Heh. If everyone has the right to an opinion, why does everyone not have the right to use optional rules from an official sourcebook in their own personal games with their DM's blessing?
Of course you do. This isn’t about telling you that you shouldn’t do that.
This is us saying that we think WotC should not have put those optional rules in an official book in the first place.
WotC obviously wanted those rules in the game or they wouldn’t have put them there. I thought that WoTC shouldn’t have to change D&D to accommodate people who want to play a different game when there are those games out there.
WotC did change D&D when they put those rules in there, because D&D existed for 27 years under TSR without those rules until WotC bought the rights to D&D.
Heh. If everyone has the right to an opinion, why does everyone not have the right to use optional rules from an official sourcebook in their own personal games with their DM's blessing?
Of course you do. This isn’t about telling you that you shouldn’t do that.
This is us saying that we think WotC should not have put those optional rules in an official book in the first place.
Yep - I have never seen anyone (other than Yueri) make any claim to someone forcing their playstyle on someone else. (I'm referencing your long exaggerated post about JC).
It seems that disagree with you means we are preventing your way of doing things. No one has ever said "You are playing D&D wrong." They have said if you want a specific system there are already those built so why does D&D need to become said system, that's about a close as you get to someone shutting you down. But stating "Hey here are a rules set already made that fits the way you want to play." It still not shutting down your playstyle - just giving you a already built product Vs expecting the product you are using now to change.
Frankly - while this entire debate is not so great of people on both sides. I have really only noticed one side getting super arrogant and almost hatred focused at the other. But I have not seen any side "shut down" anyone play. I have seen people say "Not in my D&D" but that doesn't affect yours.
And why would people who don't want this official rules to come out that obviously some people want. Because WoTC could dedicated its time towards say - a better psionics system - than make a variant rule-set that people can already do if they so choose. You really don't need comprehensive rules in a book to make every race ASIs like Variant humans.
What’s so wrong about rolling for stats? I’ve been rolling stats since the early ‘90s and it’s never been a problem.
Mainly, because it's random. I like the idea of it, and have used it in many games, but I don't use it anymore because my core principle for character generation in D&D is that you should be able to choose who you play. When you roll for stats, you don't choose, you roll.
Then it sounds to me that you might prefer a point-buy game. WotC shouldn’t have to change D&D to suit people who would prefer a different game, that’s why there are different games.
I didn't say D&D had to change, or that no one is allowed to roll for stats anymore. I understand people like playing different ways, and I like that the game has options for that/want more options for that (which has been my stance for this whole thread).
I personally use Point Buy or Standard Array for stats, and that's the rule at my table. I will in no way try to force anyone to use these 2 systems, and as a player, I make absolutely no fuss about it if the DM says to roll for stats, because I'm not a jerk.
Come on, Sposta. I thought you knew me better than that. Only a jerk would force a way of play on another person, I'm not that kind of guy.
Okay, so if one of your player came to you and said: “I don’t like standard array or point buy, I want to roll all of my PCs from now on.” Would you let them?
I would say no. It's the same reason that you wouldn't let psionics in your game unless it's how you want it. That's my right as a DM. If the player can absolutely not play in a game that doesn't roll for stats, I won't let them play in the campaign, because that's a sign that they're not going to be fun to play with.
Then we shall never play together my friend, because I don’t think that point buy or standard array should have ever been printed as options.
At least not together with me as the DM, then. I wouldn't make a fuss about it as a player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Heh. If everyone has the right to an opinion, why does everyone not have the right to use optional rules from an official sourcebook in their own personal games with their DM's blessing?
Of course you do. This isn’t about telling you that you shouldn’t do that.
This is us saying that we think WotC should not have put those optional rules in an official book in the first place.
Could you sum up exactly why you do not want the rules to be printed? Do you think it would encourage min-maxing, reduce character diversity, or for some other reason?
Read the last 19 pages of this thread, “The truth is [in] there.”
