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"
“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.”
This makes it seem that that isn’t/wasn’t the case. It looks like it has been in the works for sometime.
Heh. I mean, there's a whole lot of grouchiness and rumble-grumbling and people very upset this rule is an Official Thing in an official Book come November, rather than a piece of homebrew they can shut down. Is it any surprise that a lot of that sort of grouchiness comes off as "stop playing D&D wrong, you whippersnappers!"?
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 💗
And so my point stands. As I said, threads about this issue spiral out of control and always result in an argument that gets the thread locked. I will put what I wrote in an earlier post.
"This is another thread about Race and Species? There has been a 'trend' with these threads, every single thread made about this 'issue' has resulted in it starting a large argument and thus resulting in the thread being locked. If you don't believe me have a look for yourself.
I see no point in making these threads if they will only start an argument and inevitably being locked, threads regarding this issue will only start mindless fights. I highly recommend not continuing this thread as it will certainly result in a fight."
REMEMBER: Wizards Of The Coast does not own DDB, they are two different companies. When you buy a physical book, WotC receives the money you bought it for, not DDB and vice versa. If you want a digital key to get an online book for free because you have the hardcopy book then DDB makes no money because you don't buy off DDB you buy off WotC, so please stop making threads about this issue. DDB needs money to continue helping people and servers aren't cheap.
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.
Much like every other person in this thread, I am entitled to my own opinions, and the freedom of speech to express them as long as I don’t get nasty or encourage anyone to commit a crime. One of those because of our hosts and hostesses at DDB, the other because of legality.
As to Psionics, that has existed in D&D for almost as long as D&D has existed. That happened way back around the time that TSR finally separated race and class, because back then there were no “racial bonuses,” being an Elf or a Dwarf was your job. Then praised be to AD&D from which modern D&D evolved, and players could suddenly be both an Elf and a Wizard. Why? Because they added Race when before there was only class. Good change.
Psionics came about back then too. It was added to D&D, and was wholly unique from Spellcasting. So when I advocate for Psionics to be wholly unique from Spellcasting, it’s because I want to preserve that tradition. By making Psionics work the same way as Spellcasting, that is changing D&D, and only for the banal. To add a new wholly separate system would not be changing D&D, it would actually be preserving it.
To make race wholly cosmetic it takes us back to the Neolithic era of D&D when there was only jobs/classes. It reduces the complexity of combinations that make each character wholly unique. If players can put stats anywhere they want I predict that the world will almost immediately and suddenly see a massive uptick in the population of whatever “optimized” thing someone is about to think of any minute.
Maybe everyone will suddenly start playing nothing but Halflings all of a sudden so their +2 Cha, +1 Con Pala-sorlock-bard can have the Lucky trait to get around their DM’s ban on the Lucky feat, or go extra bananas on the DMs that haven’t.
Maybe we will have a sudden 300% increase in the Half-Orc population, and amazingly they are all the most charming of people, every last one of them. That way their players can all get a “get out of jail free” Relentless Endurance and Savage Attacks on their Hexa-sora-barda-dins.
And if people think that they “have to” build certain ways now, how bad is it gonna be when everyone is playing nothing but Yuan-Ti for everything because it’s too good not to?
Maybe we will get overrun by a tide of the brawniest Kobolds the world has ever seen. 🤷♂️
I don’t know what it will be, but it’ll be something.
So it’s never “only change what I want.” It’s always this:
“Add new things to give us more variety. Don’t take away variety for the sake of streamlining to appease the internet blobbermasses. Add don’t subtract.”
It is possible, MetaPigeon, to have a cool story idea you want to play but to also want to have a character that is not an anchor on the party. A goliath wizard, by default rules, is mostly just a mistake. You can play it, sure - but unless you rolled Heroic stats and have a giant number to put in Intelligence, that goliath is categorically worse than a wizard of any race with a point of Intelligence. The goliath's extra Strength and Powerful Build do not somehow 'even out' the character being decidedly terrible at her primary task, which is wizarding.
That's rediculous. The majority of races out there don't have a bonus to INT so they would be in exactly the same stat boat as a Goliath Wizard.
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?"
Legitimate question, Sposta. Very much a legitimate, real thing I'm asking you.
Who cares?
I'll redirect your attention to a post I made earlier in this thread, wherein I described an amazing moment I only got because my DM didn't bat an eye when I created a very 'off-meta', 'off-species' character.
