t do what they tell you to do, do what I tell you to do.”
They are not optional, from the DM's perspective. It explicitly states that all DM's will follow the new rules. The players can choose to opt out. The DM has zero recourse if players decide to go with this madness. And as for "the best option, and it is not an option at all.", I am referring to my table. As a DM, deciding this will not be at my table, no matter how players whine.
These changes make the game now 6e. It is inevitable a new PHB will be published with these fundamental changes to how a char is created. And anything that so fundamentally changes a game is a new edition. XTGE expanded classes and subclasses, so could be called 5.1. This, alters the game in a massive way. So then, when I say "nope", at my table, my RAW table becomes a Homebrew table, or one playing 5th edition still, while you are playing 6e.
Sure, like I said, it's optional. Don't let it at your table if you think the features are "madness"
Also I am a DM, and from what I see is if you don't allow it players don't do it. Unless the players are unwilling.
Frankly, I would not care one iota about this whole thing, except for even a blind man can see where this is heading. Tell me, when new PHB's are published (I have no real clue how often a new run of PHB's are published, but clearly it happens, given the errata additions/ corrections), what do you think they will have in the details for each species?
a. No mention of Tasha's at all?
b. The existing set of rules, plus a whole new section talking about these "optional" rules found in Tasha's.
c. Zero mention of the existing rules, and exclusively the new, supposedly optional Tasha rules.
Me, I can see where this is going, and the answer will be c.
I think, at most it will be presented in a sidebar along with the existing rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Let it be known that Adventurer's League has, has always had, and probably will always have, rules and restrictions that are entirely arbitrary and overly restrictive. Let it also be known that AL has absolutely zero bearing on the way home games play.
And now, let us go back to talking about Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, an entirely optional book with rulesets people are free to regard or disregard as they see fit.
They didn't make sweeping changes to the PHB for Xanathar's Guide, Vince. They're not gonna do it for Tasha's Cauldron. The next time an edition change happens? Yes, I absolutely expect this level of flexibility to be built in from the start, and for things like classic elf/dwarf cultural junk a'la Stonecunning to be moved into background rather than species. The rules in Tasha's Cauldron are not a New Default Standard; they're a slap patch hotfix for people who want that slap patch hotfix and a means of Wizards testing the waters and seeing what people think.
Are they going to redo the 5e PHB, to the point of drastically editing the content and layout? No. That's beyond the scope of errata, and errata is the only thing that gets changed in hardcopy reprints of the PHB.
They didn't make sweeping changes to the PHB for Xanathar's Guide, Vince. They're not gonna do it for Tasha's Cauldron. The next time an edition change happens? Yes, I absolutely expect this level of flexibility to be built in from the start, and for things like classic elf/dwarf cultural junk a'la Stonecunning to be moved into background rather than species. The rules in Tasha's Cauldron are not a New Default Standard; they're a slap patch hotfix for people who want that slap patch hotfix and a means of Wizards testing the waters and seeing what people think.
Are they going to redo the 5e PHB, to the point of drastically editing the content and layout? No. That's beyond the scope of errata, and errata is the only thing that gets changed in hardcopy reprints of the PHB.
I wish I had high charisma like that. My English skills are terrible
They didn't make sweeping changes to the PHB for Xanathar's Guide, Vince. They're not gonna do it for Tasha's Cauldron. The next time an edition change happens? Yes, I absolutely expect this level of flexibility to be built in from the start, and for things like classic elf/dwarf cultural junk a'la Stonecunning to be moved into background rather than species. The rules in Tasha's Cauldron are not a New Default Standard; they're a slap patch hotfix for people who want that slap patch hotfix and a means of Wizards testing the waters and seeing what people think.
Are they going to redo the 5e PHB, to the point of drastically editing the content and layout? No. That's beyond the scope of errata, and errata is the only thing that gets changed in hardcopy reprints of the PHB.
You are stating that yes, you want to see the existing system abolished. Actually, that has been your established position from the get-go, and mine the opposite. What I am saying is that 6e is here, in Tasha's, and the next PHB will be the beginning of 6e. The announcement that this char building system will be the ONLY system in the next print is right around the corner. It is a fait accompli.
