You could argue the other way though; that if these new rules the standard, you could rule the other way for your table and use the old / 5e system.
There's also the fact we don't know specifically what the rules are right now and there is a big difference between homebrew and what's in a source book, particularly for variant rules and for getting people on board.
For people who want to use both systems in games, I think that's up to the DM and players to discuss and agree upon, like adults.
I do have a question for everyone: if you were at a table that was okay with both the current system and this variant, and someone was to say make a variant Elf or Orc or Kobold with different stat bonuses / minuses, would you object? Why / why not?
EDIT: origin isn't a bad term. But I'm not against race or species.
Ancestry and cultural upbringing would be my preferred terms.
You want to know how to mesh competing views at a table? The DM makes the rules and anyone who disagrees can join another table, that's how you mesh competing views at a table. End of story.
As for whatever happens in the future, that is pure speculation with nothing to back it up one way or the other. Anything claiming otherwise is pure hyperbole.
Also, it hurts absolutely no one to let players choose these ability scores. If you want to keep it the same, absolutely keep it the same. No one is going to break into your house and force you to play it the way we want at our tables.
By that reasoning, if you want to change it, by all means change it. No one one is going to break into your house and force you to play it the way we want at our tables.
Except, your preferred way of playing is already supported by the rules. Mine, up until this book comes out, was not. DnD Beyond will support this way of play with this book, and so will the general rules. Don't complain about us getting what we want, in no way does it take away from your preferred way of play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Except, your preferred way of playing is already supported by the rules. Mine, up until this book comes out, was not. DnD Beyond will support this way of play with this book, and so will the general rules. Don't complain about us getting what we want, in no way does it take away from your preferred way of play.
^ This is my main joy here. I have actually made a GMBinder entry FOR divorcing Ability Scores from Races, and as much as I wanted to run that ... the problem was ... we use DND Beyond, and that becomes REALLY weird (where you have to counterbalance stats and it's very weird). So now there's support for it. It means I can use DND Beyond to play the game the way I, the Dungeon Master, want to.
How does letting an orc get a +2 to Charisma and +1 to Wisdom make them suddenly become humans?
It doesn't make them become humans. It makes them impossible to differentiate from the human, lizardfolk, or halfling who can also take +2 to Cha and +1 to Wis. It calls into question why bother being an orc at all?
Simply, for story elements. Orcs will be different in different settings, and the reason to be an orc will entirely depend upon the setting.
I mean let's review where we are on orcs and lizardfolk and halflings and everyone else now:
We can't call them a "race," because that's "racist."
We can't assign to them a set of "racial traits," because that's racist.
We can't attribute to them a common set of cultural/behavioral patterns, because that's racist or stereotyping or micro-aggression or pick your name for it.
Their stat bonuses are the same as everyone else's.
Not because it's racist, but because it is not as accurate as species, and because race is more problematic than lineage or species.
You can assign them racial traits. Like I said before, lizardfolk still get bite, aarakocra still get wings, and so on.
It is stereotyping, and also raises problems in other campaign settings where the races aren't the same. It isn't wrong for one campaign setting to give Elves proficiency in Longswords, but in another that may not make sense. It isn't about racism, it is about which is better for the core game as a whole.
They aren't the same, but as a variant rule, you can take whatever stat bonuses you want for any race you want.
What, then, makes an orc unique? Or a halfling? Or a kobold?
If not stats, if not a set of archetypal behaviors, if not a common culture, if not any other characteristics that actually matter, all we seem to have left is physical appearance. Which is literally the most shallow, superficial, and irrelevant thing about another individual you could possibly choose to worry about.
It all depends on setting. In the Forgotten Realms, Dark Elves worship Lolth 9 times out of 10, while in Exandria, they do not. That makes a problem when the only drow stats in the game assume that all drow worship Lolth and use poison weapons and summon demons.
Also, physical stats are left, physical appearance is left, as well as everything in the settings that makes the races be distinct.