As for super charming half-orc Hexblade/Paladins...hmm. Wonder if that idea's ever been done before... Nah. And even if by some chance it has been, surely not by anybody who could do the concept justice or play the character in a way that endears him to his table or creates a beloved story. I mean, everybody knows that the minute you min-max, all plot goes out the window, ne?
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.
Much like every other person in this thread, I am entitled to my own opinions, and the freedom of speech to express them as long as I don’t get mast or encourage anyone to commit a crime. One of those because of our hosts and hostesses at DDB, the other because of legality.
As to Psionics, that has existed in D&D for almost as long as D&D has existed. That happened way back around the time that TSR finally separated race and class, because back then there were no “racial bonuses,” being an Elf or a Dwarf was your job. Then praised be to AD&D from which modern D&D evolved, and players could suddenly be both an Elf and a Wizard. Why? Because they added Race when before there was only class. Good change.
Psionics came about back then too. It was added to D&D, and was wholly unique from Spellcasting. So when I advocate for Psionics to be wholly unique from Spellcasting, it’s because I want to preserve that tradition. By making Psionics work the same way as Spellcasting, that is changing D&D, and only for the banal. To add a new wholly separate system would not be changing D&D, it would actually be preserving it.
To make race wholly cosmetic it takes us back to the Neolithic era of D&D when there was only jobs/classes. It reduces the complexity of combinations that make each character wholly unique. If players can put stats anywhere they want I predict that the world will almost immediately and suddenly see a massive uptick in the population of whatever “optimized” thing someone is about to think of any minute.
Maybe everyone will suddenly start playing nothing but Halflings all of a sudden so their +2 Cha, +1 Con Pala-sorlock-bard can have the Lucky trait to get around their DM’s ban on the Lucky feat, or go extra bananas on the DMs that haven’t.
Maybe we will have a sudden 300% increase in the Half-Orc population, and amazingly they are all the most charming of people, every last one of them. That way their players can all get a “get out of jail free” Relentless Endurance and Savage Attacks on their Hexa-sora-barda-dins.
And if people think that they “have to” build certain ways now, how bad is it gonna be when everyone is playing nothing but Yuan-Ti for everything because it’s too good not to?
Maybe we will get overrun by a tide of the brawniest Kobolds the world has ever seen. 🤷♂️
I don’t know what it will be, but it’ll be something.
So it’s never “only change what I want.” It’s always this:
“Add new things to give us more variety. Don’t take away variety for the sake of streamlining.”
Did that help clarify my position?
Actually it does and still makes it seem you are saying “only my changes is important.” I am sure that isn’t how you meant it. So you’re position is “add new thing to give us more variety?” Because it would seem that you are arguing for the opposite here. I mean it makes for better variety when there are two Orcs at the table and one has a STR bonus and the other has an INT bonus. You seem to locked into the mentality that the majority of players will abuse rather to use them for more creative opportunities.
Also saying that you prefer Psionics a certain like they were in the past actually does sound like you want WoTC to change them to something from another game which has already been made and you can play. Yes you can your opinion but when you say 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,” It does apply to you as well and I am allowed to call it out. If WoTC want Psionics to use spellcasting then that is the way WoTC wants them to be played in 5e. You are welcomed to ban them from your table if you wish but it is the same as these rules.
Okay, Sposta. Those combinations are all valid concerns, but I still don't agree with it.
Why will we see everyone playing those now? Not everyone was a powergamer before, why would this variant rule make them all be one now?
That's a weird thing to claim. Again, like Yurei said earlier, if the powergamers haven't eaten your souls yet, why does this variant rule change that? I'm asking for real, with all the crazy combinations that you can already achieve in 5e, why does this suddenly cause every player to become a Yuan-Ti Barbarian, Yuan-Ti Wizard, or Yuan-Ti Artificer?
I have a reason for why that hasn't happened: Not all characters are powergamers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I'll redirect your attention to a post I made earlier in this thread, wherein I described an amazing moment I only got because my DM didn't bat an eye when I created a very 'off-meta', 'off-species' character.
As for super charming half-orc Hexblade/Paladins...hmm. Wonder if that idea's ever been done before... Nah. And even if by some chance it has been, surely not by anybody who could do the concept justice or play the character in a way that endears him to his table or creates a beloved story. I mean, everybody knows that the minute you min-max, all plot goes out the window, ne?