In your mind, I am one of those old players who it is best to roll over and ignore, in this era of diversity and inclusivity. In my mind, I am fighting to the bitter end a lost battle where I refuse to allow social changes impact a game, which has zero in common with real life.
I'm no stranger to having strong opinions or having a mouth that runs faster than my brain. Which maybe be why I came down so hard on Yurei. And for that, I'm sorry. And I was wrong to say she lacks imagination. She definitely has some, and it's good to see. I also went back a page to reread what I criticized and saw there were comments I missed. And there may have been some misunderstandings.
Regardless of what proficiencies your character starts with, there's a story to be told. It doesn't matter if you use the default statistics or the newer options presented in DDAL/Tasha's. And, for the sake of discussion, let's use Yurei's example of the elf street urchin. They could have learned all of them (Elf Weapon Training and Keen Senses) or none of them. Maybe a more experienced elf took them on for a bit and taught them how to control their Trance, like lucid dreaming. They could have picked up various proficiencies by reliving memories from several lifetimes. Or maybe a dwarf took them in and they learned something else (Dwarven Combat Training and Tool Proficiency). Or maybe an elf adventurer trained them up in their class at the same time and they learned their cultural proficiencies that way. The possibilities are limited only by your imagination.
Which is why I was so bothered by, "An elf who wasn't raised in a sylvan forest has no heckin' business carrying Elf Weapon Training." Heaven forbid anyone plays a plains-living, horse-riding elf of the Tairnadal tribes in northern Aerenal, or as one of the high elves of the Simic Combine in Ravnica. It's ignorant, prejudiced language.
There is not enough facepalm in the world for this shit...
VInce. Snetterton.
Listen to me.
I don't give a single tuna turd what you do with your own games at home. You want to outlaw every new class and species introduced since 2e? Go for it. You want to impose strict species/class limitations on your games? Have at it. You wanna tell your players that you've pregenerated characters for your campaign and they can use what you wrote or hit the highway? Do it up. If your players agree, you're golden. I have no business telling you how to run your own personal home games.
Stop ******* trying to tell me how to run mine.
If you can't understand why some players would deeply appreciate more flexibility in character generation? Oh well, I clearly can't convince you and I honestly don't care to try anymore. Similarly, if you can't see how some of the default assumptions in Forgotten Realms lore are potentially unhelpful to folks who do not have the great good luxury of being a white cisgender male, again. I clearly can't convince you, and I don't care to try.
Your games are yours to run as you see fit. Use whichever edition you like, play whatever rules makes your table a happy place. I will never tell you otherwise. In turn, you can STOP telling everybody else that we're having our own fun wrong and we need to use your rules or nothing. I don't like your rules, and I will not have them at my table. That is just as much my right as a DM and a player as it is your right to tell Tasha's Cauldron to get the hell out of your house.
Knock it off. And quit riding my ass over it, while you're at it.
**
EDIT: Thank you, Jounichi. I appreciate you making that gesture. Yeah, I can let my tendency towards bombast run away with me at times. There are ways an elf could learn their traditional weaponry beyond the Forest Guardian model, but I do admit I prefer the idea of a character choosing their tools and learning. The entries for elves in a theoretical 6e PHB could list weapons and tools which are commonly associated with elven culture for those characters that want to lean into that culture - similarly with dwarves, gnomes, and everybody else - but a character could also lean away from that culture. And such a system would make it easier for alternate setting books like Eberron or Wildemount to change which options are 'traditional' for a given species in that world. I think it would make for a better game overall, and a better way for everybody to express their creativity and imagination.
I'm no stranger to having strong opinions or having a mouth that runs faster than my brain. Which maybe be why I came down so hard on Yurei. And for that, I'm sorry. And I was wrong to say she lacks imagination. She definitely has some, and it's good to see. I also went back a page to reread what I criticized and saw there were comments I missed. And there may have been some misunderstandings.
