The way you're born impacts your character. The way you're raised impacts your character. And the way you're trained impacts your character.
This method I could get behind. It’s sort of like the life packs in Shadowrun that let you construct a character by starting at childhood and going through each stage until adulthood. Everything about your life, species, where you were raised, your education, your first job, all affect your character creation.
I will reserve my criticism on the new options till after they're published and i can actually read the text. Contrary to what some politicians have said, you can't make an informed decision without information.
That being said, I'd like to refer back to one of the first posts in this thread. The poster made reference to nature vs nurture, which i think is something that is lacking in the feature package all races have to work with as the game stands now.
Establishing each feature, not just stats, as NAT or NUR would (could) work well for reassigning features for characters raised outside of the cultural norm for that race. Nature related features, with their biological basis should be invariable. A halfling by definition should be limited to size small. An elf raised by dwarves however shouldn't get elven weapon training, they should get dwarven weapon training. Physical stats are NAT, nonphysical are NUR. Orcs get a -2 to int because their culture suppresses learning. Elves get chr bonus because their culture is dynamically emotive. An elf raised by Aaracroka or Warforged shouldn't get that bonus. The dwarven and stout halfling greater poison resistance is biological, not related to culture, so any character of those races should always have those features regardless of what culture raised them.
There is racial disparity for stat bonuses, greatly favoring humans and dwarves. Some racial features, like halfling luck, compensate the imbalance by giving the character an equally imbalanced and overpowered (yes, i consider having a character unable to criticality fail overpowered.) Genasi by contrast are hugely underpowered for race features.
So i guess my point is just that there is room for improvement. I look forward to seeing what Tasha has to offer.
P.s. a lot of the arguments in this thread remind me of the movie, "Strictly Ballroom." The chaotic dance diector says, "Be creative, come up with something new." The Lawful dance director says, "THERE ARE NO NEW DANCE STEPS."
These suggestions would be something I could work with. Much better approach of this NAT vs. NUR than just allowing stat bonuses to be distributed at will.
Thank you, Mayhem. As often as I bag on 5e, and as much as I heartily believe 5e needs to be bagged on rather than be allowed to sit on its laurels as "The World's Greatest Role Playing Game" without ever taking strides to correct its numerous holes and deficiencies...I've been here for two and a half years and I don't see myself leaving any time soon. Telling me my opinion doesn't matter because I'm a Janey-come-lately who's going to deuce out in three months is disingenuous and does nothing to promote one's arguments.
Wizards, which is a company that cares about money first, money second, money third, money fourth, fifth and sixth, and somewhere on down the line at around line item thirty-seven or so indulges in "maintaining and shepherding a cherished property beloved by millions throughout the world", would not have spent eighteen months and however umpteen jillion bucks developing this Tasha's Allspice Soup Pot book if their market research and analytics did not indicate a strong desire for it. Wizards can make all the money it wants recycling Forgotten Realms shovelware from thirty years ago a'la Ghosts of Saltmarsh or Rime of the Ice Maiden without having to risk exploding the fanbase over dumb shit like whether two or three ability points is the sole and only thing that defines a species in D&D. They only do books like this when they think the payout is worth cheesing off the nostalgia grognards - when the new people are going to buy the book in such quantities that it more than makes up for tweaking the noses of people who haven't been happy since 2e.
Telling folks who want more flexible character creation options that they're a vocal minority that ought to just shut up and play what's good for them like good little girls is myopic.
It's also important to have an open discussion and debate so people who do support the change, should they end up playing in a group with someone who does not, can fully understand where they're coming from, or vice versa.
It's not good to utterly dismiss anything someone who disagrees with someone else because that shuts down any potential for improvements or issues to be resolved.
Optimized standard array is the baseline on which the game math was built. And a point's difference is not "5% more sucky". recall that the game math is already assuming a failure rate of 35%, even for characters who hit all the right notes and build "correctly". Dropping a point when one is already sitting on a 35% failure rate is a significantly higher relative difference. As an easy to follow example: let's assume the character with the +3 bonus is assumed to succeed exactly 50% of the time. That is an absolutely piss miserable success rate for a supposed Trained Professional, but it's an easy number to follow so we'll use it.
The character with a +2 bonus, instead, has a 45% success rate. That feels like a minor, inconsequential thing...but in actuality her overall success rate has dropped by ten percent when compared to her peers, rather than 'just' five. Losing five points out of fifty is a ten percent drop, not a five percent drop. Because D&D does not believe in gradients of success and every single roll is either "you succeed perfectly" or "you fail humiliatingly", Alice gets to eat a ten percent overall increase in "Fail Humiliatingly" moments. That adds up over a campaign, especially when one incorrectly assumes that the 'strengths' one has elsewhere from a clashing species/class combination actually matters in any significant way. Because the other thing to remember is that those fifty percent of "Successful" rolls for the +3 character make up a much higher percentage of their 'Good' rolls than their 'Bad' ones. A warlock makes a much higher number of Charisma rolls than a monk does, no matter what their skill proficiencies are. Failing ten percent more Charisma checks for a warlock turns into a significantly higher percentage of failed checks overall when one realizes that this increased failure chance is embedded into the heart of what a character does. The ten percent increased success rate with the Strength checks a warlock is basically never asked to make does not even remotely compensate for losing ten percent of the checks Alice makes fifty of every night. Again - that sort of disparity adds up session over session.
Maybe Alice is fine with that. Maybe Alice thinks it's only natural that her goliath who never really wanted to be a warlock and is fighting against her 'patron' to save her clan is heckin' terrible at being a warlock. That's a cool story to tell, and she should have that option.
Alice should also have the option of her goliath warlock discovering a thirst for that power and diving headfirst into her newfound abilities, reveling in a strength her clan could never have offered her. As it stands, she doesn't get to tell that story. Not and have the mechanics of her character back it up, at least.
The solution, had 5e been designed by game designers looking forward rather than the nebulous all-consuming blob monster known as The Playerbase whose sole concern was that D&D never feel like it's advanced beyond 1985, would be for class, species, and background to each contribute one point of attribute bonus., with optional rules for reconfiguring these bonuses to better fit edge-case storylines. They way you're born impacts your character. The way you're raised impacts your character. And the way you're trained impacts your character. Not "the way you're born is the only thing that ever matters, period and forever, and if you ever go against your species norms you're bad at D&D and should quit the game now, please".
