You impose a maximum Strength score of 16 on Small creatures, with absolutely no counterbalancing positive features to go with it. You are effectively imposing a severe Disadvantage/Hindrance on any Small character - they are never permitted to possess a Strength score above 'Mediocre' - without offering them anything of any value in turn. That is horrible game building.
In my absolute best Senator Gracchus from Gladiator voice.
"Perhaps you'd be so good to teach us a bit more about game building and game design. Out of your own extensive experience.."
One doesn't need to have experience in design or building to feel, discuss or argue those points. Playing different systems and having one's own preferences gives a good amount of that.
It's fallacious to say one must have experience in X to be critical of it. It helps, especially if you're talking about the whys etc., but it's not necessary.
Um...yes, having experience in X is ABSOLUTELY essential to be critical of it. There is this thing in the real world called expertise. People go to school, study hard, and work at something for long periods of time to discuss it critically. With your logic, you can be critical about the research on the Higgs Boson. because you read some article called "The God Particle" in some magazine.
I don't even remember what the original post was discussing, but I am pretty sure we have all strayed from it.
Not really. This is pretty much 11 pages of going back and forth on the same basic points.
Basically, yeah. There's folks who believe that freedom of choice trumps adherence to code (or that a species is defined by its lore, history, and position within the world more than by its mechanical abilities), there's folks who believe that characters diverging wildly from their species norms breaks verisimilitude and the story of the world, and neither of those groups are really willing to budge. It appears to mostly just be a way to pass the day at this point.
I wish there was a “like” button for both of these posts. For the most part everyone has pretty much stayed on topic. I would have stopped coming back awhile ago but I’m actually enjoying the discussion.
That is one of the reasons I prefer a much more rigid system. It is easier for a DM to say 'Yes, I agree, we will make a house rule providing an exception to *this*' than it is for a DM to say 'Yes I know that combination is allowed under the rules, but it is unbalanced and I will not allow it.'
That's the opposite of my experience. It's a lot easier to rule things out than to rule them in.
This has been my experience as well. especially when working within the restrictive system limitations of an online tool such as DDB (y'know, the service whose forum we're having this argument on). More than once, I have been given the ultimatum "if you can make it functional on DDB, I'll allow it/consider it."
Vetoing something in DDB is as simple as the DM having enough of a spine to say "Not in my game, sorry". Ruling something in requires many dozens of hours of awful frustration in the homebrew editor trying to figure out what the magic spell is to convince it to give you what you bloody want.
EDIT:
And because the DDB foprum's quotation system is as big a nightmare as their homebrew editor, the old-fashioned way:
"Um...yes, having experience in X is ABSOLUTELY essential to be critical of it. There is this thing in the real world called expertise. People go to school, study hard, and work at something for long periods of time to discuss it critically. With your logic, you can be critical about the research on the Higgs Boson. because you read some article called "The God Particle" in some magazine." ~Vince Snetterton
If you believe that? Truly believe that one must be an acxcredited master in one's field in order to offer criticism within that field?
Bu-bye. Please keep your opinion to yourself because you're no more an Acreddited Game Designer than I am - and because the people we are at least loosely assuming are accredited game designers, i.e. J-Craw and his cohorts at Wizards, primarily agree with me, not you. After all, are they or are they not printing rules in Tasha's Allspice Soup Pot allowing players to swap around their species attribute bonuses and some of their cultural ribbon abilities?
Guess that means everyone who believes that's a terrible idea better just pipe down and deal w/it, because the Expert Game Designers (insert every possible caveat here) hold the opposite opinion, and unless you're just as much of an expert as they are, you have no right to criticize that decision.
That's the opposite of my experience. It's a lot easier to rule things out than to rule them in.
Depends on the table and the players. Many players do not like having things "taken away from them." They are rarely unhappy if you give them new options the rules don't usually allow.
It's a testament to how well balanced D&D actually is that that style even sort of works. For most RPGs, "all PCs must be approved by the GM" is necessary to have a functional game (degenerate cases with point systems often wind up along the lines of "I can destroy the universe with a starting PC").
@Yurei: I would say that within the confines of D&D, anyone who has played for a length of time, and DM"ed, IS considered an expert on the mechanics of the game. And yes, in the real world, unless you are an expert in a field, your opinion is worthless.
Inside the confines of D&D, there are ample cases of the designers coming up with awful ideas. The very fact that the game is on 5th edition is proof of that.
Um...yes, having experience in X is ABSOLUTELY essential to be critical of it. There is this thing in the real world called expertise. People go to school, study hard, and work at something for long periods of time to discuss it critically. With your logic, you can be critical about the research on the Higgs Boson. because you read some article called "The God Particle" in some magazine.