Regardless of what proficiencies your character starts with, there's a story to be told. It doesn't matter if you use the default statistics or the newer options presented in DDAL/Tasha's. And, for the sake of discussion, let's use Yurei's example of the elf street urchin. They could have learned all of them (Elf Weapon Training and Keen Senses) or none of them. Maybe a more experienced elf took them on for a bit and taught them how to control their Trance, like lucid dreaming. They could have picked up various proficiencies by reliving memories from several lifetimes. Or maybe a dwarf took them in and they learned something else (Dwarven Combat Training and Tool Proficiency). Or maybe an elf adventurer trained them up in their class at the same time and they learned their cultural proficiencies that way. The possibilities are limited only by your imagination.
Which is why I was so bothered by, "An elf who wasn't raised in a sylvan forest has no heckin' business carrying Elf Weapon Training." Heaven forbid anyone plays a plains-living, horse-riding elf of the Tairnadal tribes in northern Aerenal, or as one of the high elves of the Simic Combine in Ravnica. It's ignorant, prejudiced language.
The nice thing about this rule set is that it makes every single one of those choices possible. If your elf urchin still learned elven weapons, you can choose those for proficiency. If you want to make a Lord of the Rings style elf character, this ruleset still allows that. It also make non LotR elves possible as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
There is not enough facepalm in the world for this shit...
VInce. Snetterton.
Listen to me.
I don't give a single tuna turd what you do with your own games at home. You want to outlaw every new class and species introduced since 2e? Go for it. You want to impose strict species/class limitations on your games? Have at it. You wanna tell your players that you've pregenerated characters for your campaign and they can use what you wrote or hit the highway? Do it up. If your players agree, you're golden. I have no business telling you how to run your own personal home games.
Stop ****ing trying to tell me how to run mine.
If you can't understand why some players would deeply appreciate more flexibility in character generation? Oh well, I clearly can't convince you and I honestly don't care to try anymore. Similarly, if you can't see how some of the default assumptions in Forgotten Realms lore are potentially unhelpful to folks who do not have the great good luxury of being a white cisgender male, again. I clearly can't convince you, and I don't care to try.
Your games are yours to run as you see fit. Use whichever edition you like, play whatever rules makes your table a happy place. I will never tell you otherwise. In turn, you can STOP telling everybody else that we're having our own fun wrong and we need to use your rules or nothing. I don't like your rules, and I will not have them at my table. That is just as much my right as a DM and a player as it is your right to tell Tasha's Cauldron to get the hell out of your house.
Knock it off. And quit riding my ass over it, while you're at it.
**
EDIT: Thank you, Jounichi. I appreciate you making that gesture. Yeah, I can let my tendency towards bombast run away with me at times. There are ways an elf could learn their traditional weaponry beyond the Forest Guardian model, but I do admit I prefer the idea of a character choosing their tools and learning. The entries for elves in a theoretical 6e PHB could list weapons and tools which are commonly associated with elven culture for those characters that want to lean into that culture - similarly with dwarves, gnomes, and everybody else - but a character could also lean away from that culture. And such a system would make it easier for alternate setting books like Eberron or Wildemount to change which options are 'traditional' for a given species in that world. I think it would make for a better game overall, and a better way for everybody to express their creativity and imagination.
And I equally don't care what you do at your own table. But I very much care when you carry on a campaign to get WOTC to change the rules to something that you prefer. I play in a location that has multiple simultaneous tables running (tables have their own regulars), plus we service drop-ins. So even though every DM's has their own set of house rules, but we are all pretty much on the same page. What is highly disruptive is when someone new walks in the door, and says " I have built this char using Tasha's rules", and then I have to say "No, go sit in the corner and rebuild your char using the 5e PHB rules, then you can join the game". No one likes that, but that is where this is heading.
There is not enough facepalm in the world for this shit...
VInce. Snetterton.
Listen to me.
I don't give a single tuna turd what you do with your own games at home. You want to outlaw every new class and species introduced since 2e? Go for it. You want to impose strict species/class limitations on your games? Have at it. You wanna tell your players that you've pregenerated characters for your campaign and they can use what you wrote or hit the highway? Do it up. If your players agree, you're golden. I have no business telling you how to run your own personal home games.
Stop ****ing trying to tell me how to run mine.
If you can't understand why some players would deeply appreciate more flexibility in character generation? Oh well, I clearly can't convince you and I honestly don't care to try anymore. Similarly, if you can't see how some of the default assumptions in Forgotten Realms lore are potentially unhelpful to folks who do not have the great good luxury of being a white cisgender male, again. I clearly can't convince you, and I don't care to try.