Two things:
1. Based in all your math about +1 being this enormous advantage, I guess LuckStone, which is the equivalent to +2 IN EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of your abilities when it comes to ability checks and savings throws must be the most powerful item in the game. And of course, let's not forget the Cloak of Protection. So stop with all the silly math.
2. Your point about "edge case" storylines says it all. Edge case story lines = "I want to play an extra special char and I deserve extra accommodation because of my conscious choice to play something that does not fit the rules. In fact, I want you to change the rules for me." This is the equivalent of saying "I want to play with 4 knights instead of 2 knights and 2 bishops, but because I am playing an "edge-case", there should be optional rules that say pawns can move diagonally at will."
For a first level fighter, against typical level 1 opponents (about AC 11), a 15 stat means +4 to hit/1d8+4 (assumes dueling style), or 70% * 8.5 = 5.95 dpr. A 16 stat means +5 to hit/1d8+5, or 75% * 9.5 = 7.125 dpr (just under 20% higher). A 20% difference in your ability to do your primary job really does matter.
Note that if the effect of a racial bonus was to increase (point build/standard array) max from 16 to 17 (instead of 15 to 16 or 17) racial bonuses would matter a whole lot less, the problem is that it pushes you over a breakpoint.
Optimized standard array is the baseline on which the game math was built. And a point's difference is not "5% more sucky". recall that the game math is already assuming a failure rate of 35%, even for characters who hit all the right notes and build "correctly". Dropping a point when one is already sitting on a 35% failure rate is a significantly higher relative difference. As an easy to follow example: let's assume the character with the +3 bonus is assumed to succeed exactly 50% of the time. That is an absolutely piss miserable success rate for a supposed Trained Professional, but it's an easy number to follow so we'll use it.
The character with a +2 bonus, instead, has a 45% success rate. That feels like a minor, inconsequential thing...but in actuality her overall success rate has dropped by ten percent when compared to her peers, rather than 'just' five. Losing five points out of fifty is a ten percent drop, not a five percent drop. Because D&D does not believe in gradients of success and every single roll is either "you succeed perfectly" or "you fail humiliatingly", Alice gets to eat a ten percent overall increase in "Fail Humiliatingly" moments. That adds up over a campaign, especially when one incorrectly assumes that the 'strengths' one has elsewhere from a clashing species/class combination actually matters in any significant way. Because the other thing to remember is that those fifty percent of "Successful" rolls for the +3 character make up a much higher percentage of their 'Good' rolls than their 'Bad' ones. A warlock makes a much higher number of Charisma rolls than a monk does, no matter what their skill proficiencies are. Failing ten percent more Charisma checks for a warlock turns into a significantly higher percentage of failed checks overall when one realizes that this increased failure chance is embedded into the heart of what a character does. The ten percent increased success rate with the Strength checks a warlock is basically never asked to make does not even remotely compensate for losing ten percent of the checks Alice makes fifty of every night. Again - that sort of disparity adds up session over session.
Maybe Alice is fine with that. Maybe Alice thinks it's only natural that her goliath who never really wanted to be a warlock and is fighting against her 'patron' to save her clan is heckin' terrible at being a warlock. That's a cool story to tell, and she should have that option.
Alice should also have the option of her goliath warlock discovering a thirst for that power and diving headfirst into her newfound abilities, reveling in a strength her clan could never have offered her. As it stands, she doesn't get to tell that story. Not and have the mechanics of her character back it up, at least.
The solution, had 5e been designed by game designers looking forward rather than the nebulous all-consuming blob monster known as The Playerbase whose sole concern was that D&D never feel like it's advanced beyond 1985, would be for class, species, and background to each contribute one point of attribute bonus., with optional rules for reconfiguring these bonuses to better fit edge-case storylines. They way you're born impacts your character. The way you're raised impacts your character. And the way you're trained impacts your character. Not "the way you're born is the only thing that ever matters, period and forever, and if you ever go against your species norms you're bad at D&D and should quit the game now, please".
Two things:
1. Based in all your math about +1 being this enormous advantage, I guess LuckStone, which is the equivalent to +2 IN EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of your abilities when it comes to ability checks and savings throws must be the most powerful item in the game. And of course, let's not forget the Cloak of Protection. So stop with all the silly math.
2. Your point about "edge case" storylines says it all. Edge case story lines = "I want to play an extra special char and I deserve extra accommodation because of my conscious choice to play something that does not fit the rules. In fact, I want you to change the rules for me." This is the equivalent of saying "I want to play with 4 knights instead of 2 knights and 2 bishops, but because I am playing an "edge-case", there should be optional rules that say pawns can move diagonally at will."
1. Just for reference, I believe luck stones grant a +1 bonus, not +2.
2. This isn't really the case. Whereas chess is a game strictly bound to its rules, DnD can afford for its rules to be bent in many areas with the overall fun playability of the game in mind.
That being said, there is a matter of proportion involved. It would ruin the game if anyone could just design a character with a 20 in every stat, in possession of a +10 great sword (because his/her backstory somehow grants this).
Moreover, it is up to the DM's interpretation wether players have absolute autonomy over choice over character, or wether chance plays a certain role. For example, if every player is able to craft a 20 str kobold, this could potentially dilute the rarity of such a genetically uncommon circumstance (and thereby its originality value).
I have little personal opinion either way, but take note: a certain level of restriction is what inspires creativity, and what (ultimately) makes for the best characters.
Vince, I have never put anyone in this forum on my Ignore list. I find ignore features to be disruptive and unhelpful, as they leave you only hearing part of a conversation and out of touch with everyone else. Better to simply grit one's teeth and bear the problem, work through it and see if one can at least come to civil disagreement, even if there's no possible accord.