I don’t know where you live, but where I live we have the right to be as critical as we want of anything we want even if we have read less than the title of the article. It’s actually a very important law in our country, and the highest most acknowledged right we have.
The criticisms of those with less expertise may have less weight to them, but I will still defend anyone’s right to be critical. Without that right, it opens the possibility of silencing those whose criticisms hold great weight, and that is when everything goes to Sugar Honey Ice Tea.
Fair ‘nuff?
PS- I can also attest to Yurei having a very good comprehension of game design. Their one of the best non-professional’s I’ve encountered. Picks up the most intricate nuances. That’s why they’re such a good “build” designer. If Yurei chose to pursue a career in game design, they would most likely do well, provided they found someone else to be the face of the party.
@Yurei: I would say that within the confines of D&D, anyone who has played for a length of time, and DM"ed, IS considered an expert on the mechanics of the game. And yes, in the real world, unless you are an expert in a field, your opinion is worthless.
Inside the confines of D&D, there are ample cases of the designers coming up with awful ideas. The very fact that the game is on 5th edition is proof of that.
There's a major difference in being an expert in a field with verifiable facts versus something much more subjective like game design, which is very eye of the beholder on what is designed well (which usually correlates to what one finds fun - which is super subjective).
Would you consider yourself an expert in D&D, perchance?
And be honest. Modern society supports disabled people and disabled rights 110%, which is why the Paralympics exists. Would there be a Paralympics under Nazism? No. Under Communism? Nope. Our modern day post-Christian ethics are the fairest in all of history, with more support for individualism than there ever has been before. Disabled rights are celebrated, not frowned upon or dismissed. The only mindset which is 'stupid' here is that biology is nonexistent.
I had to come back to this post and challenge a couple of misapprehensions. Now, as you believe that society is '110%' behind disabled people, I going to take a wild stab in the dark that you don't happen to have a noticeable disability yourself? People who do will be only too keen to tell you about the hurtful comments and behaviour by some members of the general public, the problems with accessibility, and the lack of consideration or representation by society. It's even worse if you're unlucky enough to live in a country lacking strong anti-discrimination regulations or without universal healthcare. We are nowhere near where you seem to think we are as a society.
As for the odd anti-communist comments, why on Earth would you make that assumption? China, the posterchild for communism (in before 'No True Scotsman' goalpost-moving) hosted a Paralympics just 12 years ago, and they value and support their disabled athletes so well that they have won the Paralympics medal table by a huge margin every single time since 2004!
So, let's go a bit back. Many people have said that this is "pandering for min-maxers/munchkins" or some other claim like that.
First, has WotC ever said anything along the lines of "Okay, Powergamers! Throw your money right at us! This book as everything you need to crap on your DM's game by being unbeatable because now you get the ungodly ability to give yourself a +2 to ANY freaking ability score instead of being restricted by the stupid race you chose before! The game now is only specifically designed for you, and screw everyone that has an undying hatred of anyone who has a higher DPR than 13!"
Seriously, what the absolute hell, guys? Even if this was "pandering" to the "Munchkins" why in the world is that a bad thing. Some people like playing differently than your playstyle. Also, this is an optional rule, so effing ignore it if you don't like the system! You're the DM, this changes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for those who choose to not use this system.
Second, shut up about the "pandering" nonsense already. Letting other people play a certain way that they prefer is not pandering, because pandering denotes that one playstyle is less than anyone else's. This is freaking incorrect. No one plays D&D wrong unless their table isn't having fun because of the playstyle. If a group likes being murderhobos that work together to destroy every creature in the multiverse, that is not a wrong way to play D&D if they're all having fun. Also, besides the fact that you're wrong, the fact that you're so vehemently wrong about this leads you to start offending others by saying that the way we're playing is incorrect. Freaking play how you want, and ignore everyone else's tables if they're having fun.
Replace the word "pandering" with "making official rules", please. Sure, we could homebrew before, but that wasn't supported on sites like this one, or in Adventurer's League, or any tables that reject all homebrew rules.
Third, we're not minmaxers because we want to at least be good at what our class is supposed to do. Wizards are supposed to cast spells, Barbarians are supposed to attack with strength. Sure, a halfling will never be as good a barbarian as a half-orc with these changes, and I personally am okay with that. They can still dual wield longswords or something like that, and still can be fun, decent characters.
Call the group of people who want these changes "people who like playing the game differently".
So, finally, the correct way to talk about this change is "Wizards of the Coast is making official rules for people who like playing the game differently."