Your games are yours to run as you see fit. Use whichever edition you like, play whatever rules makes your table a happy place. I will never tell you otherwise. In turn, you can STOP telling everybody else that we're having our own fun wrong and we need to use your rules or nothing. I don't like your rules, and I will not have them at my table. That is just as much my right as a DM and a player as it is your right to tell Tasha's Cauldron to get the hell out of your house.
Knock it off. And quit riding my ass over it, while you're at it.
**
EDIT: Thank you, Jounichi. I appreciate you making that gesture. Yeah, I can let my tendency towards bombast run away with me at times. There are ways an elf could learn their traditional weaponry beyond the Forest Guardian model, but I do admit I prefer the idea of a character choosing their tools and learning. The entries for elves in a theoretical 6e PHB could list weapons and tools which are commonly associated with elven culture for those characters that want to lean into that culture - similarly with dwarves, gnomes, and everybody else - but a character could also lean away from that culture. And such a system would make it easier for alternate setting books like Eberron or Wildemount to change which options are 'traditional' for a given species in that world. I think it would make for a better game overall, and a better way for everybody to express their creativity and imagination.
And I equally don't care what you do at your own table. But I very much care when you carry on a campaign to get WOTC to change the rules to something that you prefer. I play in a location that has multiple simultaneous tables running (tables have their own regulars), plus we service drop-ins. So even though every DM's has their own set of house rules, but we are all pretty much on the same page. What is highly disruptive is when someone new walks in the door, and says " I have built this char using Tasha's rules", and then I have to say "No, go sit in the corner and rebuild your char using the 5e PHB rules, then you can join the game". No one likes that, but that is where this is heading.
They didn't make sweeping changes to the PHB for Xanathar's Guide, Vince. They're not gonna do it for Tasha's Cauldron. The next time an edition change happens? Yes, I absolutely expect this level of flexibility to be built in from the start, and for things like classic elf/dwarf cultural junk a'la Stonecunning to be moved into background rather than species. The rules in Tasha's Cauldron are not a New Default Standard; they're a slap patch hotfix for people who want that slap patch hotfix and a means of Wizards testing the waters and seeing what people think.
Are they going to redo the 5e PHB, to the point of drastically editing the content and layout? No. That's beyond the scope of errata, and errata is the only thing that gets changed in hardcopy reprints of the PHB.
You are stating that yes, you want to see the existing system abolished. Actually, that has been your established position from the get-go, and mine the opposite. What I am saying is that 6e is here, in Tasha's, and the next PHB will be the beginning of 6e. The announcement that this char building system will be the ONLY system in the next print is right around the corner. It is a fait accompli.
In your mind, I am one of those old players who it is best to roll over and ignore, in this era of diversity and inclusivity. In my mind, I am fighting to the bitter end a lost battle where I refuse to allow social changes impact a game, which has zero in common with real life.
The next printing of the PHB will not include a complete change to the core rules. It is not going to happen. You can relax now.
When 6e does happen at some point in the future, it will likely have character creation rules similar to what we will find in TCoE, but that won't be for a couple of years.
Or-here's another thought-say up front what rulesets/books you are and aren't allowing up front. Players are annoying you with their prebuilt characters? Welcome to the real world the rest of us are living in. That and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee.
And lastly, this is the second thread I've seen where you've zeroed in and jumped on Yurei first thing, and from the sound of it it seems that those aren't the only times either. Knock it off.
Mirroring a few other’s inquiry on this topic, I do wonder if the rules shown in the AL document are all there is to this new lineage system or if it’s just a more simplistic version meant to mesh better with AL’s more.....controlled play style.
Why don't use just have one table that services Tasha's rules and one that runs without them?
Because all the DM's will take drop-in's, space permitting at any particular table. Or if one of the DM's is sick, we will try to take on some of their regulars. My table is pretty steady, but I would say about once every 3rd session (these numbers are pre-Covid), I would have a drop-in, or a player from another table, basically someone not one of my reg's, who would be bringing their char to my table. The owner of the cafe is a great guy, and we all want the place to succeed, but every DM runs his table (yes, all the DM's are male) the way he wants to. But we have enough in common that we are reasonable flexibility with player mobility. These changes to char generation will blow that up.