So again, why bother having anything other than humans, if every species, ancestry, archetype, whatever-you-are-allowed-to-call-it-now, is going to be just like humans in every way, even stats?
I've seen lots of people defending the idea of moving points around to wherever you want because min-maxing... but nobody has yet been able to explain to me what the reason would be to need anything other than humans if everything just acts, and has stats, like a human now anyway.
Why have other races? Because they're interesting! If you can't think of ways to make an interesting Tiefling if they suddenly don't have to know Infernal and as a base have a +2 CHA and +1 INT, that's not a problem with the system.
Also, min-maxing isn't the reason for changing this, making the game not punish you or statistically force you into a certain class is the reason.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
This thread again? It's an optional rule set. Why is this an issue?
Not only is it an optional rule set, it's an optional rule set that nobody's actually seen yet (well, nobody who's participating in the argument, anyway). It's not going to be released for another three months- people are losing their marbles over what they imagine it's going to be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
2. You can assign them racial traits. Like I said before, lizardfolk still get bite, aarakocra still get wings, and so on. 3. It is stereotyping, and also raises problems in other campaign settings where the races aren't the same. It isn't wrong for one campaign setting to give Elves proficiency in Longswords, but in another that may not make sense. It isn't about racism, it is about which is better for the core game as a whole.
When I read the information to Tasha's Cauldron, it very much sounds to me, that you will be able to switch out even things like the lizardfolk bite and the elven weapon proficiencies.
So, you want a Gnome with +2 STR, Relentless Endurance and Savage Attacks, you can.
And this is also what worries me a bit. This might be a bit over the top and will make everything watered down. This will be a hell of work for the DM, when there is no common ground in the general expectations anymore, so you need to prepare and explain even more to the players in your campaign.
I would like to see what leads you to believe that because my impression was that racial features or anything corresponding directly to origin, ancestry etc. outside of ability scores wouldn't be customisable. It would mainly be your ability score modifiers and cultural things (i.e. weapon proficiency, skill proficiency etc.).
For what it's worth I wouldn't like a system where you could select different racial features since that's much more concretely related to a race and tends to be less culturally based (where-as with ability scores as IMO there is a large individual biology and cultural aspect to that). It also ensures there are differences beyond cosmetics and role-play mechanics.
It's all speculation at this point. I'm interested to see what system does come out and it'll be much easier to judge then.
A polite reminder to everyone to keep things on topic, be respectful to each other, and not to engage in discussions of forum-inappropriate topics (such as political opinions)
Here's a point most people, when they get on this ridiculous idea that allowing PCs to diverge from species norms will Erase The Importance Of Species Forever, never seem to address: PCs are the exceptions to the rules.
It's a point made in every single settings book in the game. PCs break the rules. They are exceptions. They are heroes. They do not conform to the norms. A player character is destined for greatness, often from the most esoteric of starts. All the Lineage system does is give both players and DMs more levers to pull to more closely model these exceptional people and their unusual origins. It shouldn't take you even thirty seconds to think of a PC Origin Story that would benefit from being able to trade a language out for a different one, or swap one set of cultural gear proficiencies for another. Does that mean those languages, that cultural propensity for a given set of tools, just completely disappears from the face of existence?
Of bloody course not.
It simply means that this specific individual - this exceptional rule-breaker who is not bound by the same destiny as the nameless faceless horde of NPCs surrounding them - can better reflect their unusual origins, rather than having to find a way to explain how they somehow managed to become a completely ordinary and unexceptional member of their species despite there being ABSOLUTELY NO REASON (notice the emphasis there, it's important) for that to happen.
These rules make PCs better at being PCs. At being exceptional rule-breakers who drive legends. We should be celebrating that, not decrying it.
It's just pandering to the Min/Max crowd. If you play more for the RP portion then the attribute bonuses mean very little and you play the race/species for their flavor and background. Trying to make everything homogeneous waters the game down and makes things less realistic which is odd for something that's a fantasy world. Goliaths should be inherently stronger than gnomes and have a bonus. You can still be a Goliath wizard if you like, but your attributes aren't as well suited for it, and that's ok. It's an optional thing so it's not like it's game breaking or anything or anything to really get upset or super excited over. Some of my favorite characters I have played have been sub optimal from a race/class standpoint, so it just seems like trying to fix something that isn't broken and serving things up to power gamers.