And so did he.
That’s a major part of what made them both special.
The other major part? Because everyone else doesn’t do the same thing. Why not you ask? Because Half-Orcs don’t get a Cha boost. Now what’s gonna stop everyone else from make the exact same thing...?
Okay, Sposta. Those combinations are all valid concerns, but I still don't agree with it.
Why will we see everyone playing those now? Not everyone was a powergamer before, why would this variant rule make them all be one now?
That's a weird thing to claim. Again, like Yurei said earlier, if the powergamers haven't eaten your souls yet, why does this variant rule change that? I'm asking for real, with all the crazy combinations that you can already achieve in 5e, why does this suddenly cause every player to become a Yuan-Ti Barbarian, Yuan-Ti Wizard, or Yuan-Ti Artificer?
I have a reason for why that hasn't happened: Not all characters are powergamers.
Aasimars can be placed anywhere in the world and can be placed in placed where the main culture is Elvish, Dwarvish, Orcish, Goblin, and with other races. Why couldn’t they have the traits of the culture that they are born into? I don’t know how this doesn’t add versatility to character creation.
I'll redirect your attention to a post I made earlier in this thread, wherein I described an amazing moment I only got because my DM didn't bat an eye when I created a very 'off-meta', 'off-species' character.
As for super charming half-orc Hexblade/Paladins...hmm. Wonder if that idea's ever been done before... Nah. And even if by some chance it has been, surely not by anybody who could do the concept justice or play the character in a way that endears him to his table or creates a beloved story. I mean, everybody knows that the minute you min-max, all plot goes out the window, ne?
And so did he.
That’s a major part of what made them both special.
The other major part? Because everyone else doesn’t do the same thing. Why not you ask? Because Half-Orcs don’t get a Cha boost. Now what’s gonna stop everyone else from make the exact same thing...?
Because no one is the same or thinks the same. I don’t see adding more options to the game is bad for it. After all “Add new things to give us more variety. Don’t take away variety for the sake of streamlining.”
Heh. I did it without the new rule because that campaign used nonstandard character generation that allowed me to build to a 77-point array. Just like Mercer's every so slightly more famous and well known campaign used nonstandard character generation that gave the hjalf-ojrc Hexblade paladin in question a leg up.
Most people do not use those nonstandard character generation methods. Most DMs would not allow tieflings that looked like Star does, or half-orcs that look/act like Fjord do. This rule is there so people might end up opening their minds a little bit. If they want to, anyways.
Again - one can already make absolutely ludicrous, super minmaxy characters with nothing but PHB rules. Sorlocadins hardly need variant Tasha rules to exist. And frankly, I've never needed any reason not to play yuan-ti outside of yuan-ti being yuan-ti. Which means they're a mistake and the primary reason Volo's Guide to DM Headaches is a terrible book.
EDIT: This is only somewhat related but I'm curious. As far as I know, in D&D there has never been gender or sex differences for PC ability scores or for creatures, etc in the official rules. I think this is a good thing for a wide variety of reasons.
There actually was a difference in max stats based on race and gender in 1e.
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?"
Again - one can already make absolutely ludicrous, super minmaxy characters with nothing but PHB rules. Sorlocadins hardly need variant Tasha rules to exist. And frankly, I've never needed any reason not to play yuan-ti outside of yuan-ti being yuan-ti. Which means they're a mistake and the primary reason Volo's Guide to DM Headaches is a terrible book.
Hm. I think you underestimate the number of bad ideas in VGM. Fortunately, you won't lose anything important by just banning the entire book.
Maybe everyone will suddenly start playing nothing but Halflings all of a sudden so their +2 Cha, +1 Con Pala-sorlock-bard can have the Lucky trait to get around their DM’s ban on the Lucky feat, or go extra bananas on the DMs that haven’t.
And this is actually an important issue...
If a player is being "penalized" by not being able to take the +2/+1 bonus in the stat he or she wants for a given class to "optimize," why is it not also penalizing them to not give them the exact suite of "racial feats" that would optimize the character also?
How is it different to argue, "You are penalizing me by not allowing my elf to have the 'halfling luck' trait. You are basically forcing me to play a halfling to get the abilities I want", vs. "You are penalizing me by not letting my halfling get the +2/+1 bonus where I want"?