I never played any previous editions of D&D, and I don't know what traumatic experiences you older folks had playing 3e or whatever edition scarred you into your deep hatred of powergamers. I know that I like making powerful characters, because D&D is supposed to be a game where the characters are the heroes that save the world. I also like numbers and math, so that helps me play in the way that I like.
Please be more respectful to people who actually enjoy playing the game and are excited for the new change, because it allows us to play a certain way. I like playing strong characters, and I like picking races that don't punish me for playing a different way than the race is intended. My playstyle isn't wrong just because you personally don't like that way of playing. You're bigoted if you don't agree with that (and that's not meant to offend anyone, it's literally a fact. Google the definition if you disagree).
THANK you, Third. I am a much happier ghost after reading that. Hopefully your words land where mine have failed, but even if they don't, I heartily appreciate you offering them.
@Yurei: I would say that within the confines of D&D, anyone who has played for a length of time, and DM"ed, IS considered an expert on the mechanics of the game. And yes, in the real world, unless you are an expert in a field, your opinion is worthless.
Inside the confines of D&D, there are ample cases of the designers coming up with awful ideas. The very fact that the game is on 5th edition is proof of that.
I've only been playing D&D for 3 years, and D&D 5e is the only TTRPG that I've ever played. I'm an expert at D&D mechanics, and I don't need 10,000 hours to become one. That's the way my brain works, and because I'm a quick learner, that does not make my opinion worthless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
"I want to play a Halfling Barbarian but am too weak. This is just not fair. I want the "optional rules" that allow me a 17 starting Strength. Wow, I now have that Strength. Thanks WOTC. Hey, wait a minute, I can't wield a Great Sword as well as Medium class char. That is not fair. I have the same Strength. I demand that rule that demeans smaller stature creatures be removed from the game."
No way, no how, these rules will EVER be seen at my table.
There is a difference between weight and size. Something can weigh not a lot and be incredibly hard for one person to carry because the size of it makes it unwieldy. And as i stated, with rolling stats, something that has been in the game the whole time, you can already have a small race character with a starting 20 str (mountain dwarves get a +2 str). I don't remember anyone ever complaining that they don't get to wield great axes? Straight out of the book " A heavy weapon's size and bulk..." AKA - this restriction has NOTHING to do with a characters ability score. a 75" TV only weighs 40 lbs, but go ahead and try to lift one by yourself.
I like how you are assuming there will be some huge uproar that no one has ever had and that you are saying that a rule won't be allowed at your table before you even know what that rule is. None of us has any idea how this will actually function, we are all just guessing and to say you won't allow something before you even know how it works is naive .
I have no idea what game you are playing, but Dwarves ARE MEDIUM, not small. (page 20, PHB) So you entire argument is based on something utterly wrong. And as for my naivete, I have been around long enough to see what happens with "optional" rules, and how they become the only rules. So yeah, I will hold the line against this silliness as long as I can.
So they are, I was thinking about the 25ft movement I guess, regardless, you can still have an 18 with rolled stats and if the "optional" rules becomes the only rule anyone uses, then the original rule wasn't very good was it?
Uh no...what it means is that if you roll for stats (already a terrible way to do create a char), and add a +2 to a stat, that has zero to do with any species specific bonuses / limitations, and all about "I am not having fun planning char and deciding on tradeoffs, because I want everything, and I want it now."
I don't see a single person here suggesting the following, because it is:
a. Dumb
b. Blows away the entire premise of these stupid new rules
but here goes:
You want to play by these optional rules? OK, no problem. BUT, you roll every stat in order, and you don't get to switch them around. First stat you roll is Str, then Con, and down the line. If roll a 12 for Str, you are stuck with it, but you are welcome to add your +2 to it. So your Halfling Barbarian is starting with a 14 Str. Deal with it. You want to play this Str based Barbarian? Great. Guess what? The vagaries of his imaginary biology says he was born with a Str of 12.
Except no one is saying you HAVE to roll for stats, I was simply stating that if you roll, even without a modifier you have a potentially great skill. Using point buy you can take something from a 14 to a 16. I am also confused by what you are even trying to say here.. So your suggesting that in order to use these new rules that we, again, have no idea what they are, if you are a table that rolls for stats you have to roll them in order?
And this additional requirement is because you don't like the idea of putting points wherever you want?
I think the issue is one of questioning the definition of 'good.' One can be good without being the absolute best. One can even be great without being the best technically. Examples in the music world in particular are too numerous to mention, but Dylan would be an obvious example. Despite all the jokes about his mumbling rather than singing, his music is still considered brilliant. There are much better technical musicians, but that does not mean they are better entertainers or have had anywhere near the same impact.