If anyone, as a DM, doesn't like this...it's entirely optional! Nobody forces you to do this. And I would appreciate not being told the way I, as a DM, should be running my table either.
Unless one is an Adventure League dm then it may not be OPTIONAL and force on AL DMS.
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.
Some folks like being bad at their jobs, and consider it a way to enhance their story - they like playing the underdog and having to struggle for success. That's great. They can absolutely do that and retain their normal species bonuses, even going so far as to avoid placing a high score in their key stat to really just suck crazy hard at their job. Provided their friends are willing to deal with their wizard being an absolutely godawful wizard, that's a cool story to tell.
But again. Some people want to play the exceptions. Some people want to play the goliath who was exiled from her clan because she was too weak to make it in the mountains, but found a new purpose when she was recovered - half starved and raving from exposure - by an expedition from a nearby human city to try and discover the secrets of a lost tomb in the foothills. Her body was weak but her mind was strong, and she took to her new role with zeal. That's a story you really can't tell with the current system outside of Heroic stats, because goliaths will always be terrible wizards.
Why not expand our options and let people tell more stories, not fewer?
And Jasper? If you're DMing for Adventurer's League, you know bloody well what you signed up for and have no complaints coming. You want control over the game you run? Heh, run real D&D, not Adventurer's League.
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.
Some folks like being bad at their jobs, and consider it a way to enhance their story - they like playing the underdog and having to struggle for success. That's great. They can absolutely do that and retain their normal species bonuses, even going so far as to avoid placing a high score in their key stat to really just suck crazy hard at their job. Provided their friends are willing to deal with their wizard being an absolutely godawful wizard, that's a cool story to tell.
But again. Some people want to play the exceptions. Some people want to play the goliath who was exiled from her clan because she was too weak to make it in the mountains, but found a new purpose when she was recovered - half starved and raving from exposure - by an expedition from a nearby human city to try and discover the secrets of a lost tomb in the foothills. Her body was weak but her mind was strong, and she took to her new role with zeal. That's a story you really can't tell with the current system outside of Heroic stats, because goliaths will always be terrible wizards.
Why not expand our options and let people tell more stories, not fewer?
And Jasper? If you're DMing for Adventurer's League, you know bloody well what you signed up for and have no complaints coming. You want control over the game you run? Heh, run real D&D, not Adventurer's League.
I see where you're coming from but I'm with pigeon on this one.
It has nothing to do with expanding options to tell more stories. It's a mentality of pandering a bit to the "give everyone a ribbon" sort of thing. The most interesting character choices, in video games, on screen, tabletop games, and life are those with a more give and take and sacrifice. For your Goliath story, sacrifice Intelligence. An option where you no longer have to does indeed water it down.
It felt like a, "I ain't broke, don't fix it sort of thing". With ASI's you can go any direction you want. At char creation, are you really telling me that choosing a Goliath Wizard (0 Int bonus) is significantly weaker, suckier, and worse than a Gnome Wizard with (+2 Int). Does the +1 stat bonus change the game so much that one wizard is "filling the role nicely" while the other is "an anchor on the party that the rest of the group has to tolerate."
+1 modifier to a stat changes the flow, rhythm, pacing that much huh? Was there something in the rules, as I've said, that prohibits Goliaths from always taking Int increases every ASI? If
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.
Some folks like being bad at their jobs, and consider it a way to enhance their story - they like playing the underdog and having to struggle for success. That's great. They can absolutely do that and retain their normal species bonuses, even going so far as to avoid placing a high score in their key stat to really just suck crazy hard at their job. Provided their friends are willing to deal with their wizard being an absolutely godawful wizard, that's a cool story to tell.
