You know exactly what you are getting when you come to the table and want to create a halfling barbarian whereas another player wants to create a half-orc barbarian. You know before you come up with the idea that you will be at a disadvantage by making that choice.
This needs some clarification. The halfling IS NOT at a disadvantage. The halfling is as equal as every other character that wishes to be a barbarian. It is the half-orc that has an ADVANTAGE. I know you likely didn't mean it this way but how we frame our argument matters. Just like my half-orc IS NOT at a disadvantage as a wizard. My character has no inherent negative to my INT. There are simply some other races/species that might have a very slight advantage. That is of course the trade off we accept with this style of game versus GURPS, or my old favorite, Rolemaster.
I think where min-maxers even come into the argument is that they are the ones (as only a min-maxer would raise this objection) claiming that the character will be practically unplayable if the player cannot put the +2 stat bonus into the prime stat for the chosen class. The statement that a wizard with a 15 stat instead of a 17 stat in intelligence at level 1 would be less effective by a certain percentage (what was the number? 7-9% or something?) is an implicitly min-maxer argument. And it was made in support of the new system, not in opposition to it.
This this and more this. The one's yammering to keep the racial advantages are just the opposite of min/maxers.
You know exactly what you are getting when you come to the table and want to create a halfling barbarian whereas another player wants to create a half-orc barbarian. You know before you come up with the idea that you will be at a disadvantage by making that choice.
This needs some clarification. The halfling IS NOT at a disadvantage. The halfling is as equal as every other character that wishes to be a barbarian. It is the half-orc that has an ADVANTAGE. I know you likely didn't mean it this way but how we frame our argument matters. Just like my half-orc IS NOT at a disadvantage as a wizard. My character has no inherent negative to my INT. There are simply some other races/species that might have a very slight advantage. That is of course the trade off we accept with this style of game versus GURPS, or my old favorite, Rolemaster.
While I agree with you, I think the example brought up also involved the fact that generally Barbs want to use a heavy weapon. By default halflings have disadvantage when using a heavy weapons; so the halfing barb would be at a disadvantage in that case.. But a halfling barb not using a heavy yep as you say is not disadvantaged while the half-orc is advantaged.
But I agree with the way we should be looking at the diversity in ASI scores for d&d playable characters. IT is not that other species can't be a barb, it is just that some species if chosen get a miniscule leg up in that class. Nothing wrong with that.
Granted nothing wrong with ASI that can be places anywhere either - but this makes character creation more bland imo. I can be an elf and be good at my strength vs playing an elf who is breaking the mold of the "norm" and being both strong and dexterious.
Both sides have valid points, but I just tend to not find the ASI given by default to be such a big problem they need fixing.
I never used it that way. I did not say, "you are bigots if you disagree with me" I am saying, "You are bigots if you think this is 'pandering to powergamers/munchkins", as I said 3 times above.
It is bigotry to think another person's playstyle is bad/wrong/lesser than your own if they're still having fun, which is what my original post was detailing. Freaking read my posts, please, if you're going to respond to them.
This is EXACTLY what you said in post 246 of this thread: You're bigoted if you don't agree with that (and that's not meant to offend anyone, it's literally a fact.
So yeah, you did say it. And no, it is not bigotry to not like someone else’s play style. It’s an opinion, that’s all.
Folky folks!! Don’t make me turn this thread around!!
Can the two of you settle the whole “correct use of the term bigotry debate” in a private conversation and just update us with the final outcome?
When I have to be the voice of reason... something has gone terribly wrong. I feel like I need to shower, and I just had one. Don’t do this to me. Pretty please?🙏
I never used it that way. I did not say, "you are bigots if you disagree with me" I am saying, "You are bigots if you think this is 'pandering to powergamers/munchkins", as I said 3 times above.
It is bigotry to think another person's playstyle is bad/wrong/lesser than your own if they're still having fun, which is what my original post was detailing. Freaking read my posts, please, if you're going to respond to them.
This is EXACTLY what you said in post 246 of this thread: You're bigoted if you don't agree with that (and that's not meant to offend anyone, it's literally a fact.
