Can I ask why? why is having an elf that doesn't have darkvision and has +2 strength and +1 con harder to manage than a regular elf?

It shouldn't be harder to manage.

Might be a little harder as a DM to remember but unless you have something insane like 11 players, remembering the traits of 4 or 5 characters should not be all that difficult, especially with all the computer tools available.

It does make me ask, "Why exactly are you playing an elf if you don't want any of their racial traits?" You could easily make a variant human up instead, who doesn't have darkvision and gets the +s where you want. 

Quote from BioWizard >>

Can I ask why? why is having an elf that doesn't have darkvision and has +2 strength and +1 con harder to manage than a regular elf?

 

It shouldn't be harder to manage.

Might be a little harder as a DM to remember but unless you have something insane like 11 players, remembering the traits of 4 or 5 characters should not be all that difficult, especially with all the computer tools available.

It does make me ask, "Why exactly are you playing an elf if you don't want any of their racial traits?" You could easily make a variant human up instead, who doesn't have darkvision and gets the +s where you want. 

 Maybe they want to play an elf that is like that?  

"Because I want to" isn't really an answer.

Quote from BioWizard >>

"Because I want to" isn't really an answer.

 I for one have to agree 🤷‍♂️

Wasn't your point earlier that everyone being human was bad? like you can't jump from earlier saying playing this way makes everyone a variant human and thats bad, but if you want that play a variant human. pick one.

Anyway i wasn't saying i did want to play one, I was countering the person who said that it makes it harder to manage, its no different to managing any other PC.

i just don't understand why this is the big deal this thread suggests it is.

You guys like D&D right? you think its good enough to care about its character creation? You want other people to play and enjoy it otherwise you would be DMing to noone? So they are trying something new that to some removes a hurdle from them getting the same enjoyment out of it you get. It won't effect your game but will effect others in a positive way.

I mean look at Kenku? which is basically an "only play if you are a rogue" class. Sure you can use other classes but it is basically built to be a rogue. If you or anyone you know ever played a Kenku Bard then you must of skipped the part that says Kenku are incapable of doing anything creative, ignoring the racial lore entirely.

Tell me that Kenku doesn't become more versatile under the new proposed changes?

More versatility = more choices = more saying yes to players.

I honestly can't see a downside in that

Because i want to is the only answer of importance.

But you can also have, because its fun, because I imagined it and because I can.

Quote from sardonicmonkey >>

Wasn't your point earlier that everyone being human was bad? like you can't jump from earlier saying playing this way makes everyone a variant human and thats bad, but if you want that play a variant human. pick one.

Anyway i wasn't saying i did want to play one, I was countering the person who said that it makes it harder to manage, its no different to managing any other PC.

i just don't understand why this is the big deal this thread suggests it is.

You guys like D&D right? you think its good enough to care about its character creation? You want other people to play and enjoy it otherwise you would be DMing to noone? So they are trying something new that to some removes a hurdle from them getting the same enjoyment out of it you get. It won't effect your game but will effect others in a positive way.

I mean look at Kenku? which is basically an "only play if you are a rogue" class. Sure you can use other classes but it is basically built to be a rogue. If you or anyone you know ever played a Kenku Bard then you must of skipped the part that says Kenku are incapable of doing anything creative, ignoring the racial lore entirely.

Tell me that Kenku doesn't become more versatile under the new proposed changes?

More versatility = more choices = more saying yes to players.

I honestly can't see a downside in that

 

 False. First of all, as has been pointed out we don’t know what the proposed changes are for racial features are such as a lack of voice so we don’t know that you will be able to change that. If a DM creates a world where they have their voice fine, but it’s part of D&D’s lore for them right now and if you are allowed to randomly change that you’ve taken away a large part of what makes them unique. 
Also, I can easily make a Kenku bard. It doesn’t have to be creative. It can be a walking jukebox, or “dvd player”. Maybe it’s life goal is to travel to hear new songs and see new dances or plays to repeat to other audiences, including its current adventuring group. 

Quote from sardonicmonkey >>

I mean look at Kenku? which is basically an "only play if you are a rogue" class. Sure you can use other classes but it is basically built to be a rogue. If you or anyone you know ever played a Kenku Bard then you must of skipped the part that says Kenku are incapable of doing anything creative, ignoring the racial lore entirely.

Tell me that Kenku doesn't become more versatile under the new proposed changes?

 If not getting a +2 Cha bonus for being a Kenku is what is preventing you from making a Kenku Bard, that’s 100% on you, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules of D&D. You don’t actually need that +2 Cha. If that’s holding you back, then stop restricting yourself.