But again. Some people want to play the exceptions. Some people want to play the goliath who was exiled from her clan because she was too weak to make it in the mountains, but found a new purpose when she was recovered - half starved and raving from exposure - by an expedition from a nearby human city to try and discover the secrets of a lost tomb in the foothills. Her body was weak but her mind was strong, and she took to her new role with zeal. That's a story you really can't tell with the current system outside of Heroic stats, because goliaths will always be terrible wizards.
Why not expand our options and let people tell more stories, not fewer?
And Jasper? If you're DMing for Adventurer's League, you know bloody well what you signed up for and have no complaints coming. You want control over the game you run? Heh, run real D&D, not Adventurer's League.
I see where you're coming from but I'm with pigeon on this one.
It has nothing to do with expanding options to tell more stories. It's a mentality of pandering a bit to the "give everyone a ribbon" sort of thing. The most interesting character choices, in video games, on screen, tabletop games, and life are those with a more give and take and sacrifice. For your Goliath story, sacrifice Intelligence. An option where you no longer have to does indeed water it down.
It felt like a, "I ain't broke, don't fix it sort of thing". With ASI's you can go any direction you want. At char creation, are you really telling me that choosing a Goliath Wizard (0 Int bonus) is significantly weaker, suckier, and worse than a Gnome Wizard with (+2 Int). Does the +1 stat bonus change the game so much that one wizard is "filling the role nicely" while the other is "an anchor on the party that the rest of the group has to tolerate."
+1 modifier to a stat changes the flow, rhythm, pacing that much huh? Was there something in the rules, as I've said, that prohibits Goliaths from always taking Int increases every ASI? If
Oh and what does "real D&D" look like?
You don't understand the reason for the changes at all. Like not one bit.
The issue with the stats is that it is similar to how people apply racism, especially in the old days when they were categorizing races during the exploration of the british empire.
Lets make the nice white blond elves smart and beautiful. Lets make the ugly dark skilled "humanoids" or mongoloids (as in not us white folk) dumb.
Counterpoint if I may, muscular small one: why should a player be forced to accept being weak, even if it's "only a little weak", to pursue a story they find cool? Why do goliaths have to be stupider than gnomes? yes, goliath culture as an aggregate whole does not possess the education and quick-wittedness of gnomish culture as an aggregate whole, but is it truly just absolutely impossible - completely and utterly beyond the realm of any conceivable possibility - for this one goliath PC to be every bit as intelligent and mentally capable as her non-goliath peers?
Remember: PCs are rule-breakers. They explicitly do NOT conform to their societal norms unless the player deliberately chooses to do so.
I'd also point out that players will ferociously chase any +1 they can get in-game, usually through magic items. A +1 weapon is considered a huge upgrade from mundane gear for any martial class, and Rings/Cloaks of Protection are highly valued, highly sought after, and highly fought over protective items despite "only" adding a +1 to defensive rolls. Rods of the Pact Keeper add a simple +1 to spell attacks and save DCs, and are considered a tremendous boon to any warlock who can secure one. The Enhanced Arcane Focus infusion for artificers is considered nigh-mandatory for any artificer who fights with cantrips over weapons, despite offering nothing whatsoever beyond a +1 to attack rolls and the ability to ignore half cover.
Clearly, players do find a simple +1 to their most important rolls to be very much worth digging for. Especially when, in the case of the goliath wizard, that player is stuck ignoring feats entirely and being behind the curve compared to her party until level 12. She HAS to take her fourth and eight level ASIs as pure +2 Intelligence bumps, which is the absolute most boring possible way to spend an ASI, and even at 12 she has to either take another boring-ass +2 Stats or pick one of the extremely limited Intelligence half-feats. That sort of drag on progression is frustrating and unfun for players who're looking to gain cool abilities and expand their options when they level up, rather than just trying and perpetually failing to catch up to where they should be in their main abilities instead.
It's just pandering to the Min/Max crowd. If you play more for the RP portion then the attribute bonuses mean very little and you play the race/species for their flavor and background.