So yeah, you did say it. And no, it is not bigotry to not like someone else’s play style. It’s an opinion, that’s all.
Don't take me out of context, here's what I said in that post:
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).
@MayhemIsEverywhere, please stop misenterpreting and cookie cutting my posts. I'm the one who wrote my posts, I think I know what I posted and meant more than you do. It isn't bigotry to not like someone else's playstyle, but it is to think the way I play is wrong.
I really don't want to continue this part of the conversation, because frankly; it's stupid. PM me if you somehow feel that I have wronged you, but otherwise, please (as absolutely politely as possible) shut up about this.
@IamSposta, I absolutely did not mean to derail the thread. I should have known people would misunderstand that and take me out of context. If the others continue arguing, we'll take it to a PM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
This is another thread about Race and Species? There has been a 'trend' with these threads, every single thread made about this 'issue' has resulted in it starting a large argument and thus resulting in the thread being locked. If you don't believe me have a look for yourself.
I see no point in making these threads if they will only start an argument and inevitably being locked, threads regarding this issue will only start mindless fights. I highly recommend not continuing this thread as it will certainly result in a fight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
REMEMBER: Wizards Of The Coast does not own DDB, they are two different companies. When you buy a physical book, WotC receives the money you bought it for, not DDB and vice versa. If you want a digital key to get an online book for free because you have the hardcopy book then DDB makes no money because you don't buy off DDB you buy off WotC, so please stop making threads about this issue. DDB needs money to continue helping people and servers aren't cheap.
This is another thread about Race and Species? There has been a 'trend' with these threads, every single thread made about this 'issue' has resulted in it starting a large argument and thus resulting in the thread being locked. If you don't believe me have a look for yourself.
I see no point in making these threads if they will only start an argument and inevitably being locked, threads regarding this issue will only start mindless fights. I highly recommend not continuing this thread as it will certainly result in a fight.
I agree, all these threads do is start arguments, If you wanna call it 'species' call it that, but you can't force other people to do that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced"- Soren Kierkgaard
This thread again? It's an optional rule set. Why is this an issue?
It WASN'T, until a Twitter troll with a fetish for recreational outrage MADE it one.
That said, I wouldn't mind seeing ability score increases tied to race go away altogether, and be accounted for with beefier character creation options. Make the Standard Array a bit higher, more bang for your buck with the Point Buy method, etc.
I WOULD like to see more options for other race-defining traits, though. Things like Darkvision, resistances, access to certain specific spells, and other miscellaneous features go a LONG way toward enforcing the FEEL of a character at the table. It's a lot easier to imagine a specific power fantasy for my tanky Goliath Monk when I've got Stone's Endurance to work with.
One of the many reasons I don't want race to be a cosmetic choice is that certain builds really come to life when those racial feature choices are on offer. I'd gladly ditch a few up-front bonuses to my ability scores in favor of more options that allow for unique racial builds.
ditching abillity score increases entirely to get even more cool and flavourful racial features? there is an hot take i did not expect, while it would make the monk absolutely terribly since your highest abillity scores would now be 15 in dex and wis using point buy thus making the monk fall behind on armor class a lot, playing an minotaur artificer with no bonuses to con and strength who gets labyrinthine recall, keen smell and relentless endurance instead of just getting boring old bonuses to int would be really cool especially since it means we can have more special features that make the orcs and minos and stuff feel much stronger rather than increasing just their stronitude stat becuase suddenly they can do stuff like fling heavy rocks and small creatures at enemies to deal damage and are neigh impossible to shove and halflings feel a lot sneakier since they can just dissapear behind half cover and fit in spaces where they should not fit
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
This is another thread about Race and Species? There has been a 'trend' with these threads, every single thread made about this 'issue' has resulted in it starting a large argument and thus resulting in the thread being locked. If you don't believe me have a look for yourself.
I see no point in making these threads if they will only start an argument and inevitably being locked, threads regarding this issue will only start mindless fights. I highly recommend not continuing this thread as it will certainly result in a fight.
It’s been going on for three days with no issue. These threads get started because people feel passionately about it and need to discuss it and get it off of their chest.