Plus, their natural bonuses to Dex and Wis are very useful for Bards, and mean you likely won’t have to increase those much at all and can focus your ASIs on Cha and Feats.

So no, these changes don’t make a Kenku any more versatile, just less specialized, which is not the same thing.

And I already have enough I have to say “no” to, I don’t want to have to add this crapola on top of that list.

I didn’t mention the voice aspect, lore as written

As a result of their lack of creativity, kenku function comfortably as minions of a powerful master. Flock leaders enforce discipline and minimize conflicts, but they fail at effective planning or crafting long-term schemes.

By the same token, kenku have no ability to invent new ideas or create new things.

the spark of creativity was torn from their souls.

So if you are playing a Kenku bard you are not playing with the established lore, you are playing around it. TCOE just allows people to do that

Also high dex can be a feature for any class, rogue or otherwise... Even wizards I build end up with 20dex ND 20con

Quote from sardonicmonkey >>

I didn’t mention the voice aspect, lore as written

As a result of their lack of creativity, kenku function comfortably as minions of a powerful master. Flock leaders enforce discipline and minimize conflicts, but they fail at effective planning or crafting long-term schemes.

By the same token, kenku have no ability to invent new ideas or create new things.

the spark of creativity was torn from their souls.

 What does that have to do with anything? So they do covers instead of original songs. So what?

A kenku could be a fighter, or barbarian, or monk as well.

Kenku "lacking the spark of creativity" makes them impossible for a human being to play.  Human beings cannot make themselves completely unable to adapt, improvise, or create new knowledge.  It's ridiculous and an impossible standard to adhere to for the vast majority of players.  Note that the Exandrian lore for the species stripped away that entire useless bunk - kenku can create just fine, they're simply afflicted by a dark god's curse that prevents them from speaking with their own words.  They can still understand language, which is itself fundamentally creative.  It also takes a very creative and clever mind to communicate effectively using a patchwork of scrambled memory rather than ordinary words.

If Matthew Mercer can alter a species' lore to fit his own world and the goals of his game - if Keith Baker can upend every last single idea of what it means to be any given species in the world of Eberron - and both of them do so with the most explicit possible blessing Wizards of the Coast can give a creator?  Then a DM can decide that in her world halflings have more Charisma than they do Dexterity because they're not we're-not-hobbits-we-swear, they're actually a primarily piratical species known for their overwhelming swaggercock egos and ironclad assurance of their own superiority.  Or a player can decide their elf was born with a physical impairment that results in 8 Dex even if the species is supposedly physically incapable of having a Dexterity Sacred Score lower than 19, and because of this debilitating impairment they had to work extra hard with something else just to try and keep up.

Lemme say this again: Keith Baker threw away every last inch of shitty Tolkienite lore for Eberron.  His halflings are dinosaur-riding jungle tribals, his orcs are inquisitive and powerful equals of humanity, his elves are backwards masked worshippers of their own immortal ghosts, so on and so forth.  Not only did Wizards say "Yeah, that's cool, do you man", they gave him a sourcebook.  More than once.  Eberron has a sourcebook and three-quarters in 5e and had at least the one back in 3.5, alongside however many others were printed back in Game Edition I Never Bothered With.  He didn't change the numbers, but he was freely allowed to change everything else.

Clearly, changing stuff is fine.  If it wasn't, neither Eberron nor Exandria would exist, ne?

EDIT:

Wasn't your point earlier that everyone being human was bad? like you can't jump from earlier saying playing this way makes everyone a variant human and thats bad, but if you want that play a variant human. pick one.

I think the races should be different, or else there is no point to having them. I think the idea of an elf with no elven traits makes the character essentially a human. The fact that I think an elf with no elven traits is, de facto, a variant human, does not mean I don't want elves in the game. It means I think what you are calling an "elf" is not really an elf, because it has no elven traits. It's an elf in name only.

And my position is, when we get to the point that all the races are basically  humans with a different name... that they are only elves or dwarves or kenku in name only, then I think D&D has lost something quite special. Something that the point-buy games like Champions have never had. Something that used to make D&D worth playing over those point buy games that were superior in other ways.

I do not see any inconsistency in what I have said -- that what you are doing is turning everything into humans with a different name and cosmetic appearance, and that doing this is a bad thing.

If someone absolutely flat requires two extra points of Dex to roleplay an Elf from Elflandia who does elf things with her elf face and simply cannot possibly get into character properly or explore the culture and history of the Elves of Elflandia without those two points of Dexterity, something is deeply wrong and it has nothing to do with the game's rules.