Are they not the same exact argument? In fact, given the arguable much higher utility (esp. at low level) of certain racial feats compared to a simple +2 stat bonus, and the fact that stats can automatically be upped every few levels if you want, but feats may not even be in your game, and racial feats cannot even be purchased after character creation in most cases, it would seem that not allowing someone to purchase the "needed" racial trait to prevent that character being "unfairly penalized" would be much more critical than a mere +2 to a single stat.
After all, Darkvision is useful ALL the time in EVERY situation in which light is not full. It prevents you from giving away your position with torches. It prevents you from needing to carry a light source. It means you don't have to "waste" a cantrip on the silly light spell. Seems to me, if you don't allow me to just take Darkvision for my human or my Aarkocra, you are penalizing my character unfairly, far more so than just the +2 to a stat.
And this is the concern some of us have. Right now, it's stat bonuses. There are also moves to purge some of the racial descriptions about cultural/behavioral characteristics ("savage" orcs, and whatnot). How much of a step is it to this next part, which is to purge the only thing left that differentiates the various species/races/whatever -- those special traits like stonecunning and darkvision and halfling luck. What makes anyone thing that the next rulebook won't say that those can be picked too?
And now as someone said, we have Fantasy Hero (which is 100% point-buy). You get 25 points per character. Darkvision costs 10. Halfling luck costs 15. Stonecunning costs 5. Extra languages cost 5. Pick what you want.
And once that happens, as I have been saying all along, now we just have a bunch of super-powered humans who look funny. What defined the races since all the way back to 1st edition, is gone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Imho I feel like there is a middle ground here to be had.
Species do have innate advantages and disadvantages, including in their abilities. However in DnD the species kinda dictates the class you want to play, unless you want to be significantly suboptimal. This kinda stiffles creativity and backstory somewhat. Take the average elf and the average ork for instance, the average ork should generally be stronger, and the average elf should generally be more agile. But that doesnt mean that all good rogues are elves and all good barbarians are orks. The big thing about Attributes vs Racial traits is that Racial traits are nice and can help a build. Attributes are essential to a build.
I feel like somewhere in the middle could have been a better approach. Let people have what they need to build any archetype from any species, but not necessarily everything they want.
I.e. Each species gives a +1 to an attributes, and a -1 to an attribute, then you can have 3 free points to put in whatever stat you want, including the stat you have a penalty in! The maximum you can gain from this is +2. So if you are an elf with say +1 AGI, -1 STR, you can only put 1 of your 3 points into AGI, since that is a +2 cap. The other two points need to go elsewhere. However you can put all three points into STR instead, to get a +2 bonus to STR if you wish to play a elf that prides themselves on their strength.
What this means is that an orc wizard can be as smart as a high elf wizard, if the orc wizard puts all their points into INT. This pushes the variance into the non essential stats. An Elf Wizard will likely be more dexterious than an Orc wizard, while the Orc wizard will be stronger. (although neither will be as agile as a rogue or as strong as a barbarian) Thats their species traits shining through, however since both have devoted their time and effort into being good with books and studying, both have the same essential statline to begin with.
This kinda reduces the impact of species on viability, while still having the flavorful aspect of species variance comes through.
The wizard who starts at 15 Intelligence rather than 16 or 17 flubs between seven to ten percent more spells than the 'normal' wizard, depending on how you frame it. Again - players pursue +1 magic items with a ferocity and zeal that completely belies the idea that one point of modifier makes absolutely no difference.
No. This has nothing to do with +1 to anything and everything to do with "Damage ResistancesBludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks"
Plus, they probably glow or sparkle.
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?"
I wouldn't be surprised if this is the least selling book they ever release.
I would be shocked if it isn’t one of their most popular to date.
I'm not going to waste my money.
No one's forcing anyone to buy anything, and thereby "buy into" the not yet fully revealed only hinted at options presented. This is basically Xanthar's 2, the broad 5e market has been clamoring for add-ons for a while, regardless if there may be controversial options among them. You have material allowing for greater player customization on one hand ... and you have a sidekick system that will ostensibly help the "I just want to jump in and play" that's an important contingent of the hobby too. In the middle you have spells, feats, etc. The book sounds broad in scope offering something for various marketing significant interests in the game. I don't see anything wrong with something offering more flexibility, though I can see how the AL may find a work like this problematic to their approach to the game. And for those wanting a crunchier layer of psionics as opposed to what sounds a bit like flavor shift, I'm sorry it's not in the mix. If I recall another recent thread right though, the EN produced "crunch" layer should be available around the same time I think, and I'd imagine a more hard core autonomous psionic system that's "not magic" would be a key thing to include. It'd be foolish not to. And going back to a comment that may be here or a comment in another thread that may have been deleted, I'm seeing Tasha's as a sort of 5.25 edition. Clearly in the annual survey, WOTC will assess how the audience took the more flexible race/species options into consideration for the games next iteration. I'm sure they'd also see how the EN edition fared in the market too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
“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.”