What is sounds like and this is going off of all of the threads that I have read that you jump into. “*I* don’t want WoTC to change the rules for other people only for stuff I want. You stated earlier that “WotC shouldn’t have to change D&D to suit people who would prefer a different game, that’s why there are different games.” Yet in every thread I have seen you in you are actively trying to change D&D to suit people who would prefer a different game. from having more rules to the way Psionics work(in which you stated that I am banning them from my table and I won’t play with others that use it). When someone points out that you can play other games you get defensive about it and say that you either don’t want to or that you are trying to make this game better.
Again WoTC wanted these changes or they wouldn’t have put them in. So maybe take your own advice there.
Lets be fair WoTC may not have fully wanted these changes, it took a poltical movement to get this new system out. If they wanted this change why only announce it after pressure and accusations?
Again this Variant Rule is literally so easy is does not need a book for it to work (other than making it so tools like Roll20 and DDB are forced to make the abilities to do them mainstream). If they wanted it so badly why have they not just published it? Why is it locked behind a book coming out in Nov? if this was such a wanted change why not place it in the free core rules?
Okay, so if one of your player came to you and said: “I don’t like standard array or point buy, I want to roll all of my PCs from now on.” Would you let them?
"Feel free to roll randomly for inspiration, and then use the inspiration to decide how to spend the points in point build. Also, you aren't required to spend all your points if you don't want to".
Because DnD is both roleplaying game and a numbers game, and it can really take the wind out of your sails if someone else's character is simply better not because of a clever use of the game mechanics, but becauses they had +2 strength and are playing a barbarian while you, the Aasimar wizard, are effectively an ASI behind them in main stats.
Aasimar have abilities other than stat bonuses to balance them as a race.
What is AL's position on this book. Are they going to allow it, including the optional rules?
I'm assuming they'll allow the subclasses and any races, spells, feats, and DM options that may exist in it, but I haven't heard anything about this variant rule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
In the old days, most races with a bonus also had a penalty. Humans had no bonuses and no penalties. But the other races normally balanced out... So your +2 CON, say, was balanced by -1 INT, -1 WIS (or what have you). If you wanted that awesome CON, it came with strings attached.
You didn't mention that in the old days some races couldn't be certain classes and they had a level limit based on their race. The level limit was annoying.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Lets be fair WoTC may not have fully wanted these changes, it took a poltical movement to get this new system out. If they wanted this change why only announce it after pressure and accusations?
Again this Variant Rule is literally so easy is does not need a book for it to work (other than making it so tools like Roll20 and DDB are forced to make the abilities to do them mainstream). If they wanted it so badly why have they not just published it? Why is it locked behind a book coming out in Nov? if this was such a wanted change why not place it in the free core rules?
Because it helps sell a book to people.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Your AL Admins are just as excited about Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything as you all are! Rest assured that when we know how the new sourcebook will affect Adventurers League play, you all will. At this time, we have no further information.
So we will have to wait to see what the official ruling will be!
What is AL's position on this book. Are they going to allow it, including the optional rules?
They are going to wait until we know the details. Can't really decide to allow or not before it is public.
My gut says they don't allow most/all of the variants. There are already so many things they don't allow for simplicity's sake that I don't imagine, with all the variability this might create, that it will fly. Especially when you consider the fact that some races are only available in specific +1 books and if you can get the benefit without that book, then all sorts of things would change.
All right. One more time maybe, before Stormknight bans me for having the most bannable face on DDB.
AHEM.
1.) "This Lineage system completely devalues species choice. Everything is just variant human now." First of all, nobody actually knows that. It's quite possible that 'biological' traits such as an aarakocra's wings, a minotaurs horns, and the like will all be non-negotiable. The other stuff should have always been negotiable because the player decides which culture their character originated from, not the PHB.
Second of all, only if the DM lets it. If you need a fixed, rigid and unbending three ability points distributed just so to get into the head of your character and play the role of a member of a fantasy species beyond humanity, that is a you problem, not a D&D problem.
2.) "This rule is going to make character creation too complicated. Too many decisions to make when all I want is to pick a species and play it." ...then pick a species and play it. Ignore the Tasha's Cauldron rules entirely. Or if you're the DM, disallow Tasha's Cauldron creation rules at your table. Nobody is going to hire a team of ninjas to sneak into your house, defecate on your PHB, and beat you over the head with an advance copy of Tasha's Cauldron until you agree to use everything printed in it.