Similarly, having a Dexterity score below 19 should not disqualify a player from roleplaying an Elf from Elflandia who does elf things with her elf face.  Perhaps she suffered an injury, or as I mentioned before, she was born with some sort of physical impairment that affects her manual dexterity.  Perhaps she's not from Elflandia at all but was raised by dwarves with no use for Dexterity; she was taught their ways but never felt she fit and decided to go out adventuring in the hopes of visiting Elflandia some day and connecting with her heritage all while dressed in dwarven heavy armor and unable to speak Elvish.

Why is that sort of story disallowed, hm?  Would you tell a player suffering from palsy that they cannot play an elf because elves are just that naturally graceful and they're not permitted to have Dexterity scores below holyshitamazing?  Again, I challenge anyone holding up this whole opinion of "nobody can ever have any possible justification for a character to not perfectly conform to their species' ideal stat array" to take that opinion to the combat wheelchair threads.  See how far you go with it.

Quote from BioWizard >>

Wasn't your point earlier that everyone being human was bad? like you can't jump from earlier saying playing this way makes everyone a variant human and thats bad, but if you want that play a variant human. pick one.

I think the races should be different, or else there is no point to having them.

 I think what race you pick should be a roleplaying decision, not a build optimization decision.

Truth be told, I don't think this will work out well. I love the idea of eliminating race restrictions on alignment and otherwise making D&D's races more open, but I also like that the non-humans' stats play to classic fantasy archetypes (dwarves are tough as nails, elves are lithe and quick, etc). It's not as if you can't play an elf barbarian, dwarf ranger, or other less classic concept, or that (and this is the key) dwarves will always be tougher than elves. Actually, both share the same Constitution limit of 20, so the racial stats represent general tendencies, not limitations. Ultimately, having specific bonuses makes non-humans feel cool and unique, which isn't racism, it's classic fantasy. It's not as if we have black characters start with Athletics proficiency or female characters have +1 to Wisdom, which would be awful—these are elves and dwarves and hobbits and orcs. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I really don't want to invalidate anyone's feelings, but I haven't met anyone who feels offended by elves getting +2 Dex.

That said, the real reason I don't think it will work out is that a lot of people will use it to min-max (then write backstory to justify) their Elf Bard or whatever, which is not how it was intended. Not only can you make up for the low-level one-point Cha deficit and get it to the max with your Elf Bard pretty quickly, but if you want to do a cool character like that, the stats should be secondary anyway. D&D is not an MMO, and as fun as "optimization" can be, it's far secondary to cool characters, who don't need to be optimized to be awesome!

Heh.  You've missed several rounds of conversation, Naivara.  To summarize several pages of how that specific argument went for you:

Sposta, Kotath, BioWzard, et al: "Playing an unoptimized character is not a bad thing.  These are stat bonuses, not penalties to things they don't have."

Yurei, Third_Sundering, ReshiIR, et al: "Playing an optimized character isn't a bad thing, either.  More freedom to decide how your character's story shaped their life is a good thing, not a bad one."

@Yurei There's no need to be rude. Just because an argument has been used before doesn't mean I can't add my two cents.

That said, I do agree with you that, if your character was an elf raised among dwarves or some such, you should totally be able to change stuff like weapon proficiency (in my example, you'd get the dwarf ones instead), and in a few instances even change your stat increases. Those situations should be rare though, and I think you should create the stat changes to justify the existing backstory, not the other way around. I also think the changes would be good in worlds where races aren't exactly as we usually imagine them (for all its faults, Terry Brooks' Shannara series is a good example of this). Ultimately, I don't think the new rules shouldn't exist...I just think they should be used only about 10% of the time, when you have a specific reason to. Otherwise, your character race is a Fortnite skin on an optimized chassis, and I'm not a fan of D&D feeling like a video game.

P.S. I totally get your wheelchair elf example. That's why I let my players intentionally lower their stats as much as they want...and sometimes they've done it, just because it's fun to roleplay! Then again, as you probably have figured out, we're not really about min-maxing. :-)

Wasn't attempting to be rude, simply to catch you up on the conversation.  The people who're against this rule are primarily against it because they feel optimization is actively harmful to a D&D game, they want to choke off the min-maxers' attempts at min-maxing, and don't want to dilute species differentiation by allowing the rule.  Most of the people who're for it are seeing it as a method of improving edge-case character customization or creating stories that were never officially supported before, and many of us additionally feel that playing an optimized character is not actually bad or a problem.