This makes it seem that that isn’t/wasn’t the case. It looks like it has been in the works for sometime.
Heh. I mean, there's a whole lot of grouchiness and rumble-grumbling and people very upset this rule is an Official Thing in an official Book come November, rather than a piece of homebrew they can shut down. Is it any surprise that a lot of that sort of grouchiness comes off as "stop playing D&D wrong, you whippersnappers!"?
Please do not contact or message me.
And so my point stands. As I said, threads about this issue spiral out of control and always result in an argument that gets the thread locked. I will put what I wrote in an earlier post.
"This is another thread about Race and Species? There has been a 'trend' with these threads, every single thread made about this 'issue' has resulted in it starting a large argument and thus resulting in the thread being locked. If you don't believe me have a look for yourself.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/77195-dungeons-and-dragons-to-remove-the-term-race
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/73103-races-and-species
I see no point in making these threads if they will only start an argument and inevitably being locked, threads regarding this issue will only start mindless fights. I highly recommend not continuing this thread as it will certainly result in a fight."
REMEMBER: Wizards Of The Coast does not own DDB, they are two different companies. When you buy a physical book, WotC receives the money you bought it for, not DDB and vice versa. If you want a digital key to get an online book for free because you have the hardcopy book then DDB makes no money because you don't buy off DDB you buy off WotC, so please stop making threads about this issue. DDB needs money to continue helping people and servers aren't cheap.
Much like every other person in this thread, I am entitled to my own opinions, and the freedom of speech to express them as long as I don’t get nasty or encourage anyone to commit a crime. One of those because of our hosts and hostesses at DDB, the other because of legality.
As to Psionics, that has existed in D&D for almost as long as D&D has existed. That happened way back around the time that TSR finally separated race and class, because back then there were no “racial bonuses,” being an Elf or a Dwarf was your job. Then praised be to AD&D from which modern D&D evolved, and players could suddenly be both an Elf and a Wizard. Why? Because they added Race when before there was only class. Good change.
Psionics came about back then too. It was added to D&D, and was wholly unique from Spellcasting. So when I advocate for Psionics to be wholly unique from Spellcasting, it’s because I want to preserve that tradition. By making Psionics work the same way as Spellcasting, that is changing D&D, and only for the banal. To add a new wholly separate system would not be changing D&D, it would actually be preserving it.
To make race wholly cosmetic it takes us back to the Neolithic era of D&D when there was only jobs/classes. It reduces the complexity of combinations that make each character wholly unique. If players can put stats anywhere they want I predict that the world will almost immediately and suddenly see a massive uptick in the population of whatever “optimized” thing someone is about to think of any minute.
Maybe everyone will suddenly start playing nothing but Halflings all of a sudden so their +2 Cha, +1 Con Pala-sorlock-bard can have the Lucky trait to get around their DM’s ban on the Lucky feat, or go extra bananas on the DMs that haven’t.
Maybe we will have a sudden 300% increase in the Half-Orc population, and amazingly they are all the most charming of people, every last one of them. That way their players can all get a “get out of jail free” Relentless Endurance and Savage Attacks on their Hexa-sora-barda-dins.
And if people think that they “have to” build certain ways now, how bad is it gonna be when everyone is playing nothing but Yuan-Ti for everything because it’s too good not to?
Maybe we will get overrun by a tide of the brawniest Kobolds the world has ever seen. 🤷♂️
I don’t know what it will be, but it’ll be something.
So it’s never “only change what I want.” It’s always this:
“Add new things to give us more variety. Don’t take away variety for the sake of streamlining to appease the internet blobbermasses. Add don’t subtract.”
Did that help clarify my position?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That's rediculous. The majority of races out there don't have a bonus to INT so they would be in exactly the same stat boat as a Goliath Wizard.
"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
Legitimate question, Sposta. Very much a legitimate, real thing I'm asking you.
Who cares?