Buddy, you are really making me rethink that stance -_-
I have already stated, multiple times, IN THIS VERY THREAD, that people pursue items that add situational +1 bonuses with a zeal and passion that completely belies this idea that "one measly point of bonus is never gonna matter so suck it up and play that 11-Intelligence wizard already, you rotten ghost." (EDIT: Pantagruel very correctly points out that a single +1, when it pushes you over an ability modifier breakpoint, can have a far greater impact on your game than 'just' a five percent boost. Read that post for more insight into this one.) D&D uses a d20 action resolution system in which success and failure are on a linear scale players are often powerless to affect on top of the 5e idea (which is a good one, even if not implemented perfectly in this edition) of Bounded Accuracy reducing numbers bloat and ensuring the d20 truly does rule your entire game. Every single heckin' Plus you can get matters. Yes, Luckstones are incredibly powerful and should be much rarer than they are. Any DM who hands them out like Halloween treats is either an idiot or is playing an extremely high-powered game.
And frankly, your stance on people wanting to work with their DM to use Official Optional Rules to create a character that fits their own story rather than Standard Fantasy Trope #X417 is actively toxic. Try that opinion out in the Combat Wheelchair threads, or in the threads where people were talking about making characters with prosthetic limbs from the Eberron book Try it out in the threads where people ask DMs how they'd handle DMing for a character that was born blind because one of their players...was born blind, and wants to run D&D the same way they live.
Optimized standard array is the baseline on which the game math was built. And a point's difference is not "5% more sucky". recall that the game math is already assuming a failure rate of 35%, even for characters who hit all the right notes and build "correctly". Dropping a point when one is already sitting on a 35% failure rate is a significantly higher relative difference. As an easy to follow example: let's assume the character with the +3 bonus is assumed to succeed exactly 50% of the time. That is an absolutely piss miserable success rate for a supposed Trained Professional, but it's an easy number to follow so we'll use it.
The character with a +2 bonus, instead, has a 45% success rate. That feels like a minor, inconsequential thing...but in actuality her overall success rate has dropped by ten percent when compared to her peers, rather than 'just' five. Losing five points out of fifty is a ten percent drop, not a five percent drop. Because D&D does not believe in gradients of success and every single roll is either "you succeed perfectly" or "you fail humiliatingly", Alice gets to eat a ten percent overall increase in "Fail Humiliatingly" moments. That adds up over a campaign, especially when one incorrectly assumes that the 'strengths' one has elsewhere from a clashing species/class combination actually matters in any significant way. Because the other thing to remember is that those fifty percent of "Successful" rolls for the +3 character make up a much higher percentage of their 'Good' rolls than their 'Bad' ones. A warlock makes a much higher number of Charisma rolls than a monk does, no matter what their skill proficiencies are. Failing ten percent more Charisma checks for a warlock turns into a significantly higher percentage of failed checks overall when one realizes that this increased failure chance is embedded into the heart of what a character does. The ten percent increased success rate with the Strength checks a warlock is basically never asked to make does not even remotely compensate for losing ten percent of the checks Alice makes fifty of every night. Again - that sort of disparity adds up session over session.
Maybe Alice is fine with that. Maybe Alice thinks it's only natural that her goliath who never really wanted to be a warlock and is fighting against her 'patron' to save her clan is heckin' terrible at being a warlock. That's a cool story to tell, and she should have that option.
Alice should also have the option of her goliath warlock discovering a thirst for that power and diving headfirst into her newfound abilities, reveling in a strength her clan could never have offered her. As it stands, she doesn't get to tell that story. Not and have the mechanics of her character back it up, at least.
The solution, had 5e been designed by game designers looking forward rather than the nebulous all-consuming blob monster known as The Playerbase whose sole concern was that D&D never feel like it's advanced beyond 1985, would be for class, species, and background to each contribute one point of attribute bonus., with optional rules for reconfiguring these bonuses to better fit edge-case storylines. They way you're born impacts your character. The way you're raised impacts your character. And the way you're trained impacts your character. Not "the way you're born is the only thing that ever matters, period and forever, and if you ever go against your species norms you're bad at D&D and should quit the game now, please".
Two things:
1. Based in all your math about +1 being this enormous advantage, I guess LuckStone, which is the equivalent to +2 IN EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of your abilities when it comes to ability checks and savings throws must be the most powerful item in the game. And of course, let's not forget the Cloak of Protection. So stop with all the silly math.
2. Your point about "edge case" storylines says it all. Edge case story lines = "I want to play an extra special char and I deserve extra accommodation because of my conscious choice to play something that does not fit the rules. In fact, I want you to change the rules for me." This is the equivalent of saying "I want to play with 4 knights instead of 2 knights and 2 bishops, but because I am playing an "edge-case", there should be optional rules that say pawns can move diagonally at will."
1. Just for reference, I believe luck stones grant a +1 bonus, not +2.
2. This isn't really the case. Whereas chess is a game strictly bound to its rules, DnD can afford for its rules to be bent in many areas with the overall fun playability of the game in mind.
That being said, there is a matter of proportion involved. It would ruin the game if anyone could just design a character with a 20 in every stat, in possession of a +10 great sword (because his/her backstory somehow grants this).
Moreover, it is up to the DM's interpretation wether players have absolute autonomy over choice over character, or wether chance plays a certain role. For example, if every player is able to craft a 20 str kobold, this could potentially dilute the rarity of such a genetically uncommon circumstance (and thereby its originality value).
I have little personal opinion either way, but take note: a certain level of restriction is what inspires creativity, and what (ultimately) makes for the best characters.
Luckstone gives a +1 to every ability check and every savings throw, which is the equivalent to a +2 in each ability. And as for 5e and rules, there are what, 3 books that reference rules, plus I don't how many more with stat blocs. 5e IS a game of rules, just like every other game. What we have here is a campaign to change the rules to cater to a tiny minority who don't like said rules. And please don't quote Crawford and rule 0.
The issue is that the game math assumes you will have a 20 in whatever score you're using to Do Your Job by 8th level.
Based on what? Is that written somewhere? Has someone official made a comment that such is factual or are you making an assumption? Just a guess, but I would bet the majority of characters made on DDB do not have a 20 in their main stat by level 8. They have the data so it would be interesting to see if that is indeed factual. I am very open in being wrong in my guess.
why should one player be actively punished
The character is not actively punished. They are simply not actively advantaged over all other characters. Big difference.
Optimized standard array is the baseline on which the game math was built. And a point's difference is not "5% more sucky". recall that the game math is already assuming a failure rate of 35%, even for characters who hit all the right notes and build "correctly". Dropping a point when one is already sitting on a 35% failure rate is a significantly higher relative difference. As an easy to follow example: let's assume the character with the +3 bonus is assumed to succeed exactly 50% of the time. That is an absolutely piss miserable success rate for a supposed Trained Professional, but it's an easy number to follow so we'll use it.