There is not enough facepalm in the world for this shit...
VInce. Snetterton.
Listen to me.
I don't give a single tuna turd what you do with your own games at home. You want to outlaw every new class and species introduced since 2e? Go for it. You want to impose strict species/class limitations on your games? Have at it. You wanna tell your players that you've pregenerated characters for your campaign and they can use what you wrote or hit the highway? Do it up. If your players agree, you're golden. I have no business telling you how to run your own personal home games.
Stop ****ing trying to tell me how to run mine.
If you can't understand why some players would deeply appreciate more flexibility in character generation? Oh well, I clearly can't convince you and I honestly don't care to try anymore. Similarly, if you can't see how some of the default assumptions in Forgotten Realms lore are potentially unhelpful to folks who do not have the great good luxury of being a white cisgender male, again. I clearly can't convince you, and I don't care to try.
Your games are yours to run as you see fit. Use whichever edition you like, play whatever rules makes your table a happy place. I will never tell you otherwise. In turn, you can STOP telling everybody else that we're having our own fun wrong and we need to use your rules or nothing. I don't like your rules, and I will not have them at my table. That is just as much my right as a DM and a player as it is your right to tell Tasha's Cauldron to get the hell out of your house.
Knock it off. And quit riding my ass over it, while you're at it.
**
EDIT: Thank you, Jounichi. I appreciate you making that gesture. Yeah, I can let my tendency towards bombast run away with me at times. There are ways an elf could learn their traditional weaponry beyond the Forest Guardian model, but I do admit I prefer the idea of a character choosing their tools and learning. The entries for elves in a theoretical 6e PHB could list weapons and tools which are commonly associated with elven culture for those characters that want to lean into that culture - similarly with dwarves, gnomes, and everybody else - but a character could also lean away from that culture. And such a system would make it easier for alternate setting books like Eberron or Wildemount to change which options are 'traditional' for a given species in that world. I think it would make for a better game overall, and a better way for everybody to express their creativity and imagination.
And I equally don't care what you do at your own table. But I very much care when you carry on a campaign to get WOTC to change the rules to something that you prefer. I play in a location that has multiple simultaneous tables running (tables have their own regulars), plus we service drop-ins. So even though every DM's has their own set of house rules, but we are all pretty much on the same page. What is highly disruptive is when someone new walks in the door, and says " I have built this char using Tasha's rules", and then I have to say "No, go sit in the corner and rebuild your char using the 5e PHB rules, then you can join the game". No one likes that, but that is where this is heading.
Buddy, if you run the kind of game where players expect to build a character before even speaking to you, that really sounds like a you problem.
Normally I'd agree wholeheartedly, Saga. And in essence I still do. It sounds, however, like Vince is a DM for what kinda sounds like not-AL AL - a public play area where people come in to play D&D kinda whenever they feel like it, but without being bound by the rules and structure of Adventurer's League. In that specific, narrow instance I can understand the frustration with rules shifts.
The Cranky Old Man attitude can fly off a cliff though, as can the constant insinuations that anyone who agrees with the idea that 5e, D&D, and the tabletop hobby as a whole should try and be more inclusive and diverse are a bunch of social media cancel putzes. Furthermore, the idea that three points swinging one way or another or a few proficiencies moving around in a character sheet is going to Destroy Character Portability is kinda hard to credit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Frankly, I would not care one iota about this whole thing, except for even a blind man can see where this is heading. Tell me, when new PHB's are published (I have no real clue how often a new run of PHB's are published, but clearly it happens, given the errata additions/ corrections), what do you think they will have in the details for each species?
a. No mention of Tasha's at all?
b. The existing set of rules, plus a whole new section talking about these "optional" rules found in Tasha's.
c. Zero mention of the existing rules, and exclusively the new, supposedly optional Tasha rules.
Me, I can see where this is going, and the answer will be c.
I don't know if anyone will respond to that, but I surely won't. Talking already about 5.5/6e PHB is worrying about something you don't know anything about. If you prefer the original 5e phb rules, then don't allow Tasha's! Which is what I've been keep repeating.