I'll redirect your attention to a post I made earlier in this thread, wherein I described an amazing moment I only got because my DM didn't bat an eye when I created a very 'off-meta', 'off-species' character.
As for super charming half-orc Hexblade/Paladins...hmm. Wonder if that idea's ever been done before... Nah. And even if by some chance it has been, surely not by anybody who could do the concept justice or play the character in a way that endears him to his table or creates a beloved story. I mean, everybody knows that the minute you min-max, all plot goes out the window, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
Actually it does and still makes it seem you are saying “only my changes is important.” I am sure that isn’t how you meant it. So you’re position is “add new thing to give us more variety?” Because it would seem that you are arguing for the opposite here.
I mean it makes for better variety when there are two Orcs at the table and one has a STR bonus and the other has an INT bonus. You seem to locked into the mentality that the majority of players will abuse rather to use them for more creative opportunities.
Also saying that you prefer Psionics a certain like they were in the past actually does sound like you want WoTC to change them to something from another game which has already been made and you can play.
Yes you can your opinion but when you say 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,” It does apply to you as well and I am allowed to call it out. If WoTC want Psionics to use spellcasting then that is the way WoTC wants them to be played in 5e. You are welcomed to ban them from your table if you wish but it is the same as these rules.
Okay, Sposta. Those combinations are all valid concerns, but I still don't agree with it.
Why will we see everyone playing those now? Not everyone was a powergamer before, why would this variant rule make them all be one now?
That's a weird thing to claim. Again, like Yurei said earlier, if the powergamers haven't eaten your souls yet, why does this variant rule change that? I'm asking for real, with all the crazy combinations that you can already achieve in 5e, why does this suddenly cause every player to become a Yuan-Ti Barbarian, Yuan-Ti Wizard, or Yuan-Ti Artificer?
I have a reason for why that hasn't happened: Not all characters are powergamers.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
If you want that kind of flexibility, you're playing the wrong game.
Fantasy HERO is point buy everything.
"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 care.
And you did it without this new rule.
And so did he.
That’s a major part of what made them both special.
The other major part? Because everyone else doesn’t do the same thing. Why not you ask? Because Half-Orcs don’t get a Cha boost. Now what’s gonna stop everyone else from make the exact same thing...?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Aasimars can be placed anywhere in the world and can be placed in placed where the main culture is Elvish, Dwarvish, Orcish, Goblin, and with other races. Why couldn’t they have the traits of the culture that they are born into? I don’t know how this doesn’t add versatility to character creation.
Because no one is the same or thinks the same. I don’t see adding more options to the game is bad for it. After all “Add new things to give us more variety. Don’t take away variety for the sake of streamlining.”
Heh. I did it without the new rule because that campaign used nonstandard character generation that allowed me to build to a 77-point array. Just like Mercer's every so slightly more famous and well known campaign used nonstandard character generation that gave the hjalf-ojrc Hexblade paladin in question a leg up.
Most people do not use those nonstandard character generation methods. Most DMs would not allow tieflings that looked like Star does, or half-orcs that look/act like Fjord do. This rule is there so people might end up opening their minds a little bit. If they want to, anyways.
Again - one can already make absolutely ludicrous, super minmaxy characters with nothing but PHB rules. Sorlocadins hardly need variant Tasha rules to exist. And frankly, I've never needed any reason not to play yuan-ti outside of yuan-ti being yuan-ti. Which means they're a mistake and the primary reason Volo's Guide to DM Headaches is a terrible book.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm not going to waste my money.
"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
There actually was a difference in max stats based on race and gender in 1e.
"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
Hm. I think you underestimate the number of bad ideas in VGM. Fortunately, you won't lose anything important by just banning the entire book.
[REDACTED]
And this is actually an important issue...
If a player is being "penalized" by not being able to take the +2/+1 bonus in the stat he or she wants for a given class to "optimize," why is it not also penalizing them to not give them the exact suite of "racial feats" that would optimize the character also?
How is it different to argue, "You are penalizing me by not allowing my elf to have the 'halfling luck' trait. You are basically forcing me to play a halfling to get the abilities I want", vs. "You are penalizing me by not letting my halfling get the +2/+1 bonus where I want"?