In which case you should not care about what the mechanical effects of race are. Min-maxing on race means "pick the race with the best bonuses for my class", so if you delete racial bonuses, min-maxing on race goes away.
It really does read like people are specifically asking folks who're interested in playing 'off-meta' species/class combinations to suffer for their stories. That if they're not willing to eat being bad at their class, they shouldn't get to explore nontraditional stories. I am legitimately confused as to why this should be, and if people are really so convinced that three points of ability bonus is the only possible thing that differentiates species from one another?
It's just pandering to the Min/Max crowd. If you play more for the RP portion then the attribute bonuses mean very little and you play the race/species for their flavor and background.
In which case you should not care about what the mechanical effects of race are. Min-maxing on race means "pick the race with the best bonuses for my class", so if you delete racial bonuses, min-maxing on race goes away.
This is not completely true though. The focus just shifts from a numeric modifier to which race gives the best boost to your chosen class through their features. You see it in MMOs all the time. IF your playing X Class in Y Role, the you must be playing Z Race or you are sub-optimal and will drag down the Raid.
You could argue the other way though; that if these new rules the standard, you could rule the other way for your table and use the old / 5e system.
There's also the fact we don't know specifically what the rules are right now and there is a big difference between homebrew and what's in a source book, particularly for variant rules and for getting people on board.
For people who want to use both systems in games, I think that's up to the DM and players to discuss and agree upon, like adults.
I do have a question for everyone: if you were at a table that was okay with both the current system and this variant, and someone was to say make a variant Elf or Orc or Kobold with different stat bonuses / minuses, would you object? Why / why not?
EDIT: origin isn't a bad term. But I'm not against race or species.
Ancestry and cultural upbringing would be my preferred terms.
You want to know how to mesh competing views at a table? The DM makes the rules and anyone who disagrees can join another table, that's how you mesh competing views at a table. End of story.
As for whatever happens in the future, that is pure speculation with nothing to back it up one way or the other. Anything claiming otherwise is pure hyperbole.
I'm bowing out now. This discussion is ridiculous. You don't like this rule? Don't use it. It's entirely optional.
Except, your preferred way of playing is already supported by the rules. Mine, up until this book comes out, was not. DnD Beyond will support this way of play with this book, and so will the general rules. Don't complain about us getting what we want, in no way does it take away from your preferred way of play.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
^ This is my main joy here. I have actually made a GMBinder entry FOR divorcing Ability Scores from Races, and as much as I wanted to run that ... the problem was ... we use DND Beyond, and that becomes REALLY weird (where you have to counterbalance stats and it's very weird). So now there's support for it. It means I can use DND Beyond to play the game the way I, the Dungeon Master, want to.
I love it.
Simply, for story elements. Orcs will be different in different settings, and the reason to be an orc will entirely depend upon the setting.
It all depends on setting. In the Forgotten Realms, Dark Elves worship Lolth 9 times out of 10, while in Exandria, they do not. That makes a problem when the only drow stats in the game assume that all drow worship Lolth and use poison weapons and summon demons.
Also, physical stats are left, physical appearance is left, as well as everything in the settings that makes the races be distinct.
Why have other races? Because they're interesting! If you can't think of ways to make an interesting Tiefling if they suddenly don't have to know Infernal and as a base have a +2 CHA and +1 INT, that's not a problem with the system.
Also, min-maxing isn't the reason for changing this, making the game not punish you or statistically force you into a certain class is the reason.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Not only is it an optional rule set, it's an optional rule set that nobody's actually seen yet (well, nobody who's participating in the argument, anyway). It's not going to be released for another three months- people are losing their marbles over what they imagine it's going to be.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
When I read the information to Tasha's Cauldron, it very much sounds to me, that you will be able to switch out even things like the lizardfolk bite and the elven weapon proficiencies.
So, you want a Gnome with +2 STR, Relentless Endurance and Savage Attacks, you can.