This is another thread about Race and Species? There has been a 'trend' with these threads, every single thread made about this 'issue' has resulted in it starting a large argument and thus resulting in the thread being locked. If you don't believe me have a look for yourself.
I see no point in making these threads if they will only start an argument and inevitably being locked, threads regarding this issue will only start mindless fights. I highly recommend not continuing this thread as it will certainly result in a fight.
I agree, all these threads do is start arguments, If you wanna call it 'species' call it that, but you can't force other people to do that.
The difference between race and species is important in this context. If they had been called species from day one (which is what they really are) instead of races, certain groups would not have pressured WOC into making these optional rules.
This is another thread about Race and Species? There has been a 'trend' with these threads, every single thread made about this 'issue' has resulted in it starting a large argument and thus resulting in the thread being locked. If you don't believe me have a look for yourself.
I see no point in making these threads if they will only start an argument and inevitably being locked, threads regarding this issue will only start mindless fights. I highly recommend not continuing this thread as it will certainly result in a fight.
I agree, all these threads do is start arguments, If you wanna call it 'species' call it that, but you can't force other people to do that.
The difference between race and species is important in this context. If they had been called species from day one (which is what they really are) instead of races, certain groups would not have pressured WOC into making these optional rules.
Unfortunately, the designers of D&D had no clue what the world in 2020 would have become. But you are 100% accurate. Right now, the amount of effort WOTC would have to expend to re-write the books replacing "race" and "racial" with "species" and "species-specific" is a tiny tiny fraction of the effort and cost that is going into this rewrite of the game.
While I agree with you, I think the example brought up also involved the fact that generally Barbs want to use a heavy weapon. By default halflings have disadvantage when using a heavy weapons; so the halfing barb would be at a disadvantage in that case..
The halfling is at a disadvantage due to SIZE not a penalty to strength. If they are going to take away size restrictions.... well, we might as well bring back Monkey Grip.
While I agree with you, I think the example brought up also involved the fact that generally Barbs want to use a heavy weapon. By default halflings have disadvantage when using a heavy weapons; so the halfing barb would be at a disadvantage in that case..
The halfling is at a disadvantage due to SIZE not a penalty to strength. If they are going to take away size restrictions.... well, we might as well bring back Monkey Grip.
Monkey grip?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
While I agree with you, I think the example brought up also involved the fact that generally Barbs want to use a heavy weapon. By default halflings have disadvantage when using a heavy weapons; so the halfing barb would be at a disadvantage in that case..
The halfling is at a disadvantage due to SIZE not a penalty to strength. If they are going to take away size restrictions.... well, we might as well bring back Monkey Grip.
Monkey grip?
Old feat, allowing you to use two-handed weapons singel-handed.
Edit: Generally using larger weapons, than normally possible.
We haven't seen what they've come up with and I am interested in what they go for. I don't AGREE with all the hubbub about this race/species malarkey but it's happening whether we like it or not. Depending on how the wider audience reacts to the book and the review that WotC get from it will determine how future books will be written I would guess.
Otherwise, show me those new subclasses and spells.
We haven't seen what they've come up with and I am interested in what they go for. I don't AGREE with all the hubbub about this race/species malarkey but it's happening whether we like it or not. Depending on how the wider audience reacts to the book and the review that WotC get from it will determine how future books will be written I would guess.
Otherwise, show me those new subclasses and spells.
This
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
As the meaning of the term 'race' seems to have shifted over the years, I think the term 'species' does more accurately describe the playable characters. A lizardfolk and a halfling are not two separate races. They're entirely unrelated species.
The thing is I enjoy the DnD species being mechanically distinct, as it brings variety to the game. I desperately don't want all the playables to just become identical reskins of each other.
I think that either there should be a fixed +1 and a floating +1 for all species.
or
Do away with ASI's completely, and double down on making the racial features more interesting and powerful similar to pathfinder 2e. Maybe even separate culture and species abilities to be mixed and matched. An elf growing up in a dragonborn society won't suddenly breathe fire, but they could pick up other things such as draconic languages or weapon specialisations.
You know exactly what you are getting when you come to the table and want to create a halfling barbarian whereas another player wants to create a half-orc barbarian. You know before you come up with the idea that you will be at a disadvantage by making that choice.
This needs some clarification. The halfling IS NOT at a disadvantage. The halfling is as equal as every other character that wishes to be a barbarian. It is the half-orc that has an ADVANTAGE. I know you likely didn't mean it this way but how we frame our argument matters. Just like my half-orc IS NOT at a disadvantage as a wizard. My character has no inherent negative to my INT. There are simply some other races/species that might have a very slight advantage. That is of course the trade off we accept with this style of game versus GURPS, or my old favorite, Rolemaster.
There is nothing wrong with the Half-Orc having an advantage over a halfling in this regard. They're bigger so they can wield bigger weapons (although the mental image of a halfling trying to swing a sword 3 times their size is funny), they are part orc so any advantages to being an orc also partly apply.
It's not a problem that some races in D&D start out with an advantage because it's balanced out with a disadvantage. That same half-orc wants to be a wizard? Guess what, gnomes will have a huge advantage there!
It's not where you start that matters, it's the choices you make moving forward, in character build, roleplay as well as in life.
If you want to be a halfling barbarian, more power to you. Embrace the challenges that a halfling would have naturally, due to their incredibly small stature, and use that to develop your character. Characters are just as much defined by their flaws and problems as they are by their successes and talents.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This needs some clarification. The halfling IS NOT at a disadvantage. The halfling is as equal as every other character that wishes to be a barbarian. It is the half-orc that has an ADVANTAGE. I know you likely didn't mean it this way but how we frame our argument matters. Just like my half-orc IS NOT at a disadvantage as a wizard. My character has no inherent negative to my INT. There are simply some other races/species that might have a very slight advantage. That is of course the trade off we accept with this style of game versus GURPS, or my old favorite, Rolemaster.
This this and more this. The one's yammering to keep the racial advantages are just the opposite of min/maxers.
While I agree with you, I think the example brought up also involved the fact that generally Barbs want to use a heavy weapon. By default halflings have disadvantage when using a heavy weapons; so the halfing barb would be at a disadvantage in that case.. But a halfling barb not using a heavy yep as you say is not disadvantaged while the half-orc is advantaged.
But I agree with the way we should be looking at the diversity in ASI scores for d&d playable characters. IT is not that other species can't be a barb, it is just that some species if chosen get a miniscule leg up in that class. Nothing wrong with that.
Granted nothing wrong with ASI that can be places anywhere either - but this makes character creation more bland imo. I can be an elf and be good at my strength vs playing an elf who is breaking the mold of the "norm" and being both strong and dexterious.
Both sides have valid points, but I just tend to not find the ASI given by default to be such a big problem they need fixing.
This is EXACTLY what you said in post 246 of this thread: You're bigoted if you don't agree with that (and that's not meant to offend anyone, it's literally a fact.
So yeah, you did say it. And no, it is not bigotry to not like someone else’s play style. It’s an opinion, that’s all.
Folky folks!! Don’t make me turn this thread around!!
Can the two of you settle the whole “correct use of the term bigotry debate” in a private conversation and just update us with the final outcome?
When I have to be the voice of reason... something has gone terribly wrong. I feel like I need to shower, and I just had one. Don’t do this to me. Pretty please?🙏
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Don't take me out of context, here's what I said in that post:
@MayhemIsEverywhere, please stop misenterpreting and cookie cutting my posts. I'm the one who wrote my posts, I think I know what I posted and meant more than you do. It isn't bigotry to not like someone else's playstyle, but it is to think the way I play is wrong.
I really don't want to continue this part of the conversation, because frankly; it's stupid. PM me if you somehow feel that I have wronged you, but otherwise, please (as absolutely politely as possible) shut up about this.
@IamSposta, I absolutely did not mean to derail the thread. I should have known people would misunderstand that and take me out of context. If the others continue arguing, we'll take it to a PM.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Like I said, this thread is stupid.
This is another thread about Race and Species? There has been a 'trend' with these threads, every single thread made about this 'issue' has resulted in it starting a large argument and thus resulting in the thread being locked. If you don't believe me have a look for yourself.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/77195-dungeons-and-dragons-to-remove-the-term-race
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/73103-races-and-species
I see no point in making these threads if they will only start an argument and inevitably being locked, threads regarding this issue will only start mindless fights. I highly recommend not continuing this thread as it will certainly result in a fight.
REMEMBER: Wizards Of The Coast does not own DDB, they are two different companies. When you buy a physical book, WotC receives the money you bought it for, not DDB and vice versa. If you want a digital key to get an online book for free because you have the hardcopy book then DDB makes no money because you don't buy off DDB you buy off WotC, so please stop making threads about this issue. DDB needs money to continue helping people and servers aren't cheap.
I agree, all these threads do is start arguments, If you wanna call it 'species' call it that, but you can't force other people to do that.
"Life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced"- Soren Kierkgaard
ditching abillity score increases entirely to get even more cool and flavourful racial features? there is an hot take i did not expect, while it would make the monk absolutely terribly since your highest abillity scores would now be 15 in dex and wis using point buy thus making the monk fall behind on armor class a lot, playing an minotaur artificer with no bonuses to con and strength who gets labyrinthine recall, keen smell and relentless endurance instead of just getting boring old bonuses to int would be really cool especially since it means we can have more special features that make the orcs and minos and stuff feel much stronger rather than increasing just their stronitude stat becuase suddenly they can do stuff like fling heavy rocks and small creatures at enemies to deal damage and are neigh impossible to shove and halflings feel a lot sneakier since they can just dissapear behind half cover and fit in spaces where they should not fit
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
It’s been going on for three days with no issue. These threads get started because people feel passionately about it and need to discuss it and get it off of their chest.
The difference between race and species is important in this context. If they had been called species from day one (which is what they really are) instead of races, certain groups would not have pressured WOC into making these optional rules.
Unfortunately, the designers of D&D had no clue what the world in 2020 would have become. But you are 100% accurate. Right now, the amount of effort WOTC would have to expend to re-write the books replacing "race" and "racial" with "species" and "species-specific" is a tiny tiny fraction of the effort and cost that is going into this rewrite of the game.
The halfling is at a disadvantage due to SIZE not a penalty to strength. If they are going to take away size restrictions.... well, we might as well bring back Monkey Grip.
Monkey grip?
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
Old feat, allowing you to use two-handed weapons singel-handed.
Edit: Generally using larger weapons, than normally possible.
We haven't seen what they've come up with and I am interested in what they go for. I don't AGREE with all the hubbub about this race/species malarkey but it's happening whether we like it or not. Depending on how the wider audience reacts to the book and the review that WotC get from it will determine how future books will be written I would guess.
Otherwise, show me those new subclasses and spells.
This
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
As the meaning of the term 'race' seems to have shifted over the years, I think the term 'species' does more accurately describe the playable characters. A lizardfolk and a halfling are not two separate races. They're entirely unrelated species.
The thing is I enjoy the DnD species being mechanically distinct, as it brings variety to the game. I desperately don't want all the playables to just become identical reskins of each other.
I think that either there should be a fixed +1 and a floating +1 for all species.
or
Do away with ASI's completely, and double down on making the racial features more interesting and powerful similar to pathfinder 2e. Maybe even separate culture and species abilities to be mixed and matched. An elf growing up in a dragonborn society won't suddenly breathe fire, but they could pick up other things such as draconic languages or weapon specialisations.
There is nothing wrong with the Half-Orc having an advantage over a halfling in this regard. They're bigger so they can wield bigger weapons (although the mental image of a halfling trying to swing a sword 3 times their size is funny), they are part orc so any advantages to being an orc also partly apply.
It's not a problem that some races in D&D start out with an advantage because it's balanced out with a disadvantage. That same half-orc wants to be a wizard? Guess what, gnomes will have a huge advantage there!
It's not where you start that matters, it's the choices you make moving forward, in character build, roleplay as well as in life.
If you want to be a halfling barbarian, more power to you. Embrace the challenges that a halfling would have naturally, due to their incredibly small stature, and use that to develop your character. Characters are just as much defined by their flaws and problems as they are by their successes and talents.