Are they not the same exact argument? In fact, given the arguable much higher utility (esp. at low level) of certain racial feats compared to a simple +2 stat bonus, and the fact that stats can automatically be upped every few levels if you want, but feats may not even be in your game, and racial feats cannot even be purchased after character creation in most cases, it would seem that not allowing someone to purchase the "needed" racial trait to prevent that character being "unfairly penalized" would be much more critical than a mere +2 to a single stat.
After all, Darkvision is useful ALL the time in EVERY situation in which light is not full. It prevents you from giving away your position with torches. It prevents you from needing to carry a light source. It means you don't have to "waste" a cantrip on the silly light spell. Seems to me, if you don't allow me to just take Darkvision for my human or my Aarkocra, you are penalizing my character unfairly, far more so than just the +2 to a stat.
And this is the concern some of us have. Right now, it's stat bonuses. There are also moves to purge some of the racial descriptions about cultural/behavioral characteristics ("savage" orcs, and whatnot). How much of a step is it to this next part, which is to purge the only thing left that differentiates the various species/races/whatever -- those special traits like stonecunning and darkvision and halfling luck. What makes anyone thing that the next rulebook won't say that those can be picked too?
And now as someone said, we have Fantasy Hero (which is 100% point-buy). You get 25 points per character. Darkvision costs 10. Halfling luck costs 15. Stonecunning costs 5. Extra languages cost 5. Pick what you want.
And once that happens, as I have been saying all along, now we just have a bunch of super-powered humans who look funny. What defined the races since all the way back to 1st edition, is gone.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Imho I feel like there is a middle ground here to be had.
Species do have innate advantages and disadvantages, including in their abilities. However in DnD the species kinda dictates the class you want to play, unless you want to be significantly suboptimal. This kinda stiffles creativity and backstory somewhat. Take the average elf and the average ork for instance, the average ork should generally be stronger, and the average elf should generally be more agile. But that doesnt mean that all good rogues are elves and all good barbarians are orks. The big thing about Attributes vs Racial traits is that Racial traits are nice and can help a build. Attributes are essential to a build.
I feel like somewhere in the middle could have been a better approach. Let people have what they need to build any archetype from any species, but not necessarily everything they want.
I.e. Each species gives a +1 to an attributes, and a -1 to an attribute, then you can have 3 free points to put in whatever stat you want, including the stat you have a penalty in! The maximum you can gain from this is +2. So if you are an elf with say +1 AGI, -1 STR, you can only put 1 of your 3 points into AGI, since that is a +2 cap. The other two points need to go elsewhere. However you can put all three points into STR instead, to get a +2 bonus to STR if you wish to play a elf that prides themselves on their strength.
What this means is that an orc wizard can be as smart as a high elf wizard, if the orc wizard puts all their points into INT. This pushes the variance into the non essential stats. An Elf Wizard will likely be more dexterious than an Orc wizard, while the Orc wizard will be stronger. (although neither will be as agile as a rogue or as strong as a barbarian) Thats their species traits shining through, however since both have devoted their time and effort into being good with books and studying, both have the same essential statline to begin with.
This kinda reduces the impact of species on viability, while still having the flavorful aspect of species variance comes through.
No. This has nothing to do with +1 to anything and everything to do with "Damage Resistances Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks"
Plus, they probably glow or sparkle.
"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
No one's forcing anyone to buy anything, and thereby "buy into" the not yet fully revealed only hinted at options presented. This is basically Xanthar's 2, the broad 5e market has been clamoring for add-ons for a while, regardless if there may be controversial options among them. You have material allowing for greater player customization on one hand ... and you have a sidekick system that will ostensibly help the "I just want to jump in and play" that's an important contingent of the hobby too. In the middle you have spells, feats, etc. The book sounds broad in scope offering something for various marketing significant interests in the game. I don't see anything wrong with something offering more flexibility, though I can see how the AL may find a work like this problematic to their approach to the game. And for those wanting a crunchier layer of psionics as opposed to what sounds a bit like flavor shift, I'm sorry it's not in the mix. If I recall another recent thread right though, the EN produced "crunch" layer should be available around the same time I think, and I'd imagine a more hard core autonomous psionic system that's "not magic" would be a key thing to include. It'd be foolish not to. And going back to a comment that may be here or a comment in another thread that may have been deleted, I'm seeing Tasha's as a sort of 5.25 edition. Clearly in the annual survey, WOTC will assess how the audience took the more flexible race/species options into consideration for the games next iteration. I'm sure they'd also see how the EN edition fared in the market too.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.