The character with a +2 bonus, instead, has a 45% success rate. That feels like a minor, inconsequential thing...but in actuality her overall success rate has dropped by ten percent when compared to her peers, rather than 'just' five. Losing five points out of fifty is a ten percent drop, not a five percent drop. Because D&D does not believe in gradients of success and every single roll is either "you succeed perfectly" or "you fail humiliatingly", Alice gets to eat a ten percent overall increase in "Fail Humiliatingly" moments. That adds up over a campaign, especially when one incorrectly assumes that the 'strengths' one has elsewhere from a clashing species/class combination actually matters in any significant way. Because the other thing to remember is that those fifty percent of "Successful" rolls for the +3 character make up a much higher percentage of their 'Good' rolls than their 'Bad' ones. A warlock makes a much higher number of Charisma rolls than a monk does, no matter what their skill proficiencies are. Failing ten percent more Charisma checks for a warlock turns into a significantly higher percentage of failed checks overall when one realizes that this increased failure chance is embedded into the heart of what a character does. The ten percent increased success rate with the Strength checks a warlock is basically never asked to make does not even remotely compensate for losing ten percent of the checks Alice makes fifty of every night. Again - that sort of disparity adds up session over session.
Maybe Alice is fine with that. Maybe Alice thinks it's only natural that her goliath who never really wanted to be a warlock and is fighting against her 'patron' to save her clan is heckin' terrible at being a warlock. That's a cool story to tell, and she should have that option.
Alice should also have the option of her goliath warlock discovering a thirst for that power and diving headfirst into her newfound abilities, reveling in a strength her clan could never have offered her. As it stands, she doesn't get to tell that story. Not and have the mechanics of her character back it up, at least.
The solution, had 5e been designed by game designers looking forward rather than the nebulous all-consuming blob monster known as The Playerbase whose sole concern was that D&D never feel like it's advanced beyond 1985, would be for class, species, and background to each contribute one point of attribute bonus., with optional rules for reconfiguring these bonuses to better fit edge-case storylines. They way you're born impacts your character. The way you're raised impacts your character. And the way you're trained impacts your character. Not "the way you're born is the only thing that ever matters, period and forever, and if you ever go against your species norms you're bad at D&D and should quit the game now, please".
Two things:
1. Based in all your math about +1 being this enormous advantage, I guess LuckStone, which is the equivalent to +2 IN EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of your abilities when it comes to ability checks and savings throws must be the most powerful item in the game. And of course, let's not forget the Cloak of Protection. So stop with all the silly math.
2. Your point about "edge case" storylines says it all. Edge case story lines = "I want to play an extra special char and I deserve extra accommodation because of my conscious choice to play something that does not fit the rules. In fact, I want you to change the rules for me." This is the equivalent of saying "I want to play with 4 knights instead of 2 knights and 2 bishops, but because I am playing an "edge-case", there should be optional rules that say pawns can move diagonally at will."
1. Just for reference, I believe luck stones grant a +1 bonus, not +2.
2. This isn't really the case. Whereas chess is a game strictly bound to its rules, DnD can afford for its rules to be bent in many areas with the overall fun playability of the game in mind.
That being said, there is a matter of proportion involved. It would ruin the game if anyone could just design a character with a 20 in every stat, in possession of a +10 great sword (because his/her backstory somehow grants this).
Moreover, it is up to the DM's interpretation wether players have absolute autonomy over choice over character, or wether chance plays a certain role. For example, if every player is able to craft a 20 str kobold, this could potentially dilute the rarity of such a genetically uncommon circumstance (and thereby its originality value).
I have little personal opinion either way, but take note: a certain level of restriction is what inspires creativity, and what (ultimately) makes for the best characters.
Luckstone gives a +1 to every ability check and every savings throw, which is the equivalent to a +2 in each ability. And as for 5e and rules, there are what, 3 books that reference rules, plus I don't how many more with stat blocs. 5e IS a game of rules, just like every other game. What we have here is a campaign to change the rules to cater to a tiny minority who don't like said rules. And please don't quote Crawford and rule 0.
I'm certainly not in favour of the whole hypothetical race to species conversion (or in favour of any of the new race modifications), but they are variant rules. You don't have to use them if you don't want to, so it makes very little difference. And no, I disagree. All rules in chess are equally important to it's functioning properly, but variant DnD rules are made all the time. Moreover, if a DM decides to grant one of his players an ability/ trait which deviates from the basic rules, it won't necessarily break the game (indeed, it won't necessarily make much difference at all...it depends on the proportion and nature of the change).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
Luckstone gives a +1 to every ability check and every savings throw, which is the equivalent to a +2 in each ability.
No it isn't. It doesn't affect attack rolls, save DCs, ability bonuses to damage, dex bonus to AC, con bonus to HP, spells prepared, etc. This is not to say a luckstone isn't a really powerful item, it is, but it's certainly not equivalent to +2 to all attributes.
Again. Try that opinion out in the combat wheelchair threads. "You can't make this character according to the base rules in the PHB, which are sacrosanct and can never be altered or modified. That's a problem with your story, not the rules."
See how far that gets you, and what sort of reactions you get.
Again. Try that opinion out in the combat wheelchair threads. "You can't make this character according to the base rules in the PHB, which are sacrosanct and can never be altered or modified. That's a problem with your story, not the rules."
See how far that gets you, and what sort of reactions you get.
Second that. All rules are up to the DM's interpretation, nothing is so important that it can't be tweaked or modified entirely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
Vince, I have never put anyone in this forum on my Ignore list. I find ignore features to be disruptive and unhelpful, as they leave you only hearing part of a conversation and out of touch with everyone else. Better to simply grit one's teeth and bear the problem, work through it and see if one can at least come to civil disagreement, even if there's no possible accord.