And this is also what worries me a bit. This might be a bit over the top and will make everything watered down. This will be a hell of work for the DM, when there is no common ground in the general expectations anymore, so you need to prepare and explain even more to the players in your campaign.
I would like to see what leads you to believe that because my impression was that racial features or anything corresponding directly to origin, ancestry etc. outside of ability scores wouldn't be customisable. It would mainly be your ability score modifiers and cultural things (i.e. weapon proficiency, skill proficiency etc.).
For what it's worth I wouldn't like a system where you could select different racial features since that's much more concretely related to a race and tends to be less culturally based (where-as with ability scores as IMO there is a large individual biology and cultural aspect to that). It also ensures there are differences beyond cosmetics and role-play mechanics.
It's all speculation at this point. I'm interested to see what system does come out and it'll be much easier to judge then.
A polite reminder to everyone to keep things on topic, be respectful to each other, and not to engage in discussions of forum-inappropriate topics (such as political opinions)
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Here's a point most people, when they get on this ridiculous idea that allowing PCs to diverge from species norms will Erase The Importance Of Species Forever, never seem to address: PCs are the exceptions to the rules.
It's a point made in every single settings book in the game. PCs break the rules. They are exceptions. They are heroes. They do not conform to the norms. A player character is destined for greatness, often from the most esoteric of starts. All the Lineage system does is give both players and DMs more levers to pull to more closely model these exceptional people and their unusual origins. It shouldn't take you even thirty seconds to think of a PC Origin Story that would benefit from being able to trade a language out for a different one, or swap one set of cultural gear proficiencies for another. Does that mean those languages, that cultural propensity for a given set of tools, just completely disappears from the face of existence?
Of bloody course not.
It simply means that this specific individual - this exceptional rule-breaker who is not bound by the same destiny as the nameless faceless horde of NPCs surrounding them - can better reflect their unusual origins, rather than having to find a way to explain how they somehow managed to become a completely ordinary and unexceptional member of their species despite there being ABSOLUTELY NO REASON (notice the emphasis there, it's important) for that to happen.
These rules make PCs better at being PCs. At being exceptional rule-breakers who drive legends. We should be celebrating that, not decrying it.
Please do not contact or message me.
It's just pandering to the Min/Max crowd. If you play more for the RP portion then the attribute bonuses mean very little and you play the race/species for their flavor and background. Trying to make everything homogeneous waters the game down and makes things less realistic which is odd for something that's a fantasy world. Goliaths should be inherently stronger than gnomes and have a bonus. You can still be a Goliath wizard if you like, but your attributes aren't as well suited for it, and that's ok. It's an optional thing so it's not like it's game breaking or anything or anything to really get upset or super excited over. Some of my favorite characters I have played have been sub optimal from a race/class standpoint, so it just seems like trying to fix something that isn't broken and serving things up to power gamers.
Unless one is an Adventure League dm then it may not be OPTIONAL and force on AL DMS.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
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.
Some folks like being bad at their jobs, and consider it a way to enhance their story - they like playing the underdog and having to struggle for success. That's great. They can absolutely do that and retain their normal species bonuses, even going so far as to avoid placing a high score in their key stat to really just suck crazy hard at their job. Provided their friends are willing to deal with their wizard being an absolutely godawful wizard, that's a cool story to tell.
But again. Some people want to play the exceptions. Some people want to play the goliath who was exiled from her clan because she was too weak to make it in the mountains, but found a new purpose when she was recovered - half starved and raving from exposure - by an expedition from a nearby human city to try and discover the secrets of a lost tomb in the foothills. Her body was weak but her mind was strong, and she took to her new role with zeal. That's a story you really can't tell with the current system outside of Heroic stats, because goliaths will always be terrible wizards.
Why not expand our options and let people tell more stories, not fewer?
And Jasper? If you're DMing for Adventurer's League, you know bloody well what you signed up for and have no complaints coming. You want control over the game you run? Heh, run real D&D, not Adventurer's League.
Please do not contact or message me.
I see where you're coming from but I'm with pigeon on this one.