Did I say you had to be the best? I said you had to be good, and by that, I meant "on par with other characters". If an orc Wizard's highest ability score at level 1 is 17 for Int, they are good in comparison to the Kobold Monk who has a 17 in Dex. "Good" depends on the table you're playing at.
The biggest risk I see (and at least some others seem to agree) is that too open a system is harder to balance, especially for inexperienced DM's. And as for the counter 'Well they do not have to use this,' experienced DM's who are better able to handle more open systems can already do so, without needing any formal rule. As such, intended as such or not, such openness feels more like an attempt to pull something over on inexperienced DM's than any more legitimate request. That is the impression it gives.
It isn't any more open if you as a DM chooses not to have it be open. If you're not ready as a DM to add this "complexity" to the game, don't add it. It's as simple as that, and there's no rebuttal that can prove my point wrong here. If you like it, include it. If you don't, don't. It's freaking as simple as that.
Oh and telling people that if they do not agree with you they are bigoted is hypocrisy.
If you think that you can play D&D wrong and still have fun, you're a bigot. I'm not saying you have to like the way I like to play or trying to force my playstyle onto you (which many of you anti-powergamers actually have done), I'm saying that if you think that this is "pandering to munchkins" you are a bigot, and I detailed why in my post above.
Um...yes, having experience in X is ABSOLUTELY essential to be critical of it. There is this thing in the real world called expertise. People go to school, study hard, and work at something for long periods of time to discuss it critically. With your logic, you can be critical about the research on the Higgs Boson. because you read some article called "The God Particle" in some magazine.
Technical analysis of RPGs is possible but doesn't actually get done by game designers (statistical analysis does sometimes get done by players), but the problem with game balance discussions is that you have to decide what balance even means and what your objectives are, and at least some ways of answering that question involve market research.
For example, consider the gnome barbarian vs the half-orc barbarian.
It is a relatively simple statistical problem to compute how effective each build is at the primary goal of 'hitting things really hard'. Spoilers: the half-orc is better at it.
It is a considerably more complicated problem to compute the value of secondary goals. I mean, "speak with small beasts" is obviously worth something, but what?
You can use revealed preferences (look at how many people actually select an option; if it's under-selected or over-selected, there's a balance problem), but that requires information about what people actually do. You can do things like analyzing DDB characters for what sort of distribution comes out, but there are lots of people who just don't get sampled.
Separately, you have to decide whether something is a goal. I mean, if hypothetically 30% of barbarian PCs are half-orcs and 3% are gnomes, is that actually a problem?
MMOs have access to much better data than any RPG can dream of (it's not really that hard to create a logging system that figures out what portion of characters in what sort of content use what type of build) and they still struggle. Honestly, while there's some disputes about game balance facts, for the most part this thread is still stuck on the topic of "what do we want the PC race system to actually accomplish", and that's generally out of scope for 'expertise' -- once you decide what you want, the expert can help you figure out how to get there, but figuring out what you want in the first place isn't game design.
You clearly don’t understand what bigotry is. I can disagree with you without it being bigotry. Otherwise all arguments are bigotry including yours. Since you said to Google it, the definition is: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Just because I disagree or stand up for my beliefs doesn’t mean I’m intolerant of you. It just means I choose to hold on to my beliefs.
@Yurei: I would say that within the confines of D&D, anyone who has played for a length of time, and DM"ed, IS considered an expert on the mechanics of the game. And yes, in the real world, unless you are an expert in a field, your opinion is worthless.
Inside the confines of D&D, there are ample cases of the designers coming up with awful ideas. The very fact that the game is on 5th edition is proof of that.
I've only been playing D&D for 3 years, and D&D 5e is the only TTRPG that I've ever played. I'm an expert at 5E D&D mechanics, and I don't need 10,000 hours to become one. That's the way my brain works, and because I'm a quick learner, that does not make my opinion worthless.
There is a difference between a right to be critical, which is an absolute right, and a right to have your criticism on any basis other than 'this is what I like' taken seriously. But regardless, everyone has a right to be at least heard.
Fixed it for you.
Yurei has the right to voice their opinion. They have no control over how seriously anyone takes it. I take their opinion very seriously. You maybe not so much.
I don’t have to agree with their opinion, and neither do you. But neither one of us has the right to tell them they have no right to voice their criticisms.
Just something random that involves stuff brought up in this thread:
Why do some people think that a halfling cannot be RIPPED! According to square cube law, (I am not an expert in any way on this) should be able to wield bigger weaponry than that of a Goliath.