Also I agree with the past posts that your posts are filled with venom. Everyone has their opinion and you should respect it.
I love that these changes are evoking so much discussion....honestly its what the hobby needs to grow.
I think, at most it will be presented in a sidebar along with the existing rules.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Let it be known that Adventurer's League has, has always had, and probably will always have, rules and restrictions that are entirely arbitrary and overly restrictive. Let it also be known that AL has absolutely zero bearing on the way home games play.
And now, let us go back to talking about Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, an entirely optional book with rulesets people are free to regard or disregard as they see fit.
Sigh.
They didn't make sweeping changes to the PHB for Xanathar's Guide, Vince. They're not gonna do it for Tasha's Cauldron. The next time an edition change happens? Yes, I absolutely expect this level of flexibility to be built in from the start, and for things like classic elf/dwarf cultural junk a'la Stonecunning to be moved into background rather than species. The rules in Tasha's Cauldron are not a New Default Standard; they're a slap patch hotfix for people who want that slap patch hotfix and a means of Wizards testing the waters and seeing what people think.
Are they going to redo the 5e PHB, to the point of drastically editing the content and layout? No. That's beyond the scope of errata, and errata is the only thing that gets changed in hardcopy reprints of the PHB.
Please do not contact or message me.
I wish I had high charisma like that. My English skills are terrible
You are stating that yes, you want to see the existing system abolished. Actually, that has been your established position from the get-go, and mine the opposite. What I am saying is that 6e is here, in Tasha's, and the next PHB will be the beginning of 6e. The announcement that this char building system will be the ONLY system in the next print is right around the corner. It is a fait accompli.
In your mind, I am one of those old players who it is best to roll over and ignore, in this era of diversity and inclusivity. In my mind, I am fighting to the bitter end a lost battle where I refuse to allow social changes impact a game, which has zero in common with real life.
I'm no stranger to having strong opinions or having a mouth that runs faster than my brain. Which maybe be why I came down so hard on Yurei. And for that, I'm sorry. And I was wrong to say she lacks imagination. She definitely has some, and it's good to see. I also went back a page to reread what I criticized and saw there were comments I missed. And there may have been some misunderstandings.
Regardless of what proficiencies your character starts with, there's a story to be told. It doesn't matter if you use the default statistics or the newer options presented in DDAL/Tasha's. And, for the sake of discussion, let's use Yurei's example of the elf street urchin. They could have learned all of them (Elf Weapon Training and Keen Senses) or none of them. Maybe a more experienced elf took them on for a bit and taught them how to control their Trance, like lucid dreaming. They could have picked up various proficiencies by reliving memories from several lifetimes. Or maybe a dwarf took them in and they learned something else (Dwarven Combat Training and Tool Proficiency). Or maybe an elf adventurer trained them up in their class at the same time and they learned their cultural proficiencies that way. The possibilities are limited only by your imagination.
Which is why I was so bothered by, "An elf who wasn't raised in a sylvan forest has no heckin' business carrying Elf Weapon Training." Heaven forbid anyone plays a plains-living, horse-riding elf of the Tairnadal tribes in northern Aerenal, or as one of the high elves of the Simic Combine in Ravnica. It's ignorant, prejudiced language.
.
..
...
OTL
There is not enough facepalm in the world for this shit...
VInce. Snetterton.
Listen to me.
I don't give a single tuna turd what you do with your own games at home. You want to outlaw every new class and species introduced since 2e? Go for it. You want to impose strict species/class limitations on your games? Have at it. You wanna tell your players that you've pregenerated characters for your campaign and they can use what you wrote or hit the highway? Do it up. If your players agree, you're golden. I have no business telling you how to run your own personal home games.
Stop ******* trying to tell me how to run mine.
If you can't understand why some players would deeply appreciate more flexibility in character generation? Oh well, I clearly can't convince you and I honestly don't care to try anymore. Similarly, if you can't see how some of the default assumptions in Forgotten Realms lore are potentially unhelpful to folks who do not have the great good luxury of being a white cisgender male, again. I clearly can't convince you, and I don't care to try.
Your games are yours to run as you see fit. Use whichever edition you like, play whatever rules makes your table a happy place. I will never tell you otherwise. In turn, you can STOP telling everybody else that we're having our own fun wrong and we need to use your rules or nothing. I don't like your rules, and I will not have them at my table. That is just as much my right as a DM and a player as it is your right to tell Tasha's Cauldron to get the hell out of your house.
Knock it off. And quit riding my ass over it, while you're at it.
**
EDIT: Thank you, Jounichi. I appreciate you making that gesture. Yeah, I can let my tendency towards bombast run away with me at times. There are ways an elf could learn their traditional weaponry beyond the Forest Guardian model, but I do admit I prefer the idea of a character choosing their tools and learning. The entries for elves in a theoretical 6e PHB could list weapons and tools which are commonly associated with elven culture for those characters that want to lean into that culture - similarly with dwarves, gnomes, and everybody else - but a character could also lean away from that culture. And such a system would make it easier for alternate setting books like Eberron or Wildemount to change which options are 'traditional' for a given species in that world. I think it would make for a better game overall, and a better way for everybody to express their creativity and imagination.
Please do not contact or message me.
The nice thing about this rule set is that it makes every single one of those choices possible. If your elf urchin still learned elven weapons, you can choose those for proficiency. If you want to make a Lord of the Rings style elf character, this ruleset still allows that. It also make non LotR elves possible as well.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
And I equally don't care what you do at your own table. But I very much care when you carry on a campaign to get WOTC to change the rules to something that you prefer. I play in a location that has multiple simultaneous tables running (tables have their own regulars), plus we service drop-ins. So even though every DM's has their own set of house rules, but we are all pretty much on the same page. What is highly disruptive is when someone new walks in the door, and says " I have built this char using Tasha's rules", and then I have to say "No, go sit in the corner and rebuild your char using the 5e PHB rules, then you can join the game". No one likes that, but that is where this is heading.
Why don't use just have one table that services Tasha's rules and one that runs without them?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
The next printing of the PHB will not include a complete change to the core rules. It is not going to happen. You can relax now.
When 6e does happen at some point in the future, it will likely have character creation rules similar to what we will find in TCoE, but that won't be for a couple of years.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Or-here's another thought-say up front what rulesets/books you are and aren't allowing up front. Players are annoying you with their prebuilt characters? Welcome to the real world the rest of us are living in. That and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee.
And lastly, this is the second thread I've seen where you've zeroed in and jumped on Yurei first thing, and from the sound of it it seems that those aren't the only times either. Knock it off.
Oh boy this thread has been busy.
Mirroring a few other’s inquiry on this topic, I do wonder if the rules shown in the AL document are all there is to this new lineage system or if it’s just a more simplistic version meant to mesh better with AL’s more.....controlled play style.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Because all the DM's will take drop-in's, space permitting at any particular table. Or if one of the DM's is sick, we will try to take on some of their regulars. My table is pretty steady, but I would say about once every 3rd session (these numbers are pre-Covid), I would have a drop-in, or a player from another table, basically someone not one of my reg's, who would be bringing their char to my table. The owner of the cafe is a great guy, and we all want the place to succeed, but every DM runs his table (yes, all the DM's are male) the way he wants to. But we have enough in common that we are reasonable flexibility with player mobility. These changes to char generation will blow that up.
Buddy, if you run the kind of game where players expect to build a character before even speaking to you, that really sounds like a you problem.
Normally I'd agree wholeheartedly, Saga. And in essence I still do. It sounds, however, like Vince is a DM for what kinda sounds like not-AL AL - a public play area where people come in to play D&D kinda whenever they feel like it, but without being bound by the rules and structure of Adventurer's League. In that specific, narrow instance I can understand the frustration with rules shifts.
The Cranky Old Man attitude can fly off a cliff though, as can the constant insinuations that anyone who agrees with the idea that 5e, D&D, and the tabletop hobby as a whole should try and be more inclusive and diverse are a bunch of social media cancel putzes. Furthermore, the idea that three points swinging one way or another or a few proficiencies moving around in a character sheet is going to Destroy Character Portability is kinda hard to credit.
Please do not contact or message me.