3.) "This rule is going to suck for Adventurer's League. How am I supposed to run an AL game when everybody can do whatever they like with their character?" First of all, again, you have no idea how this will impact Adventurer's League.
Second of all, Adventurer's League has allowed mix-and-match custom backgrounds for forever and a day, and nobody's ever had anything bad to say about that.
Third of all, it's not actually the DM's fault if a shifty AL player manages to bamboozle them into allowing something they technically shouldn't have through charsheet legerdemain.
Fourth of all, why are we upset about players doing 'whatever the like' with their characters, again? Within the punitive restrictions of AL, of course.
Fifth of all, it's Adventurer's League. You agreed to surrender control over your game and the people who play in it the moment you agreed to run an AL game instead of regular D&D. How is Tasha's Cauldron any different than any other +1 sourcebook that mucks about with rules from the PHB?
4.) "I have a controversial and upsetting opinion about [insert related but controversial IRL topic here] and this rule triggers me." Sorry to hear that. See Stormknight's post.
5.) "This rule only exists so that min-maxers can have their cake and eat it, too." And?
6.) "I REALLY hate min-maxers. Like...REEAAALLY hate them." Sorry to hear that. See Stormknight's post.
7.) "This new rule makes it too easy to come up with illogical and nonsensical characters whose stats just don't make sense." This is a game where a robot wizard with a retractable greataxe and a retractable magic wand built into the same arm can go on adventures with a dinosaur-riding jungle pygmy and a man whose soul is permanently linked to an intangible spirit from Nightmaretopia, who all ride around on a magic war blimp powered by imprisoned sentient lightning and piloted by someone whose magic birthmark gives him the power to mingle his soul with a magic war blimp powered by imprisoned sentient lightning.
The dinosaur-riding pygmy having a higher number in his Strength box than the robot wizard does is the part that gets your goat up?
8.) "My players don't like it when I tell them they can't use a rule in the books. How am I supposed to stop them from doing whatever they like with this new book?" Grow a spine. It may suck for an afternoon, but either your players will get over it or your table was too unstable to last anyways. If they push, push back. You're the DM, you're allowed to have fun too. Your players aren't going to hire a team of ninjas to sneak into your house, defecate on your PHB, and beat you over the head with an advance copy of Tasha's Cauldron until you agree to use everything printed in it.
10.) "Back in MY day, we rolled for stats - in order - AFTER deciding which race and class we were gonna play. Our characters all died before third level, and we just looked at the DM after he finished narrating and said 'please sir, may I have another?' Y'all kids these days don't know how good you have it." Okay, boomer.
11.) "Why can't you just homebrew something? Everybody else is fine with homebrew, we don't need this stupid rule." First of all: why should I have to?
Second of all: A strong majority of DMs flat-out disallow homebrew. Especially homebrew that affects species or class. J-Craw has said that Wizards prints these rules, in part, specifically to remind DMs that it's okay to flex.
12.) "I just don't heckin' like it, and I don't wanna use it." Then don't. Nobody is going to hire a team of ninjas to sneak into your house, defecate on your PHB, and beat you over the head with an advance copy of Tasha's Cauldron until you agree to use everything printed in it.
13.) "Somebody hired a team of ninjas to sneak into my house, defecate on my PHB, and beat me over the head with an advance copy of Tasha's Cauldron until I agreed to use everything printed in it. NOW what, smartass?" You probably should've filmed it. That would've made for an amazing YouTube video, you coulda made enough money on it to buy a new PHB.
Okay, hopefully that nonsense is over now (thanks, mods for clearing that up).
So, to summarize my point a bit further:
This variant rule has basically no negative consequences, and the ones that do exist are so minor that they barely count as downsides. This change is mostly (by a vast margin) a positive. It provides a variant rule that takes away from no one, and only gives an official beneficial rule to the group of people who want this rule to be in their games.