You could also make a STRONK halfling by saying that they have more muscle mass than average of something like that. You could boost a creature’s dex, by saying something similar, however where their muscles are more like that of a snake where they can do quick movements with them because that’s how the creature has used their muscles and their body has adapted to that. Con? Make them healthy creatures or say they underwent training by testing their bodies to increase vitality or something like that. Int? Make the creature grow up in an environment where they used brains over other things. Wis? Make them naturally aware of their surroundings by having the creature grow up in a scenario where they had to have. Charisma? Similar arguenment to INT.
I do understand the arguement of “That’s why you choose what ability scores (not racial modifiers) go into specific categories, but the race just adds onto that of what you choose.” And that is a very solid argument, but hear this:
Why would your innate evolution kick in during your life when you are thrusted into scenarios where you don’t need them and never needed them. They would be suppressed and replaced by the traits that your body has adapted to to use. You could think of your ability scores you roll or use point buy to get as proficiencies you have acquired and has made you who you are primarily, and the ability score increase via race as what your body has adapted to it’s surroundings to obtain.
I’ve already stated my opinion previously in the thread if I will use this new system or not depending on if it’s balanced or not. I just wanted to point this out.
I'm not gonna get into my design chops or bona fides here. Suffice it to say that I'm a private individual with design-y hobbies and have been for some time, and if that and the words I write aren't enough for you, then sorry but not too sorry.
Regardless.
As I said to Vince, the people who do have the market data, the DDB facts, and the published game design training and experience are introducing rules to rejigger species. As Pantagruel very relevantly said, game design is not a matter of crunching numbers but of sculpting ideas and feel. Especially in the tabletop space, which is only as bound by hard-coded mechanical rules as its players allow it to be.
For a great many players, it simply doesn't feel good to be told that the cool idea for an offbeat, funky character you want to try is mechanically weaker than a more conventional build. It doesn't matter if nameless guys on the Internet tell you that this weakness doesn't matter and you should feel free to play your weak, offbeat character anyways. It still doesn't feel good. It's a pain point in the game's design, especially these days with issues of inequality so rife in popular media. Part of the job of game design is identifying and eliminating any pain points they can get away with.
Some pain points are necessary - it doesn't feel good for your character to die and disappear either, but without that risk much of the rest of the game loses its impact. If you cannot lose, you also cannot truly win, and so eliminating that pain point significantly harms the game's potential to engage people and get them invested in the story. But this particular pain point does not have that same load-bearing property to it. Not for most folks, anyways. Nothing about this pain point sabotages or short-circuits the rest of the game if it's ameliorated. The idea that adjusting the mechanical bits of a character's species traits Destroys Species Identity is simply not true - if that were objectively true, or even just broadly true, then people would be broadly rallying against it. But "species" in these sorts of games is typically defined more by the species' background lore, their culture, and their position and relationships in the world than by their mechanical crunch. In point of fact, the crunch is supposed to come distinctly after the lore and be used specifically to reinforce that lore.
Nothing in this Lineage system changes the lore of a D&D species. All it does is allow a codified, Wizards-approved way for exceptions to the rules to be made. That "Wizards-approved" bit is very important for many tables, and for all those DMs who hate and/or fear homebrew solutions of any sort and refuse to tolerate anything at their table that isn't in an Official Book. These rules are for those people. J-Craw has often said that he does things like this, writes rules such as this Lineage system and the Spell Versatility rule from the CFVs UA, as a gentle reminder to DMs that they should feel free to unclench a little and let their players bend the rules, if by doing so they can bend far enough to find the fun.
So...unclench a little. Let people have their fun. If you can't tolerate players who don't play spot-on perfect species/class/background combinations at your table, then disallow the Lineage rules. But for heck's sake, STOP telling the rest of us we're bad horrible awful terrible people for being eager to see what this latest DM's Guide to Unclenching brings with it, hm?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Um...yes, having experience in X is ABSOLUTELY essential to be critical of it. There is this thing in the real world called expertise. People go to school, study hard, and work at something for long periods of time to discuss it critically. With your logic, you can be critical about the research on the Higgs Boson. because you read some article called "The God Particle" in some magazine.
I wish there was a “like” button for both of these posts. For the most part everyone has pretty much stayed on topic. I would have stopped coming back awhile ago but I’m actually enjoying the discussion.
This has been my experience as well. especially when working within the restrictive system limitations of an online tool such as DDB (y'know, the service whose forum we're having this argument on). More than once, I have been given the ultimatum "if you can make it functional on DDB, I'll allow it/consider it."