It has nothing to do with expanding options to tell more stories. It's a mentality of pandering a bit to the "give everyone a ribbon" sort of thing. The most interesting character choices, in video games, on screen, tabletop games, and life are those with a more give and take and sacrifice. For your Goliath story, sacrifice Intelligence. An option where you no longer have to does indeed water it down.
It felt like a, "I ain't broke, don't fix it sort of thing". With ASI's you can go any direction you want. At char creation, are you really telling me that choosing a Goliath Wizard (0 Int bonus) is significantly weaker, suckier, and worse than a Gnome Wizard with (+2 Int). Does the +1 stat bonus change the game so much that one wizard is "filling the role nicely" while the other is "an anchor on the party that the rest of the group has to tolerate."
+1 modifier to a stat changes the flow, rhythm, pacing that much huh? Was there something in the rules, as I've said, that prohibits Goliaths from always taking Int increases every ASI? If
Oh and what does "real D&D" look like?
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
You don't understand the reason for the changes at all. Like not one bit.
The issue with the stats is that it is similar to how people apply racism, especially in the old days when they were categorizing races during the exploration of the british empire.
Lets make the nice white blond elves smart and beautiful. Lets make the ugly dark skilled "humanoids" or mongoloids (as in not us white folk) dumb.
Counterpoint if I may, muscular small one: why should a player be forced to accept being weak, even if it's "only a little weak", to pursue a story they find cool? Why do goliaths have to be stupider than gnomes? yes, goliath culture as an aggregate whole does not possess the education and quick-wittedness of gnomish culture as an aggregate whole, but is it truly just absolutely impossible - completely and utterly beyond the realm of any conceivable possibility - for this one goliath PC to be every bit as intelligent and mentally capable as her non-goliath peers?
Remember: PCs are rule-breakers. They explicitly do NOT conform to their societal norms unless the player deliberately chooses to do so.
I'd also point out that players will ferociously chase any +1 they can get in-game, usually through magic items. A +1 weapon is considered a huge upgrade from mundane gear for any martial class, and Rings/Cloaks of Protection are highly valued, highly sought after, and highly fought over protective items despite "only" adding a +1 to defensive rolls. Rods of the Pact Keeper add a simple +1 to spell attacks and save DCs, and are considered a tremendous boon to any warlock who can secure one. The Enhanced Arcane Focus infusion for artificers is considered nigh-mandatory for any artificer who fights with cantrips over weapons, despite offering nothing whatsoever beyond a +1 to attack rolls and the ability to ignore half cover.
Clearly, players do find a simple +1 to their most important rolls to be very much worth digging for. Especially when, in the case of the goliath wizard, that player is stuck ignoring feats entirely and being behind the curve compared to her party until level 12. She HAS to take her fourth and eight level ASIs as pure +2 Intelligence bumps, which is the absolute most boring possible way to spend an ASI, and even at 12 she has to either take another boring-ass +2 Stats or pick one of the extremely limited Intelligence half-feats. That sort of drag on progression is frustrating and unfun for players who're looking to gain cool abilities and expand their options when they level up, rather than just trying and perpetually failing to catch up to where they should be in their main abilities instead.
Please do not contact or message me.
In which case you should not care about what the mechanical effects of race are. Min-maxing on race means "pick the race with the best bonuses for my class", so if you delete racial bonuses, min-maxing on race goes away.
It really does read like people are specifically asking folks who're interested in playing 'off-meta' species/class combinations to suffer for their stories. That if they're not willing to eat being bad at their class, they shouldn't get to explore nontraditional stories. I am legitimately confused as to why this should be, and if people are really so convinced that three points of ability bonus is the only possible thing that differentiates species from one another?
Please do not contact or message me.
This is not completely true though. The focus just shifts from a numeric modifier to which race gives the best boost to your chosen class through their features. You see it in MMOs all the time. IF your playing X Class in Y Role, the you must be playing Z Race or you are sub-optimal and will drag down the Raid.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master