People who don't like this change say that it will only help powergamers (which has some truth to it), and that it isn't realistic (and this is freaking D&D, who gives a shit whether this variant rule is realistic or not), that WotC doesn't want to make this change (which there is no evidence besides circular arguments), and that if it's so easy to homebrew, it doesn't need to come out in an official book (which is BS, because homebrew, or at least not this type, isn't supported on D&D Beyond, isn't allowed in Adventurer's League, and there are many tables that don't allow homebrew rules).
My side (the ones who want this change and are happy that it's coming), says that it is a positive change, is coming no matter what, takes away from no one, and we're glad we have support for this rule we used to have to homebrew.
Anything that needs discussion, then?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Lets be fair WoTC may not have fully wanted these changes, it took a poltical movement to get this new system out. If they wanted this change why only announce it after pressure and accusations?
Again this Variant Rule is literally so easy is does not need a book for it to work (other than making it so tools like Roll20 and DDB are forced to make the abilities to do them mainstream). If they wanted it so badly why have they not just published it? Why is it locked behind a book coming out in Nov? if this was such a wanted change why not place it in the free core rules?
They made a post about it. “Later this year, we will release a product (not yet announced) that offers a way for a player to customize their character’s origin, including the option to change the ability score increases that come from being an elf, a dwarf, or one of D&D's many other playable folk. This option emphasizes that each person in the game is an individual with capabilities all their own.”
it seems like it was in in the plans forever as right before this they stated their goals for 5e which was “One of the explicit design goals of 5th edition D&D is to depict humanity in all its beautiful diversity by depicting characters who represent an array of ethnicities, gender identities, sexual orientations, and beliefs. We want everyone to feel at home around the game table and to see positive reflections of themselves within our products. “Human” in D&D means everyone, not just fantasy versions of northern Europeans, and the D&D community is now more diverse than it’s ever been.”
This isn’t a new idea because look at the way the design for especially for the orc and drow were going before this. “We present orcs and drow in a new light in two of our most recent books, Eberron: Rising from the Last War and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. In those books, orcs and drow are just as morally and culturally complex as other peoples. We will continue that approach in future books, portraying all the peoples of D&D in relatable ways and making it clear that they are as free as humans to decide who they are and what they do.“
This has always been the way that the design was going even before the world went topsy-turvy.
Lets be fair WoTC may not have fully wanted these changes, it took a poltical movement to get this new system out. If they wanted this change why only announce it after pressure and accusations?
Again this Variant Rule is literally so easy is does not need a book for it to work (other than making it so tools like Roll20 and DDB are forced to make the abilities to do them mainstream). If they wanted it so badly why have they not just published it? Why is it locked behind a book coming out in Nov? if this was such a wanted change why not place it in the free core rules?
They made a post about it. “Later this year, we will release a product (not yet announced) that offers a way for a player to customize their character’s origin, including the option to change the ability score increases that come from being an elf, a dwarf, or one of D&D's many other playable folk. This option emphasizes that each person in the game is an individual with capabilities all their own.”
it seems like it was in in the plans forever as right before this they stated their goals for 5e which was “One of the explicit design goals of 5th edition D&D is to depict humanity in all its beautiful diversity by depicting characters who represent an array of ethnicities, gender identities, sexual orientations, and beliefs. We want everyone to feel at home around the game table and to see positive reflections of themselves within our products. “Human” in D&D means everyone, not just fantasy versions of northern Europeans, and the D&D community is now more diverse than it’s ever been.”
This isn’t a new idea because look at the way the design for especially for the orc and drow were going before this. “We present orcs and drow in a new light in two of our most recent books, Eberron: Rising from the Last War and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. In those books, orcs and drow are just as morally and culturally complex as other peoples. We will continue that approach in future books, portraying all the peoples of D&D in relatable ways and making it clear that they are as free as humans to decide who they are and what they do.“
This has always been the way that the design was going even before the world went topsy-turvy.
Changing culture and making that open has always been more in their focus - that has nothing to do with ASI scores.
But that's where I guess I need to stop typing or else I'll be deleted for "political"
Can you point out some posts saying this, particularly from recent threads, or articles to this effect?