Vetoing something in DDB is as simple as the DM having enough of a spine to say "Not in my game, sorry". Ruling something in requires many dozens of hours of awful frustration in the homebrew editor trying to figure out what the magic spell is to convince it to give you what you bloody want.
EDIT:
And because the DDB foprum's quotation system is as big a nightmare as their homebrew editor, the old-fashioned way:
"Um...yes, having experience in X is ABSOLUTELY essential to be critical of it. There is this thing in the real world called expertise. People go to school, study hard, and work at something for long periods of time to discuss it critically. With your logic, you can be critical about the research on the Higgs Boson. because you read some article called "The God Particle" in some magazine."
~Vince Snetterton
If you believe that? Truly believe that one must be an acxcredited master in one's field in order to offer criticism within that field?
Bu-bye. Please keep your opinion to yourself because you're no more an Acreddited Game Designer than I am - and because the people we are at least loosely assuming are accredited game designers, i.e. J-Craw and his cohorts at Wizards, primarily agree with me, not you. After all, are they or are they not printing rules in Tasha's Allspice Soup Pot allowing players to swap around their species attribute bonuses and some of their cultural ribbon abilities?
Guess that means everyone who believes that's a terrible idea better just pipe down and deal w/it, because the Expert Game Designers (insert every possible caveat here) hold the opposite opinion, and unless you're just as much of an expert as they are, you have no right to criticize that decision.
Sayonara, Vince-kun.
Please do not contact or message me.
Me too.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's a testament to how well balanced D&D actually is that that style even sort of works. For most RPGs, "all PCs must be approved by the GM" is necessary to have a functional game (degenerate cases with point systems often wind up along the lines of "I can destroy the universe with a starting PC").
@Yurei: I would say that within the confines of D&D, anyone who has played for a length of time, and DM"ed, IS considered an expert on the mechanics of the game. And yes, in the real world, unless you are an expert in a field, your opinion is worthless.
Inside the confines of D&D, there are ample cases of the designers coming up with awful ideas. The very fact that the game is on 5th edition is proof of that.
I don’t know where you live, but where I live we have the right to be as critical as we want of anything we want even if we have read less than the title of the article. It’s actually a very important law in our country, and the highest most acknowledged right we have.
The criticisms of those with less expertise may have less weight to them, but I will still defend anyone’s right to be critical. Without that right, it opens the possibility of silencing those whose criticisms hold great weight, and that is when everything goes to Sugar Honey Ice Tea.
Fair ‘nuff?
PS- I can also attest to Yurei having a very good comprehension of game design. Their one of the best non-professional’s I’ve encountered. Picks up the most intricate nuances. That’s why they’re such a good “build” designer. If Yurei chose to pursue a career in game design, they would most likely do well, provided they found someone else to be the face of the party.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There's a major difference in being an expert in a field with verifiable facts versus something much more subjective like game design, which is very eye of the beholder on what is designed well (which usually correlates to what one finds fun - which is super subjective).
Would you consider yourself an expert in D&D, perchance?
I had to come back to this post and challenge a couple of misapprehensions. Now, as you believe that society is '110%' behind disabled people, I going to take a wild stab in the dark that you don't happen to have a noticeable disability yourself? People who do will be only too keen to tell you about the hurtful comments and behaviour by some members of the general public, the problems with accessibility, and the lack of consideration or representation by society. It's even worse if you're unlucky enough to live in a country lacking strong anti-discrimination regulations or without universal healthcare. We are nowhere near where you seem to think we are as a society.
As for the odd anti-communist comments, why on Earth would you make that assumption? China, the posterchild for communism (in before 'No True Scotsman' goalpost-moving) hosted a Paralympics just 12 years ago, and they value and support their disabled athletes so well that they have won the Paralympics medal table by a huge margin every single time since 2004!
Okay, all caught up now. That took awhile.
So, let's go a bit back. Many people have said that this is "pandering for min-maxers/munchkins" or some other claim like that.
First, has WotC ever said anything along the lines of "Okay, Powergamers! Throw your money right at us! This book as everything you need to crap on your DM's game by being unbeatable because now you get the ungodly ability to give yourself a +2 to ANY freaking ability score instead of being restricted by the stupid race you chose before! The game now is only specifically designed for you, and screw everyone that has an undying hatred of anyone who has a higher DPR than 13!"
Seriously, what the absolute hell, guys? Even if this was "pandering" to the "Munchkins" why in the world is that a bad thing. Some people like playing differently than your playstyle. Also, this is an optional rule, so effing ignore it if you don't like the system! You're the DM, this changes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for those who choose to not use this system.