Buddy, you are really making me rethink that stance -_-
I have already stated, multiple times, IN THIS VERY THREAD, that people pursue items that add situational +1 bonuses with a zeal and passion that completely belies this idea that "one measly point of bonus is never gonna matter so suck it up and play that 11-Intelligence wizard already, you rotten ghost." (EDIT: Pantagruel very correctly points out that a single +1, when it pushes you over an ability modifier breakpoint, can have a far greater impact on your game than 'just' a five percent boost. Read that post for more insight into this one.) D&D uses a d20 action resolution system in which success and failure are on a linear scale players are often powerless to affect on top of the 5e idea (which is a good one, even if not implemented perfectly in this edition) of Bounded Accuracy reducing numbers bloat and ensuring the d20 truly does rule your entire game. Every single heckin' Plus you can get matters. Yes, Luckstones are incredibly powerful and should be much rarer than they are. Any DM who hands them out like Halloween treats is either an idiot or is playing an extremely high-powered game.
And frankly, your stance on people wanting to work with their DM to use Official Optional Rules to create a character that fits their own story rather than Standard Fantasy Trope #X417 is actively toxic. Try that opinion out in the Combat Wheelchair threads, or in the threads where people were talking about making characters with prosthetic limbs from the Eberron book Try it out in the threads where people ask DMs how they'd handle DMing for a character that was born blind because one of their players...was born blind, and wants to run D&D the same way they live.
See how far it gets you.
Bottom line, this is a slippery slope, very slippery, very steep. "These are only optional rules"...until they are not. Next up, all the species specific Feats, which have to be altered to cater to this new set up rules. Then, there are all the species specific features, like Darkvision. Who says my Halfling or Human was not special and was born with Darkvision, and it is also totally unfair that Drow have it to 120 feet, so I should have that "optional rule" as well. Soon, what we have is all chars being just a generic amorphous blob that skills and features are tacked on to that all come from the same pool, and lastly, someone says "oh yeah, it is an elf", meanwhile the exact same build, with same stats and abilities, is called a "half-orc", by another char.
I run a game at a cafe/ restaurant where on a Sat aft it is packed with players (OK, pre-Covid). There is not a free seat in the place. There are 35-40 people in there, playing across up to 5 tables. I am a regular DM, and have my same 6 regular players. (my cap, I hate more players than that.) Some tables have more than 8 players. Each DM does his own thing, runs his own rules. (I have the well-earned reputation for the toughest, most restrictive table). On any given day, there are 4-5 drop-ins, looking for a game, or if a DM does not make it, a bunch of orphan players. So there is still some flux with the individual players at a table any given week. We have tight windows to play in, about 3.5 hours per session.
So the last thing I need, when one of my players doesn't show up, and I take in a stray player, is to have to go over his char with a fine tooth comb to see if he is playing with "optional rules". I physically don't have time for that.(see tight window above), and I don't need the disruption of someone re-creating a char at my table while myself and the rest of the players are moving on in the story. As soon as you start creating these "optional rules", it introduces chaos. So I have a choice. Either put a big sign at my table that say "Before you sit at my table, have a char ready to go that conforms to the PHB and XGTE", or I cave to these rules.
Maybe I'm stupid for jumping down this rabbit hole and posting here, but I have an anecdote to share.
My school was starting a D&D club and I volunteered to help new players learn the rules and make characters. There was one person who showed about who knew literally nothing about D&D. I don't even know if they knew what it stood for when they went to the club. However, they caught on pretty quick and we moved on to making characters. As I went through each class and described it, they latched onto the idea of playing a Ranger. I think they just liked the description of it, because they were very inexperienced about mechanics. They also wanted to play a Dwarf for their race/species. When we went to assign ability scores and bonuses, they noticed that the wizard next to them had the same dexterity that they had. (They were playing a High Elf wizard.) They said that that was kinda annoying, because their character was meant to have a high dexterity, yet the person next to them had the same number. They also didn't really want the strength bonus, because their character wouldn't use strength for much of anything. The next week we played a one shot together, and they had a lot of fun. However, they were still annoyed that even if their dwarf had spent their entire life training and using bows, the elf would have the exact same dexterity.
I think that a rule that allows you to assign bonuses would allow players like this to be more satisfied with their D&D experience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Luckstone gives a +1 to every ability check and every savings throw, which is the equivalent to a +2 in each ability.
No it isn't. It doesn't affect attack rolls, save DCs, ability bonuses to damage, dex bonus to AC, con bonus to HP, spells prepared, etc. This is not to say a luckstone isn't a really powerful item, it is, but it's certainly not equivalent to +2 to all attributes.
Look at my original post, where I specifically mentioned what it affects.
Maybe I'm stupid for jumping down this rabbit hole and posting here, but I have an anecdote to share.
My school was starting a D&D club and I volunteered to help new players learn the rules and make characters. There was one person who showed about who knew literally nothing about D&D. I don't even know if they knew what it stood for when they went to the club. However, they caught on pretty quick and we moved on to making characters. As I went through each class and described it, they latched onto the idea of playing a Ranger. I think they just liked the description of it, because they were very inexperienced about mechanics. They also wanted to play a Dwarf for their race/species. When we went to assign ability scores and bonuses, they noticed that the wizard next to them had the same dexterity that they had. (They were playing a High Elf wizard.) They said that that was kinda annoying, because their character was meant to have a high dexterity, yet the person next to them had the same number. They also didn't really want the strength bonus, because their character wouldn't use strength for much of anything. The next week we played a one shot together, and they had a lot of fun. However, they were still annoyed that even if their dwarf had spent their entire life training and using bows, the elf would have the exact same dexterity.
I think that a rule that allows you to assign bonuses would allow players like this to be more satisfied with their D&D experience.
variants are always good. If your DM says you can use them, then you cant, but big thumbs up to wizards for giving us options!
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.
You truly, honestly, can tell me to my digital face that you don't see the problem in telling someone, to their actual face, "I'm sorry, your story is invalid. Please create a Lord of the Rings character before sitting at my table again"?
God, this is so ******* ridiculous. Everyone is losing their god damned minds over the thought of a half-orc that starts with 16 Intelligence instead of 15, or a goliath with a +1 Strength instead of a +2, when all it takes for any of that to roll right out the heckin' window is somebody rolling for stats and scoring a Heroic array. That has been a variant character creation rule absolutely nobody has ever had any problem with since the PHB was HECKIN' PRINTED. Folks can, and often do, say "I don't allow rolling for stats", but never anywhere has anyone said "anyone who rolls for stats is bad at D&D and should quit" the way folks keep bagging on people to do in here. But nah. Nah nah nah nah nah. Everybody all "there's nothing wrong with a 15! Y'all are just being min-maxers! Min-maxers are Bad People! You should just accept being bad at your class because it suits my personal aesthetic!"
So incredibly short-sighted and ridiculous. But hell - my words have clearly failed. Allow me to directly quote Aravar, who spoke so eloquently on the subject in Reddit:
"I promise, nobody from WotC is going to break down your door, grab your character sheet, and force you to use the Racial Ability optional rules"
This is, perhaps, the most baffling part of the popular discussion over the last few days, what with the announcement of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.
People can think these rules will be poorly-implemented (possible, given that it won't have seen public playtesting), that they're a poor substitute for actually diversifying WotC personnel (absolutely true), or that many people won't use the rules (I may or may not, depending on the character and game). But why the hell are people actively getting into arguments about this? To simplify things, let's just run down the list of common arguments I've been seeing.
It's not necessary!
You know what else isn't necessary? Optional rules for gritty realism. Optional rules for firearms. Optional rules for tying knots. Some people want to use these rules. I know for a fact that my players are ecstatic about the decision to include these rules. That's a good enough reason for the existence of these rules.
The stats are part of the lore and biology! An orc is just naturally stronger than a human!
This optional rule doesn't change the average of any race, nor does it change the lore. It allows players the chance to define their individual character in terms of the Ability Scores they want--including an orc wizard who's just as smart as his gnomish classmate, and a halfling Barbarian who's just as strong as his goliath war buddy.
There's no racism in the current system or the history of D&D and fantasy! In fact, if you see racism in saying certain races are better at certain things, maybe YOU'RE the racist, you rac--
Nope. Two things. One, you're wrong, but that's a different conversation. Two, irrelevant to whether these rules are useful and fun.
Hang on, back there you said a halfling who's as strong as a goliath? That's not realistic!
This is Dungeons & mother******* Dragons.
But this flattens out races and makes then all just variants of humans.
If you rely on built-in Ability Score Increases to successfully role-play the fantasy race you're chosen, the game hasn't failed you--you've failed the game.
You don't need the rule. I can still roleplay my 15 Dex dwarf Rogue just as well as the elf who starts with 16. It's just one point.
Yeah, and now somebody can play that dwarf with 16 Dex, so they're slightly better at the thing they've built their character to be good at. Oh, the (not)humanity.
An elf is going to be better at stealth than a dwarf, given the same amount of practice. It's magic/biology/divine mandate from Blibdoolpoolp herself!
Yeah, but my dwarf has practiced for longer, and his nickname in highschool was Quickfoot McGhee. Or that elf is just a clumsy dipshit that all the other elves laugh at. Or literally any other reason to justify why they're equally skilled.
But that's min-maxing!
Sure.
But min-maxing is bad!
Pal, if I want to get cool weird feats like Alert and Inspiring Leader while also having my main stat at 18 or 20 before level 10, that's my God-given right as an American. You don't get to dictate how I enjoy my game.
But you don't need those things to have fun playing the game!
You don't need a lot of things, but some people want them in addition to playing a different race. Something something Stormwind Fallacy.
People in my group are using it to min-max, and nobody else likes it!
Then the DM can opt not to use the rule.
People in my group are using it to min-max, and only I don't like it!
Get over it, join them, or find a table that matches what you want. It's not the fault of the rules or anyone else on the internet.
Other people on the internet are using it to min-max!
Cool story, not your problem or mine.
Regardless, I still don't like it.
That's your prerogative, but do you really need to hop on Reddit and argue with the people who do like it? TCoE will literally contain 22 subclasses, plus more feats, items, and rules, ONE of which is an optional rule as a response to something people have been asking for. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. But there is ZERO reason to shit on somebody who likes the new option and wants to use it.
But Jeremy Crawford texted me and told me he IS going to break into my house and force me to use the new rule.
This method I could get behind. It’s sort of like the life packs in Shadowrun that let you construct a character by starting at childhood and going through each stage until adulthood. Everything about your life, species, where you were raised, your education, your first job, all affect your character creation.
These suggestions would be something I could work with. Much better approach of this NAT vs. NUR than just allowing stat bonuses to be distributed at will.
Thank you, Mayhem. As often as I bag on 5e, and as much as I heartily believe 5e needs to be bagged on rather than be allowed to sit on its laurels as "The World's Greatest Role Playing Game" without ever taking strides to correct its numerous holes and deficiencies...I've been here for two and a half years and I don't see myself leaving any time soon. Telling me my opinion doesn't matter because I'm a Janey-come-lately who's going to deuce out in three months is disingenuous and does nothing to promote one's arguments.
Wizards, which is a company that cares about money first, money second, money third, money fourth, fifth and sixth, and somewhere on down the line at around line item thirty-seven or so indulges in "maintaining and shepherding a cherished property beloved by millions throughout the world", would not have spent eighteen months and however umpteen jillion bucks developing this Tasha's Allspice Soup Pot book if their market research and analytics did not indicate a strong desire for it. Wizards can make all the money it wants recycling Forgotten Realms shovelware from thirty years ago a'la Ghosts of Saltmarsh or Rime of the Ice Maiden without having to risk exploding the fanbase over dumb shit like whether two or three ability points is the sole and only thing that defines a species in D&D. They only do books like this when they think the payout is worth cheesing off the nostalgia grognards - when the new people are going to buy the book in such quantities that it more than makes up for tweaking the noses of people who haven't been happy since 2e.
Telling folks who want more flexible character creation options that they're a vocal minority that ought to just shut up and play what's good for them like good little girls is myopic.
Finally: a thread my table shared with me from Reddit, in which an individual absolutely brilliantly lays out why errybuddy should just quietate their yakholes, enjoy whichever of the spices in the Allspice Soup Pot appeal to them, and stop telling other people they're bad at D&D for enjoying a different set of spices than you. I hate Reddit, but this is just too perfect to leave unread: "I promise, nobody from WotC is going to break down your door, grab your character sheet, and force you to use the Racial Ability optional rules"
Please do not contact or message me.
It's also important to have an open discussion and debate so people who do support the change, should they end up playing in a group with someone who does not, can fully understand where they're coming from, or vice versa.
It's not good to utterly dismiss anything someone who disagrees with someone else because that shuts down any potential for improvements or issues to be resolved.
Two things:
1. Based in all your math about +1 being this enormous advantage, I guess LuckStone, which is the equivalent to +2 IN EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE of your abilities when it comes to ability checks and savings throws must be the most powerful item in the game. And of course, let's not forget the Cloak of Protection. So stop with all the silly math.
2. Your point about "edge case" storylines says it all. Edge case story lines = "I want to play an extra special char and I deserve extra accommodation because of my conscious choice to play something that does not fit the rules. In fact, I want you to change the rules for me." This is the equivalent of saying "I want to play with 4 knights instead of 2 knights and 2 bishops, but because I am playing an "edge-case", there should be optional rules that say pawns can move diagonally at will."
For a first level fighter, against typical level 1 opponents (about AC 11), a 15 stat means +4 to hit/1d8+4 (assumes dueling style), or 70% * 8.5 = 5.95 dpr. A 16 stat means +5 to hit/1d8+5, or 75% * 9.5 = 7.125 dpr (just under 20% higher). A 20% difference in your ability to do your primary job really does matter.
Note that if the effect of a racial bonus was to increase (point build/standard array) max from 16 to 17 (instead of 15 to 16 or 17) racial bonuses would matter a whole lot less, the problem is that it pushes you over a breakpoint.
1. Just for reference, I believe luck stones grant a +1 bonus, not +2.
2. This isn't really the case. Whereas chess is a game strictly bound to its rules, DnD can afford for its rules to be bent in many areas with the overall fun playability of the game in mind.
That being said, there is a matter of proportion involved. It would ruin the game if anyone could just design a character with a 20 in every stat, in possession of a +10 great sword (because his/her backstory somehow grants this).
Moreover, it is up to the DM's interpretation wether players have absolute autonomy over choice over character, or wether chance plays a certain role. For example, if every player is able to craft a 20 str kobold, this could potentially dilute the rarity of such a genetically uncommon circumstance (and thereby its originality value).
I have little personal opinion either way, but take note: a certain level of restriction is what inspires creativity, and what (ultimately) makes for the best characters.
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
Vince, I have never put anyone in this forum on my Ignore list. I find ignore features to be disruptive and unhelpful, as they leave you only hearing part of a conversation and out of touch with everyone else. Better to simply grit one's teeth and bear the problem, work through it and see if one can at least come to civil disagreement, even if there's no possible accord.
Buddy, you are really making me rethink that stance -_-
I have already stated, multiple times, IN THIS VERY THREAD, that people pursue items that add situational +1 bonuses with a zeal and passion that completely belies this idea that "one measly point of bonus is never gonna matter so suck it up and play that 11-Intelligence wizard already, you rotten ghost." (EDIT: Pantagruel very correctly points out that a single +1, when it pushes you over an ability modifier breakpoint, can have a far greater impact on your game than 'just' a five percent boost. Read that post for more insight into this one.) D&D uses a d20 action resolution system in which success and failure are on a linear scale players are often powerless to affect on top of the 5e idea (which is a good one, even if not implemented perfectly in this edition) of Bounded Accuracy reducing numbers bloat and ensuring the d20 truly does rule your entire game. Every single heckin' Plus you can get matters. Yes, Luckstones are incredibly powerful and should be much rarer than they are. Any DM who hands them out like Halloween treats is either an idiot or is playing an extremely high-powered game.
And frankly, your stance on people wanting to work with their DM to use Official Optional Rules to create a character that fits their own story rather than Standard Fantasy Trope #X417 is actively toxic. Try that opinion out in the Combat Wheelchair threads, or in the threads where people were talking about making characters with prosthetic limbs from the Eberron book Try it out in the threads where people ask DMs how they'd handle DMing for a character that was born blind because one of their players...was born blind, and wants to run D&D the same way they live.
See how far it gets you.
Please do not contact or message me.
How about make believe land has whatever you want
Luckstone gives a +1 to every ability check and every savings throw, which is the equivalent to a +2 in each ability. And as for 5e and rules, there are what, 3 books that reference rules, plus I don't how many more with stat blocs. 5e IS a game of rules, just like every other game. What we have here is a campaign to change the rules to cater to a tiny minority who don't like said rules. And please don't quote Crawford and rule 0.
Based on what? Is that written somewhere? Has someone official made a comment that such is factual or are you making an assumption? Just a guess, but I would bet the majority of characters made on DDB do not have a 20 in their main stat by level 8. They have the data so it would be interesting to see if that is indeed factual. I am very open in being wrong in my guess.
The character is not actively punished. They are simply not actively advantaged over all other characters. Big difference.
I'm certainly not in favour of the whole hypothetical race to species conversion (or in favour of any of the new race modifications), but they are variant rules. You don't have to use them if you don't want to, so it makes very little difference. And no, I disagree. All rules in chess are equally important to it's functioning properly, but variant DnD rules are made all the time. Moreover, if a DM decides to grant one of his players an ability/ trait which deviates from the basic rules, it won't necessarily break the game (indeed, it won't necessarily make much difference at all...it depends on the proportion and nature of the change).
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
No it isn't. It doesn't affect attack rolls, save DCs, ability bonuses to damage, dex bonus to AC, con bonus to HP, spells prepared, etc. This is not to say a luckstone isn't a really powerful item, it is, but it's certainly not equivalent to +2 to all attributes.
Again. Try that opinion out in the combat wheelchair threads. "You can't make this character according to the base rules in the PHB, which are sacrosanct and can never be altered or modified. That's a problem with your story, not the rules."
See how far that gets you, and what sort of reactions you get.
Please do not contact or message me.
Second that. All rules are up to the DM's interpretation, nothing is so important that it can't be tweaked or modified entirely.
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
Bottom line, this is a slippery slope, very slippery, very steep. "These are only optional rules"...until they are not. Next up, all the species specific Feats, which have to be altered to cater to this new set up rules. Then, there are all the species specific features, like Darkvision. Who says my Halfling or Human was not special and was born with Darkvision, and it is also totally unfair that Drow have it to 120 feet, so I should have that "optional rule" as well. Soon, what we have is all chars being just a generic amorphous blob that skills and features are tacked on to that all come from the same pool, and lastly, someone says "oh yeah, it is an elf", meanwhile the exact same build, with same stats and abilities, is called a "half-orc", by another char.
I run a game at a cafe/ restaurant where on a Sat aft it is packed with players (OK, pre-Covid). There is not a free seat in the place. There are 35-40 people in there, playing across up to 5 tables. I am a regular DM, and have my same 6 regular players. (my cap, I hate more players than that.) Some tables have more than 8 players. Each DM does his own thing, runs his own rules. (I have the well-earned reputation for the toughest, most restrictive table). On any given day, there are 4-5 drop-ins, looking for a game, or if a DM does not make it, a bunch of orphan players. So there is still some flux with the individual players at a table any given week. We have tight windows to play in, about 3.5 hours per session.
So the last thing I need, when one of my players doesn't show up, and I take in a stray player, is to have to go over his char with a fine tooth comb to see if he is playing with "optional rules". I physically don't have time for that.(see tight window above), and I don't need the disruption of someone re-creating a char at my table while myself and the rest of the players are moving on in the story. As soon as you start creating these "optional rules", it introduces chaos. So I have a choice. Either put a big sign at my table that say "Before you sit at my table, have a char ready to go that conforms to the PHB and XGTE", or I cave to these rules.
I would hate to be an AL DM.
Maybe I'm stupid for jumping down this rabbit hole and posting here, but I have an anecdote to share.
My school was starting a D&D club and I volunteered to help new players learn the rules and make characters. There was one person who showed about who knew literally nothing about D&D. I don't even know if they knew what it stood for when they went to the club. However, they caught on pretty quick and we moved on to making characters. As I went through each class and described it, they latched onto the idea of playing a Ranger. I think they just liked the description of it, because they were very inexperienced about mechanics. They also wanted to play a Dwarf for their race/species. When we went to assign ability scores and bonuses, they noticed that the wizard next to them had the same dexterity that they had. (They were playing a High Elf wizard.) They said that that was kinda annoying, because their character was meant to have a high dexterity, yet the person next to them had the same number. They also didn't really want the strength bonus, because their character wouldn't use strength for much of anything. The next week we played a one shot together, and they had a lot of fun. However, they were still annoyed that even if their dwarf had spent their entire life training and using bows, the elf would have the exact same dexterity.
I think that a rule that allows you to assign bonuses would allow players like this to be more satisfied with their D&D experience.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Look at my original post, where I specifically mentioned what it affects.
variants are always good. If your DM says you can use them, then you cant, but big thumbs up to wizards for giving us options!
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
You truly, honestly, can tell me to my digital face that you don't see the problem in telling someone, to their actual face, "I'm sorry, your story is invalid. Please create a Lord of the Rings character before sitting at my table again"?
God, this is so ******* ridiculous. Everyone is losing their god damned minds over the thought of a half-orc that starts with 16 Intelligence instead of 15, or a goliath with a +1 Strength instead of a +2, when all it takes for any of that to roll right out the heckin' window is somebody rolling for stats and scoring a Heroic array. That has been a variant character creation rule absolutely nobody has ever had any problem with since the PHB was HECKIN' PRINTED. Folks can, and often do, say "I don't allow rolling for stats", but never anywhere has anyone said "anyone who rolls for stats is bad at D&D and should quit" the way folks keep bagging on people to do in here. But nah. Nah nah nah nah nah. Everybody all "there's nothing wrong with a 15! Y'all are just being min-maxers! Min-maxers are Bad People! You should just accept being bad at your class because it suits my personal aesthetic!"
So incredibly short-sighted and ridiculous. But hell - my words have clearly failed. Allow me to directly quote Aravar, who spoke so eloquently on the subject in Reddit:
"I promise, nobody from WotC is going to break down your door, grab your character sheet, and force you to use the Racial Ability optional rules"
This is, perhaps, the most baffling part of the popular discussion over the last few days, what with the announcement of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.
People can think these rules will be poorly-implemented (possible, given that it won't have seen public playtesting), that they're a poor substitute for actually diversifying WotC personnel (absolutely true), or that many people won't use the rules (I may or may not, depending on the character and game). But why the hell are people actively getting into arguments about this? To simplify things, let's just run down the list of common arguments I've been seeing.
You know what else isn't necessary? Optional rules for gritty realism. Optional rules for firearms. Optional rules for tying knots. Some people want to use these rules. I know for a fact that my players are ecstatic about the decision to include these rules. That's a good enough reason for the existence of these rules.
This optional rule doesn't change the average of any race, nor does it change the lore. It allows players the chance to define their individual character in terms of the Ability Scores they want--including an orc wizard who's just as smart as his gnomish classmate, and a halfling Barbarian who's just as strong as his goliath war buddy.
Nope. Two things. One, you're wrong, but that's a different conversation. Two, irrelevant to whether these rules are useful and fun.
This is Dungeons & mother******* Dragons.
If you rely on built-in Ability Score Increases to successfully role-play the fantasy race you're chosen, the game hasn't failed you--you've failed the game.
Yeah, and now somebody can play that dwarf with 16 Dex, so they're slightly better at the thing they've built their character to be good at. Oh, the (not)humanity.
Yeah, but my dwarf has practiced for longer, and his nickname in highschool was Quickfoot McGhee. Or that elf is just a clumsy dipshit that all the other elves laugh at. Or literally any other reason to justify why they're equally skilled.
Sure.
Pal, if I want to get cool weird feats like Alert and Inspiring Leader while also having my main stat at 18 or 20 before level 10, that's my God-given right as an American. You don't get to dictate how I enjoy my game.
You don't need a lot of things, but some people want them in addition to playing a different race. Something something Stormwind Fallacy.
Then the DM can opt not to use the rule.
Get over it, join them, or find a table that matches what you want. It's not the fault of the rules or anyone else on the internet.
Cool story, not your problem or mine.
That's your prerogative, but do you really need to hop on Reddit and argue with the people who do like it? TCoE will literally contain 22 subclasses, plus more feats, items, and rules, ONE of which is an optional rule as a response to something people have been asking for. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. But there is ZERO reason to shit on somebody who likes the new option and wants to use it.
Too late. He's already right behind you.
Please do not contact or message me.