From an anecdotal experience and lurking on a few threads, I have never seen two argued, or people saying four had to happen. Your point on three is very broad; most seem to object to language or descriptions saying "this race is x and the majority will act / believe this way", particularly along races that have allegorical origins or seem to be based on stereotyping*, and the implications that race and culture are the same. I haven't seen four suggested or wanted to be enforced (from a personal point of view, I find it strange that Orc and Kobald are the only ones with negative stat bonuses in 5e).
They existed but got shot down by the DDB Forum Waywatchers =)
Not going to get into it, just know the fight became too bitter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
WotC did change D&D when they put those rules in there, because D&D existed for 27 years under TSR without those rules until WotC bought the rights to D&D.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yep - I have never seen anyone (other than Yueri) make any claim to someone forcing their playstyle on someone else. (I'm referencing your long exaggerated post about JC).
It seems that disagree with you means we are preventing your way of doing things. No one has ever said "You are playing D&D wrong." They have said if you want a specific system there are already those built so why does D&D need to become said system, that's about a close as you get to someone shutting you down. But stating "Hey here are a rules set already made that fits the way you want to play." It still not shutting down your playstyle - just giving you a already built product Vs expecting the product you are using now to change.
Frankly - while this entire debate is not so great of people on both sides. I have really only noticed one side getting super arrogant and almost hatred focused at the other. But I have not seen any side "shut down" anyone play. I have seen people say "Not in my D&D" but that doesn't affect yours.
And why would people who don't want this official rules to come out that obviously some people want. Because WoTC could dedicated its time towards say - a better psionics system - than make a variant rule-set that people can already do if they so choose. You really don't need comprehensive rules in a book to make every race ASIs like Variant humans.
At least not together with me as the DM, then. I wouldn't make a fuss about it as a player.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
What is sounds like and this is going off of all of the threads that I have read that you jump into. “*I* don’t want WoTC to change the rules for other people only for stuff I want. You stated earlier that “WotC shouldn’t have to change D&D to suit people who would prefer a different game, that’s why there are different games.” Yet in every thread I have seen you in you are actively trying to change D&D to suit people who would prefer a different game. from having more rules to the way Psionics work(in which you stated that I am banning them from my table and I won’t play with others that use it). When someone points out that you can play other games you get defensive about it and say that you either don’t want to or that you are trying to make this game better.
Again WoTC wanted these changes or they wouldn’t have put them in. So maybe take your own advice there.
Lets be fair WoTC may not have fully wanted these changes, it took a poltical movement to get this new system out. If they wanted this change why only announce it after pressure and accusations?
Again this Variant Rule is literally so easy is does not need a book for it to work (other than making it so tools like Roll20 and DDB are forced to make the abilities to do them mainstream). If they wanted it so badly why have they not just published it? Why is it locked behind a book coming out in Nov? if this was such a wanted change why not place it in the free core rules?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
AlumniHey there Folks,
D&D Beyond supports constructive debate,
Please make sure your sticking to the rules, not attacking other users and not mentioning political views.
Thanks!
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] - [ Homebrew Rules ] - [ D&D Beyond FAQ ] - [ Homebrew FAQ ] - [ Homebrew Video Tutorials ]
Standard "free" content is restricted to the D&D 5th Edition Basic Rules, SRD, and other free content.
"Feel free to roll randomly for inspiration, and then use the inspiration to decide how to spend the points in point build. Also, you aren't required to spend all your points if you don't want to".
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersOk folks,
this is not just getting heated - people are straying WAY off what is allowed.
Please let me remind you that:
1) We will NOT tolerate attacks on any other users.
If you post something in this thread that attacks another user, the post will be deleted and you will incur a formal warning.
2) It is not allowed to talk about real world politics and/or religion on these forums.
Similarly, posts doing so, regardless of whether you believe it is justified (it isn't) will be removed.
This forum is for discussion of Dungeons & Dragons and D&D Beyond.
If you wish to discuss politics, there are other platforms available to do so.
Many thanks 💗
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Aasimar have abilities other than stat bonuses to balance them as a race.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I have a question:
What is AL's position on this book. Are they going to allow it, including the optional rules?