Second, shut up about the "pandering" nonsense already. Letting other people play a certain way that they prefer is not pandering, because pandering denotes that one playstyle is less than anyone else's. This is freaking incorrect. No one plays D&D wrong unless their table isn't having fun because of the playstyle. If a group likes being murderhobos that work together to destroy every creature in the multiverse, that is not a wrong way to play D&D if they're all having fun. Also, besides the fact that you're wrong, the fact that you're so vehemently wrong about this leads you to start offending others by saying that the way we're playing is incorrect. Freaking play how you want, and ignore everyone else's tables if they're having fun.
Replace the word "pandering" with "making official rules", please. Sure, we could homebrew before, but that wasn't supported on sites like this one, or in Adventurer's League, or any tables that reject all homebrew rules.
Third, we're not minmaxers because we want to at least be good at what our class is supposed to do. Wizards are supposed to cast spells, Barbarians are supposed to attack with strength. Sure, a halfling will never be as good a barbarian as a half-orc with these changes, and I personally am okay with that. They can still dual wield longswords or something like that, and still can be fun, decent characters.
Call the group of people who want these changes "people who like playing the game differently".
So, finally, the correct way to talk about this change is "Wizards of the Coast is making official rules for people who like playing the game differently."
I never played any previous editions of D&D, and I don't know what traumatic experiences you older folks had playing 3e or whatever edition scarred you into your deep hatred of powergamers. I know that I like making powerful characters, because D&D is supposed to be a game where the characters are the heroes that save the world. I also like numbers and math, so that helps me play in the way that I like.
Please be more respectful to people who actually enjoy playing the game and are excited for the new change, because it allows us to play a certain way. I like playing strong characters, and I like picking races that don't punish me for playing a different way than the race is intended. My playstyle isn't wrong just because you personally don't like that way of playing. You're bigoted if you don't agree with that (and that's not meant to offend anyone, it's literally a fact. Google the definition if you disagree).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
THANK you, Third. I am a much happier ghost after reading that. Hopefully your words land where mine have failed, but even if they don't, I heartily appreciate you offering them.
Please do not contact or message me.
I've only been playing D&D for 3 years, and D&D 5e is the only TTRPG that I've ever played. I'm an expert at D&D mechanics, and I don't need 10,000 hours to become one. That's the way my brain works, and because I'm a quick learner, that does not make my opinion worthless.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Except no one is saying you HAVE to roll for stats, I was simply stating that if you roll, even without a modifier you have a potentially great skill. Using point buy you can take something from a 14 to a 16. I am also confused by what you are even trying to say here.. So your suggesting that in order to use these new rules that we, again, have no idea what they are, if you are a table that rolls for stats you have to roll them in order?
And this additional requirement is because you don't like the idea of putting points wherever you want?
Did I say you had to be the best? I said you had to be good, and by that, I meant "on par with other characters". If an orc Wizard's highest ability score at level 1 is 17 for Int, they are good in comparison to the Kobold Monk who has a 17 in Dex. "Good" depends on the table you're playing at.
It isn't any more open if you as a DM chooses not to have it be open. If you're not ready as a DM to add this "complexity" to the game, don't add it. It's as simple as that, and there's no rebuttal that can prove my point wrong here. If you like it, include it. If you don't, don't. It's freaking as simple as that.
If you think that you can play D&D wrong and still have fun, you're a bigot. I'm not saying you have to like the way I like to play or trying to force my playstyle onto you (which many of you anti-powergamers actually have done), I'm saying that if you think that this is "pandering to munchkins" you are a bigot, and I detailed why in my post above.
Pointing out bigotry =/= hypocrisy or bigotry.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Technical analysis of RPGs is possible but doesn't actually get done by game designers (statistical analysis does sometimes get done by players), but the problem with game balance discussions is that you have to decide what balance even means and what your objectives are, and at least some ways of answering that question involve market research.
For example, consider the gnome barbarian vs the half-orc barbarian.
MMOs have access to much better data than any RPG can dream of (it's not really that hard to create a logging system that figures out what portion of characters in what sort of content use what type of build) and they still struggle. Honestly, while there's some disputes about game balance facts, for the most part this thread is still stuck on the topic of "what do we want the PC race system to actually accomplish", and that's generally out of scope for 'expertise' -- once you decide what you want, the expert can help you figure out how to get there, but figuring out what you want in the first place isn't game design.
