Stats should not be tied to race. It's always been a bad mechanic. The idea that certainly races might be magically lucky, be able to breathe fire or fly because they have wings makes sense. Stats though, should be highly variable from one person to the next based on background. That said, if they release a template for me to be a flying, fire-breathing, highly intelligent dragon and not break the game, sweet. I feel like they have been moving this direction with all these +2 main stat, +1 any stat races.
i think it is interesting what 3.5e did or rather didn't do in that, becuase they for some reason saw all the mental stats as being completely useless, all the races from the player's handbook started out with bonuses to physical stats but never to mental stats, which kinda worked since strength was a lot more important back then by being added to damage even for ranged attacks, all races no matter if they had a bonus to dex, con, or strength would be effective as an martial character, and since nobody had any bonuses to any mental scores, only certain races with penalties, an dwarf wizard would for the most part be equally effective to an human wizard or an elf wizard, especially since you could run out of spell slots completely and be forced to use those weapons you had been neglecting. I still have not played enough of that edition to know if it worked much, but i have played an half orc druid who became one becuase animals are not racist who was going arround the basic starter set being an unstoppable powerhouse using shillelagh with an bear ally (this was long after that edition had been discontinued, 5e was the first edition i ever played)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
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.
Well, they made this book to appeal to a minority of players, and to appease those who have no real long term interest in D&D, but have been vocal about their views on social justice.
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.
Well, they made this book to appeal to a minority of players, and to appease those who have no real long term interest in D&D, but have been vocal about their views on social justice.
Nope, the vast amount of additional subclasses, class feature variants and other stuff is by far the biggest part of the book, and it will probably sell quite well because of that.
The new rules around race are one part (probably 3 or 4) pages out of a 192 page book full with content (play-tested, new and reprinted) for players and DMs.
This has little to do with social justice and all to do with giving DMs and players a variant, optional rule system to handle some or all races differently, both to suit player tastes and the world the DM is building.
The hyperbole is getting a little ridiculous. I can understand why some dislike the rules and I think there's a good discussion there, but the political baiting is getting a little tiring.
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.
Would we be having the same discussion if D&D had those types of rules, and then added optional ones to either change or out-right remove any mechanical differences between male sex and female sex characters?
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.
Well, they made this book to appeal to a minority of players, and to appease those who have no real long term interest in D&D, but have been vocal about their views on social justice.
Nope, the vast amount of additional subclasses, class feature variants and other stuff is by far the biggest part of the book, and it will probably sell quite well because of that.
Then why is the biggest selling point about the new character creation options? The article I posted in the OP as well as at least one other article I read either didn't mention or emphasize any of the other content.
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.
Well, they made this book to appeal to a minority of players, and to appease those who have no real long term interest in D&D, but have been vocal about their views on social justice.
Nope, the vast amount of additional subclasses, class feature variants and other stuff is by far the biggest part of the book, and it will probably sell quite well because of that.
Then why is the biggest selling point about the new character creation options? The article I posted in the OP as well as at least one other article I read either didn't mention or emphasis any of the other content.
My brother has played World of Warcraft off and on since it came out. He got me to try it years ago and I was immediately put off by the restrictions in place. Only certain races could play certain classes. Faction and Alliance had different classes and you were only playing with the side your were on. I asked why does it make sense to immediately cut the player base I am interacting with in half, cut my class selection options, and force me into a race choice in order to play the class I want? If you want to argue lore then fine, have an RP server that keeps all those restrictions, but why not have a “this is just a game and I don’t care about all that, let me play whatever class/race I want and let me group up with anyone” server.
5e doesn’t restrict class by race, but having locked Stats means you are starting with one hand tied behind your back in you make certain combinations. That sucks. Adding an OPTIONAL method for disassociating stat bonuses from race just adds a level of customization. Personally I am psyched to see all the lineage options. If you don’t like them, guess what, you don’t have to use them. If you start a game and say “no lineage” Jeremy Crawford isn’t going to kick in your door and take your dice away.
Expanding the options a player has in the way they build a character is going to make the experience better not worse. Giving the option to mix and match ability scores and features will mean that two people can both play very different humans, or elves, or orcs, or dwarves, or whatever’s. But if you want to keep things as they are, go for it, just know that I won’t want to play at your table, and a lot of people won’t either.
The new rules around race are one part (probably 3 or 4) pages out of a 192 page book full with content (play-tested, new and reprinted) for players and DMs.
This has little to do with social justice and all to do with giving DMs and players a variant, optional rule system to handle some or all races differently, both to suit player tastes and the world the DM is building.
The hyperbole is getting a little ridiculous. I can understand why some dislike the rules and I think there's a good discussion there, but the political baiting is getting a little tiring.
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.
Would we be having the same discussion if D&D had those types of rules, and then added optional ones to either change or out-right remove any mechanical differences between male sex and female sex characters?
Back in 1E and 2E, female characters had a limit to strength. Males had a max of 18/00 (100), and females 18/50.
Most of the articles I've read so far emphasize the new race build options, and barely mention the other content, so it's pretty clear what their angle is.
But you're talking about articles from places that are, as far as I can tell, not directly associated with D&D nor focused on it (Polygon is just focused on general gaming for example). They are going to go from a different angle, one that doesn't align with WoTC's point of view (which was your original claim).
Also that is interesting to know. Glad those restrictions were dropped.
The new rules around race are one part (probably 3 or 4) pages out of a 192 page book full with content (play-tested, new and reprinted) for players and DMs.
This has little to do with social justice and all to do with giving DMs and players a variant, optional rule system to handle some or all races differently, both to suit player tastes and the world the DM is building.
The hyperbole is getting a little ridiculous. I can understand why some dislike the rules and I think there's a good discussion there, but the political baiting is getting a little tiring.
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.
Would we be having the same discussion if D&D had those types of rules, and then added optional ones to either change or out-right remove any mechanical differences between male sex and female sex characters?
Back in 1E and 2E, female characters had a limit to strength. Males had a max of 18/00 (100), and females 18/50.
Most of the articles I've read so far emphasize the new race build options, and barely mention the other content, so it's pretty clear what their angle is.
First, I haven’t read all the comments, but, ok, wow, the thought of this being anything other than a way I to make the game better never even crossed my mind - I really don’t thing their is some hidden agenda here and second, maybe the reason all the articles mention only the race stuff is because that is super easy to understand and all the other changes lineage will bring will introduce a mechanic that needs an explanation and a) Wizards doesn’t want all of that out there yet and b) it would take up half the article as opposed to two or three sentences that gets the concept across.
Maybe a solution to this would be to give players the option where to put their +2 ASI based on their characters training, but have certain stats your have to put the +1 ASI in based on your race.
For example, a Half-Orc Monk would put the +2 into WIS, but had to put the +1 into either STR or CON because Half-Orcs are known to be strong and hardy. An Elf Monk would have to put the +1 into CHA, DEX or INT.
Even simpler - every Race has a +2 and +1 ASI and 3 different "prefered" Abilities- when you make a character one ASI has to be in those prefered Abilities, the other can be chosen however you want. Lets you make every Race/Class combo without having no bonus for your most important stat.
You can’t say “even simpler” and then add qualifiers. The even simpler is just to say you have three points you can add to whatever you want, max 2 to any one ability and this is probably what we are going to see. Even further, it sounds like they might classify or assign points to everything assigned to race, options like dark vision, powerful build, having a d4 unarmed strike may all be categorized in some way that allows you to select a certain number of them. If they are categorized, you can select one option from each, of they have points, just like stats you can select only as many as you can afford. There is far less detail about that, but I think we are also going to see something like that and I for one am all for it.
If you want to argue lore then fine, have an RP server that keeps all those restrictions, but why not have a “this is just a game and I don’t care about all that, let me play whatever class/race I want and let me group up with anyone” server.
There are tons of non-RPGs out there in which you can team up with people and "game" without RPing. Why is it necessary to take "all the lore" out of an RPG to please people who don't even want to RP?
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.
Yes, they are supposed to be the exception, but they, IMO, should not necessarily be equal. The average (because that is what we are talking about, the average starting point for heros) 300 lb species should have some inherent strength advantage over a 40 lb race. I don't care how exceptional you are as a PC, you still start at level 1. Through EXTRA work (ya know, all those levels after lvl 1), you can grow to have the same strength or more than that 300 lb species, but it strains credulity to think that your "backstory" is enough to get your 40 lb race to a starting STR of 20. Additionally, it strains credulity to think that BOTH species could have the SAME backstory (both hit the gym at 5 AM, 8 days a week) yet the one that is nearly 8 times the weight is no stronger for it.
This is my view entirely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
If you want to argue lore then fine, have an RP server that keeps all those restrictions, but why not have a “this is just a game and I don’t care about all that, let me play whatever class/race I want and let me group up with anyone” server.
There are tons of non-RPGs out there in which you can team up with people and "game" without RPing. Why is it necessary to take "all the lore" out of an RPG to please people who don't even want to RP?
I never said take it out. I said provide two different paths, one for the person who wants strict interpretation and one for the person who just want to have fun.
Yes, they are supposed to be the exception, but they, IMO, should not necessarily be equal. The average (because that is what we are talking about, the average starting point for heros) 300 lb species should have some inherent strength advantage over a 40 lb race. I don't care how exceptional you are as a PC, you still start at level 1. Through EXTRA work (ya know, all those levels after lvl 1), you can grow to have the same strength or more than that 300 lb species, but it strains credulity to think that your "backstory" is enough to get your 40 lb race to a starting STR of 20. Additionally, it strains credulity to think that BOTH species could have the SAME backstory (both hit the gym at 5 AM, 8 days a week) yet the one that is nearly 8 times the weight is no stronger for it.
This is my view entirely.
Any time I hear an argument like this my response is simple. This is a game with magic. Nothing “strains credulity”.
Yes, they are supposed to be the exception, but they, IMO, should not necessarily be equal. The average (because that is what we are talking about, the average starting point for heros) 300 lb species should have some inherent strength advantage over a 40 lb race. I don't care how exceptional you are as a PC, you still start at level 1. Through EXTRA work (ya know, all those levels after lvl 1), you can grow to have the same strength or more than that 300 lb species, but it strains credulity to think that your "backstory" is enough to get your 40 lb race to a starting STR of 20. Additionally, it strains credulity to think that BOTH species could have the SAME backstory (both hit the gym at 5 AM, 8 days a week) yet the one that is nearly 8 times the weight is no stronger for it.
Extra work?!? How dare you?!? Why should everyone not be handed exactly what they want on a silver platter?!? Where’s your sense of entitlement?!?
Didn’t you know that having to work a little harder to be the best at something one is not naturally already good at is unfair? 🙄
Yes, they are supposed to be the exception, but they, IMO, should not necessarily be equal. The average (because that is what we are talking about, the average starting point for heros) 300 lb species should have some inherent strength advantage over a 40 lb race. I don't care how exceptional you are as a PC, you still start at level 1. Through EXTRA work (ya know, all those levels after lvl 1), you can grow to have the same strength or more than that 300 lb species, but it strains credulity to think that your "backstory" is enough to get your 40 lb race to a starting STR of 20. Additionally, it strains credulity to think that BOTH species could have the SAME backstory (both hit the gym at 5 AM, 8 days a week) yet the one that is nearly 8 times the weight is no stronger for it.
Extra work?!? How dare you?!? Why should everyone not be handed exactly what they want on a silver platter?!? Where’s your sense of entitlement?!?
Didn’t you know that having to work a little harder to be the best at something one is not naturally already good at is unfair? 🙄
This is an idiotic argument. “Extra work”. So you have a halfling with a starting 17 str (not rolling) who their entire life (100-200 years) until they became an adventurer worked out compared to a 30 year old Orc and somehow this is unacceptable. Give me a break.
In my opinion, different races or species or whatever you want to call them should celebrate having different stat bonuses and penalties. It makes sense for the different races/species to have different things.
Will my gnome sorcerer be as strong as a halfling fighter? No. Will that same halfling fighter be as strong (starting out) as a Goliath Barbarian? Also incredibly unlikely.
Having different races, with their unique strengths and weaknesses is what will help balance out a party of adventurers. D&D has always been a game about teamwork, working together to make up for other people's weaknesses and overcoming the odds.
If every race becomes the same, stats wise, then there is no real benefit to playing anything other than a human.
I also fundamentally disagree with the idea that having stats forces you to play a certain way or to play to a stereotype. If you are creative enough and have enough imagination then you can play your characters however you want regardless of their stats, give them personalities that make you go "wait, that guy I was discussing the market economics with is a BARBARIAN?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Stats should not be tied to race. It's always been a bad mechanic. The idea that certainly races might be magically lucky, be able to breathe fire or fly because they have wings makes sense. Stats though, should be highly variable from one person to the next based on background. That said, if they release a template for me to be a flying, fire-breathing, highly intelligent dragon and not break the game, sweet. I feel like they have been moving this direction with all these +2 main stat, +1 any stat races.
i think it is interesting what 3.5e did or rather didn't do in that, becuase they for some reason saw all the mental stats as being completely useless, all the races from the player's handbook started out with bonuses to physical stats but never to mental stats, which kinda worked since strength was a lot more important back then by being added to damage even for ranged attacks, all races no matter if they had a bonus to dex, con, or strength would be effective as an martial character, and since nobody had any bonuses to any mental scores, only certain races with penalties, an dwarf wizard would for the most part be equally effective to an human wizard or an elf wizard, especially since you could run out of spell slots completely and be forced to use those weapons you had been neglecting. I still have not played enough of that edition to know if it worked much, but i have played an half orc druid who became one becuase animals are not racist who was going arround the basic starter set being an unstoppable powerhouse using shillelagh with an bear ally (this was long after that edition had been discontinued, 5e was the first edition i ever played)
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Well, they made this book to appeal to a minority of players, and to appease those who have no real long term interest in D&D, but have been vocal about their views on social justice.
Nope, the vast amount of additional subclasses, class feature variants and other stuff is by far the biggest part of the book, and it will probably sell quite well because of that.
The new rules around race are one part (probably 3 or 4) pages out of a 192 page book full with content (play-tested, new and reprinted) for players and DMs.
This has little to do with social justice and all to do with giving DMs and players a variant, optional rule system to handle some or all races differently, both to suit player tastes and the world the DM is building.
The hyperbole is getting a little ridiculous. I can understand why some dislike the rules and I think there's a good discussion there, but the political baiting is getting a little tiring.
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.
Would we be having the same discussion if D&D had those types of rules, and then added optional ones to either change or out-right remove any mechanical differences between male sex and female sex characters?
Then why is the biggest selling point about the new character creation options? The article I posted in the OP as well as at least one other article I read either didn't mention or emphasize any of the other content.
I believe you are correct.
In fact, I am not aware of having ever played any RPG of any sort that differentiated male-female in terms of stats.
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.
Because that is Polygon...
My brother has played World of Warcraft off and on since it came out. He got me to try it years ago and I was immediately put off by the restrictions in place. Only certain races could play certain classes. Faction and Alliance had different classes and you were only playing with the side your were on. I asked why does it make sense to immediately cut the player base I am interacting with in half, cut my class selection options, and force me into a race choice in order to play the class I want? If you want to argue lore then fine, have an RP server that keeps all those restrictions, but why not have a “this is just a game and I don’t care about all that, let me play whatever class/race I want and let me group up with anyone” server.
5e doesn’t restrict class by race, but having locked Stats means you are starting with one hand tied behind your back in you make certain combinations. That sucks. Adding an OPTIONAL method for disassociating stat bonuses from race just adds a level of customization. Personally I am psyched to see all the lineage options. If you don’t like them, guess what, you don’t have to use them. If you start a game and say “no lineage” Jeremy Crawford isn’t going to kick in your door and take your dice away.
Expanding the options a player has in the way they build a character is going to make the experience better not worse. Giving the option to mix and match ability scores and features will mean that two people can both play very different humans, or elves, or orcs, or dwarves, or whatever’s. But if you want to keep things as they are, go for it, just know that I won’t want to play at your table, and a lot of people won’t either.
Back in 1E and 2E, female characters had a limit to strength. Males had a max of 18/00 (100), and females 18/50.
Most of the articles I've read so far emphasize the new race build options, and barely mention the other content, so it's pretty clear what their angle is.
But you're talking about articles from places that are, as far as I can tell, not directly associated with D&D nor focused on it (Polygon is just focused on general gaming for example). They are going to go from a different angle, one that doesn't align with WoTC's point of view (which was your original claim).
Also that is interesting to know. Glad those restrictions were dropped.
First, I haven’t read all the comments, but, ok, wow, the thought of this being anything other than a way I to make the game better never even crossed my mind - I really don’t thing their is some hidden agenda here and second, maybe the reason all the articles mention only the race stuff is because that is super easy to understand and all the other changes lineage will bring will introduce a mechanic that needs an explanation and a) Wizards doesn’t want all of that out there yet and b) it would take up half the article as opposed to two or three sentences that gets the concept across.
You can’t say “even simpler” and then add qualifiers. The even simpler is just to say you have three points you can add to whatever you want, max 2 to any one ability and this is probably what we are going to see. Even further, it sounds like they might classify or assign points to everything assigned to race, options like dark vision, powerful build, having a d4 unarmed strike may all be categorized in some way that allows you to select a certain number of them. If they are categorized, you can select one option from each, of they have points, just like stats you can select only as many as you can afford. There is far less detail about that, but I think we are also going to see something like that and I for one am all for it.
There are tons of non-RPGs out there in which you can team up with people and "game" without RPing. Why is it necessary to take "all the lore" out of an RPG to please people who don't even want to RP?
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.
This is my view entirely.
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
I never said take it out. I said provide two different paths, one for the person who wants strict interpretation and one for the person who just want to have fun.
Any time I hear an argument like this my response is simple. This is a game with magic. Nothing “strains credulity”.
Extra work?!? How dare you?!? Why should everyone not be handed exactly what they want on a silver platter?!? Where’s your sense of entitlement?!?
Didn’t you know that having to work a little harder to be the best at something one is not naturally already good at is unfair? 🙄
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is an idiotic argument. “Extra work”. So you have a halfling with a starting 17 str (not rolling) who their entire life (100-200 years) until they became an adventurer worked out compared to a 30 year old Orc and somehow this is unacceptable. Give me a break.
In my opinion, different races or species or whatever you want to call them should celebrate having different stat bonuses and penalties. It makes sense for the different races/species to have different things.
Will my gnome sorcerer be as strong as a halfling fighter? No. Will that same halfling fighter be as strong (starting out) as a Goliath Barbarian? Also incredibly unlikely.
Having different races, with their unique strengths and weaknesses is what will help balance out a party of adventurers. D&D has always been a game about teamwork, working together to make up for other people's weaknesses and overcoming the odds.
If every race becomes the same, stats wise, then there is no real benefit to playing anything other than a human.
I also fundamentally disagree with the idea that having stats forces you to play a certain way or to play to a stereotype. If you are creative enough and have enough imagination then you can play your characters however you want regardless of their stats, give them personalities that make you go "wait, that guy I was discussing the market economics with is a BARBARIAN?"