I'm assuming they'll allow the subclasses and any races, spells, feats, and DM options that may exist in it, but I haven't heard anything about this variant rule.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You didn't mention that in the old days some races couldn't be certain classes and they had a level limit based on their race. The level limit was annoying.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Because it helps sell a book to people.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
InsiderThere was an official post put out on their Twitter account when the book was announced: https://twitter.com/DnD_AdvLeague/status/1297909934013714432
Your AL Admins are just as excited about Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything as you all are! Rest assured that when we know how the new sourcebook will affect Adventurers League play, you all will. At this time, we have no further information.
So we will have to wait to see what the official ruling will be!
Find me on Twitter: @OboeLauren
They are going to wait until we know the details. Can't really decide to allow or not before it is public.
My gut says they don't allow most/all of the variants. There are already so many things they don't allow for simplicity's sake that I don't imagine, with all the variability this might create, that it will fly. Especially when you consider the fact that some races are only available in specific +1 books and if you can get the benefit without that book, then all sorts of things would change.
*Sigh*
All right. One more time maybe, before Stormknight bans me for having the most bannable face on DDB.
AHEM.
1.) "This Lineage system completely devalues species choice. Everything is just variant human now."
First of all, nobody actually knows that. It's quite possible that 'biological' traits such as an aarakocra's wings, a minotaurs horns, and the like will all be non-negotiable. The other stuff should have always been negotiable because the player decides which culture their character originated from, not the PHB.
Second of all, only if the DM lets it. If you need a fixed, rigid and unbending three ability points distributed just so to get into the head of your character and play the role of a member of a fantasy species beyond humanity, that is a you problem, not a D&D problem.
2.) "This rule is going to make character creation too complicated. Too many decisions to make when all I want is to pick a species and play it."
...then pick a species and play it. Ignore the Tasha's Cauldron rules entirely. Or if you're the DM, disallow Tasha's Cauldron creation rules at your table. Nobody is going to hire a team of ninjas to sneak into your house, defecate on your PHB, and beat you over the head with an advance copy of Tasha's Cauldron until you agree to use everything printed in it.
3.) "This rule is going to suck for Adventurer's League. How am I supposed to run an AL game when everybody can do whatever they like with their character?"
First of all, again, you have no idea how this will impact Adventurer's League.
Second of all, Adventurer's League has allowed mix-and-match custom backgrounds for forever and a day, and nobody's ever had anything bad to say about that.
Third of all, it's not actually the DM's fault if a shifty AL player manages to bamboozle them into allowing something they technically shouldn't have through charsheet legerdemain.
Fourth of all, why are we upset about players doing 'whatever the like' with their characters, again? Within the punitive restrictions of AL, of course.
Fifth of all, it's Adventurer's League. You agreed to surrender control over your game and the people who play in it the moment you agreed to run an AL game instead of regular D&D. How is Tasha's Cauldron any different than any other +1 sourcebook that mucks about with rules from the PHB?
4.) "I have a controversial and upsetting opinion about [insert related but controversial IRL topic here] and this rule triggers me."
Sorry to hear that. See Stormknight's post.
5.) "This rule only exists so that min-maxers can have their cake and eat it, too."
And?
6.) "I REALLY hate min-maxers. Like...REEAAALLY hate them."
Sorry to hear that. See Stormknight's post.
7.) "This new rule makes it too easy to come up with illogical and nonsensical characters whose stats just don't make sense."
This is a game where a robot wizard with a retractable greataxe and a retractable magic wand built into the same arm can go on adventures with a dinosaur-riding jungle pygmy and a man whose soul is permanently linked to an intangible spirit from Nightmaretopia, who all ride around on a magic war blimp powered by imprisoned sentient lightning and piloted by someone whose magic birthmark gives him the power to mingle his soul with a magic war blimp powered by imprisoned sentient lightning.
The dinosaur-riding pygmy having a higher number in his Strength box than the robot wizard does is the part that gets your goat up?
8.) "My players don't like it when I tell them they can't use a rule in the books. How am I supposed to stop them from doing whatever they like with this new book?"