You clearly don’t understand what bigotry is. I can disagree with you without it being bigotry. Otherwise all arguments are bigotry including yours. Since you said to Google it, the definition is: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Just because I disagree or stand up for my beliefs doesn’t mean I’m intolerant of you. It just means I choose to hold on to my beliefs.
Fixed that for you.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
Fixed it for you.
Yurei has the right to voice their opinion. They have no control over how seriously anyone takes it. I take their opinion very seriously. You maybe not so much.
I don’t have to agree with their opinion, and neither do you. But neither one of us has the right to tell them they have no right to voice their criticisms.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Wait. Lemme say something:
Just something random that involves stuff brought up in this thread:
Why do some people think that a halfling cannot be RIPPED! According to square cube law, (I am not an expert in any way on this) should be able to wield bigger weaponry than that of a Goliath.
You could also make a STRONK halfling by saying that they have more muscle mass than average of something like that. You could boost a creature’s dex, by saying something similar, however where their muscles are more like that of a snake where they can do quick movements with them because that’s how the creature has used their muscles and their body has adapted to that. Con? Make them healthy creatures or say they underwent training by testing their bodies to increase vitality or something like that. Int? Make the creature grow up in an environment where they used brains over other things. Wis? Make them naturally aware of their surroundings by having the creature grow up in a scenario where they had to have. Charisma? Similar arguenment to INT.
I do understand the arguement of “That’s why you choose what ability scores (not racial modifiers) go into specific categories, but the race just adds onto that of what you choose.” And that is a very solid argument, but hear this:
Why would your innate evolution kick in during your life when you are thrusted into scenarios where you don’t need them and never needed them. They would be suppressed and replaced by the traits that your body has adapted to to use. You could think of your ability scores you roll or use point buy to get as proficiencies you have acquired and has made you who you are primarily, and the ability score increase via race as what your body has adapted to it’s surroundings to obtain.
I’ve already stated my opinion previously in the thread if I will use this new system or not depending on if it’s balanced or not. I just wanted to point this out.
I'm not gonna get into my design chops or bona fides here. Suffice it to say that I'm a private individual with design-y hobbies and have been for some time, and if that and the words I write aren't enough for you, then sorry but not too sorry.
Regardless.
As I said to Vince, the people who do have the market data, the DDB facts, and the published game design training and experience are introducing rules to rejigger species. As Pantagruel very relevantly said, game design is not a matter of crunching numbers but of sculpting ideas and feel. Especially in the tabletop space, which is only as bound by hard-coded mechanical rules as its players allow it to be.
For a great many players, it simply doesn't feel good to be told that the cool idea for an offbeat, funky character you want to try is mechanically weaker than a more conventional build. It doesn't matter if nameless guys on the Internet tell you that this weakness doesn't matter and you should feel free to play your weak, offbeat character anyways. It still doesn't feel good. It's a pain point in the game's design, especially these days with issues of inequality so rife in popular media. Part of the job of game design is identifying and eliminating any pain points they can get away with.
Some pain points are necessary - it doesn't feel good for your character to die and disappear either, but without that risk much of the rest of the game loses its impact. If you cannot lose, you also cannot truly win, and so eliminating that pain point significantly harms the game's potential to engage people and get them invested in the story. But this particular pain point does not have that same load-bearing property to it. Not for most folks, anyways. Nothing about this pain point sabotages or short-circuits the rest of the game if it's ameliorated. The idea that adjusting the mechanical bits of a character's species traits Destroys Species Identity is simply not true - if that were objectively true, or even just broadly true, then people would be broadly rallying against it. But "species" in these sorts of games is typically defined more by the species' background lore, their culture, and their position and relationships in the world than by their mechanical crunch. In point of fact, the crunch is supposed to come distinctly after the lore and be used specifically to reinforce that lore.
Nothing in this Lineage system changes the lore of a D&D species. All it does is allow a codified, Wizards-approved way for exceptions to the rules to be made. That "Wizards-approved" bit is very important for many tables, and for all those DMs who hate and/or fear homebrew solutions of any sort and refuse to tolerate anything at their table that isn't in an Official Book. These rules are for those people. J-Craw has often said that he does things like this, writes rules such as this Lineage system and the Spell Versatility rule from the CFVs UA, as a gentle reminder to DMs that they should feel free to unclench a little and let their players bend the rules, if by doing so they can bend far enough to find the fun.
So...unclench a little. Let people have their fun. If you can't tolerate players who don't play spot-on perfect species/class/background combinations at your table, then disallow the Lineage rules. But for heck's sake, STOP telling the rest of us we're bad horrible awful terrible people for being eager to see what this latest DM's Guide to Unclenching brings with it, hm?
Please do not contact or message me.