Grow a spine. It may suck for an afternoon, but either your players will get over it or your table was too unstable to last anyways. If they push, push back. You're the DM, you're allowed to have fun too. Your players aren't going to hire a team of ninjas to sneak into your house, defecate on your PHB, and beat you over the head with an advance copy of Tasha's Cauldron until you agree to use everything printed in it.
10.) "Back in MY day, we rolled for stats - in order - AFTER deciding which race and class we were gonna play. Our characters all died before third level, and we just looked at the DM after he finished narrating and said 'please sir, may I have another?' Y'all kids these days don't know how good you have it."
Okay, boomer.
11.) "Why can't you just homebrew something? Everybody else is fine with homebrew, we don't need this stupid rule."
First of all: why should I have to?
Second of all: A strong majority of DMs flat-out disallow homebrew. Especially homebrew that affects species or class. J-Craw has said that Wizards prints these rules, in part, specifically to remind DMs that it's okay to flex.
12.) "I just don't heckin' like it, and I don't wanna use it."
Then don't. Nobody is going to hire a team of ninjas to sneak into your house, defecate on your PHB, and beat you over the head with an advance copy of Tasha's Cauldron until you agree to use everything printed in it.
13.) "Somebody hired a team of ninjas to sneak into my house, defecate on my PHB, and beat me over the head with an advance copy of Tasha's Cauldron until I agreed to use everything printed in it. NOW what, smartass?"
You probably should've filmed it. That would've made for an amazing YouTube video, you coulda made enough money on it to buy a new PHB.
Please do not contact or message me.
Okay, hopefully that nonsense is over now (thanks, mods for clearing that up).
So, to summarize my point a bit further:
This variant rule has basically no negative consequences, and the ones that do exist are so minor that they barely count as downsides. This change is mostly (by a vast margin) a positive. It provides a variant rule that takes away from no one, and only gives an official beneficial rule to the group of people who want this rule to be in their games.
People who don't like this change say that it will only help powergamers (which has some truth to it), and that it isn't realistic (and this is freaking D&D, who gives a shit whether this variant rule is realistic or not), that WotC doesn't want to make this change (which there is no evidence besides circular arguments), and that if it's so easy to homebrew, it doesn't need to come out in an official book (which is BS, because homebrew, or at least not this type, isn't supported on D&D Beyond, isn't allowed in Adventurer's League, and there are many tables that don't allow homebrew rules).
My side (the ones who want this change and are happy that it's coming), says that it is a positive change, is coming no matter what, takes away from no one, and we're glad we have support for this rule we used to have to homebrew.
Anything that needs discussion, then?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
They made a post about it.
“Later this year, we will release a product (not yet announced) that offers a way for a player to customize their character’s origin, including the option to change the ability score increases that come from being an elf, a dwarf, or one of D&D's many other playable folk. This option emphasizes that each person in the game is an individual with capabilities all their own.”
it seems like it was in in the plans forever as right before this they stated their goals for 5e which was “One of the explicit design goals of 5th edition D&D is to depict humanity in all its beautiful diversity by depicting characters who represent an array of ethnicities, gender identities, sexual orientations, and beliefs. We want everyone to feel at home around the game table and to see positive reflections of themselves within our products. “Human” in D&D means everyone, not just fantasy versions of northern Europeans, and the D&D community is now more diverse than it’s ever been.”
This isn’t a new idea because look at the way the design for especially for the orc and drow were going before this. “We present orcs and drow in a new light in two of our most recent books, Eberron: Rising from the Last War and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. In those books, orcs and drow are just as morally and culturally complex as other peoples. We will continue that approach in future books, portraying all the peoples of D&D in relatable ways and making it clear that they are as free as humans to decide who they are and what they do.“
This has always been the way that the design was going even before the world went topsy-turvy.
Changing culture and making that open has always been more in their focus - that has nothing to do with ASI scores.
But that's where I guess I need to stop typing or else I'll be deleted for "political"
They existed but got shot down by the DDB Forum Waywatchers =)
Not going to get into it, just know the fight became too bitter.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale