Personally, I don't have any issue with the new lineage system in TCoE or the UA in the OP. It seems a step in the right direction.
However, TBH I don't think it has been done the right way. It seems to have been done as a reactionary "we must be seen to have done something" instead of finding the best way.
The reason they need to be seen to be doing something, IMHO, is quite obvious: A system of innate differences between races is offensive in modern society (and should be, too, with race being used in the same way as it is in every day language). The problem is that the meaning of race in D&D isn't the same as in the real world. It is more like species. The Orc or Elf race is not the same as the Asian or Middle Eastern race (it's more like Human and Neanderthal), but the fact that the same word is used with tightly codified differences is obviously going to be highly inflammatory. If D&D is going to continue attracting new players, it cannot be seen to be promoting the outdated belief that different races have fundamental, unalterable differences.
Now to me, the simplest way forward would just be to rename race to species. Unfortunately, given how embedded the term race is in the game, just renaming it probably wouldn't work. WotC would be accused of side stepping the issue, most players would continue using the word race, and the game would continue alienating people.
Overall, I'm in agreement with many in this thread that the new system is not too bad, but is only half done (at most). IMHO, they need to either flesh out/strengthen Backgrounds, or add a new "Culture" selection. However, most of this is a sticking plaster, and really they need a new edition to clean it up and make it work for the sensibilities of a whole new generation.
One thing really bugging me about these design direction changes is they go and create a ton of inconsistencies.
New feats from Tasha's and species spells in this UA can be cast from spell slots.
Old feats like magic initiate, and old species such as genasi can't cast from spell slots.
I hope we get an errata bringing the old ones into line with the new standard. I love a lot of the new design direction, but I dislike how it leaves the old stuff outdated.
I would love an errata. But even without one, I like the direction and it won't stop me from using the old feats and such and as a DM I'll probably start allowing players to cast from spell slots and such.
One thing really bugging me about these design direction changes is they go and create a ton of inconsistencies.
New feats from Tasha's and species spells in this UA can be cast from spell slots.
Old feats like magic initiate, and old species such as genasi can't cast from spell slots.
I hope we get an errata bringing the old ones into line with the new standard. I love a lot of the new design direction, but I dislike how it leaves the old stuff outdated.
Spells acquired via Magic Intitiate could be cast from spell slots so long as you had levels in the corresponding class, or could cast spells from that class. For example, an Eldritch Knight with Magic Initiate (Wizard) could cast that 1st-level wizard spell using their spell slots.
So I see a bunch of people are being needlessly difficult over a children's game, and I'm just going to skip right past all over that to say that hey, I really like this new direction. There are flaws and things that could or should be reexamined and smoothed out, but generally speaking, the math is the dumbest part of D&D, largely arbitrary or representational, and frequently fudged for Rule of Cool reasons. All this new direction really is is Wizards going "Yup, that's alright with us." I genuinely don't get the uproar. People want to futz about with the implementation, that's one thing. But I don't understand being philosophically against delimiting imagination and fun.
So I see a bunch of people are being needlessly difficult over a children's game, and I'm just going to skip right past all over that to say that hey, I really like this new direction. There are flaws and things that could or should be reexamined and smoothed out, but generally speaking, the math is the dumbest part of D&D, largely arbitrary or representational, and frequently fudged for Rule of Cool reasons. All this new direction really is is Wizards going "Yup, that's alright with us." I genuinely don't get the uproar. People want to futz about with the implementation, that's one thing. But I don't understand being philosophically against delimiting imagination and fun.
Though I'm not against this new direction, I probably won't be using it in my games. But I think most people arguing against it are doing so because they're afraid of min-maxers taking advantage of the new rules to make broken characters.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
That's a concern that I see a lot, but don't really understand. The Tasha rules just mean that an Orc Wizard is equally as viable as a Gnome Wizard. What minmaxing or powergaming do they even think is going on? If you're using standard array or point-buy, there isn't a lot of manipulation available to break a character, and if you're rolling, the possibility for characters getting broken is there from moment zero, with some characters getting an 18 then matching with racials to max at 20 at level one.
Everyone is naturally going to want their character to be at least somewhat effective and choose a race that boosts stats for their chosen class, or pick a class that matches the boosts from their preferred race, all this means is that there's more options to do that.
And also, the same people whinging about minmaxers or powergamers are also the same ones claiming that race is now an empty meat suit that means nothing. If race means nothing now, then what race benefits are people getting that breaks a previously not-terribly-viable character like a Tiefling Monk or whatever? You can't have both these things be true. If race no longer matters at all and means nothing, then opening up race/class combos is not something exploitable for minmaxing and/or powergaming. The cognitive dissonance in this position is strong and more evidence that people are just struggling because TRADITION.
New is not intrinsically bad, and not everything requires an ideological stance.
I did not need Wizards to tell me that what I did at my own table in my own house was between me and my players - not in 2001, and sure as hell not in 2021.
I did not need Wizards to tell me that Japanese Samurai had a different culture than Native Americans, even without living on another planet in another dimension.
Thanks for this, I'm also tired of people claiming (for all the wrong reasons, see the other posts) that D&D is "limiting their imagination" and stereotypical. This is from people who have never tried building a world and inventing their own culture and only rebound on the recent changes to go back to a purely technical game with just the slightest veneer of culture to justify "roleplaying".
And again, this is only the initial inspiration, if you look at all the playable races that came with each setting, you should quickly realise that nothing, ever, has prevented people from creating the cultures and fantastic races that have been a staple of the genre in general for decades and have absolutely nothing to do with Tolkien. Cancel culture at work again.
Yep. Personally, it seems to come from snot-nosed goofs who arrogantly tell us older fans, in not so many words, "You suck, the game sucks and we're going to make it better cause you suck!" This idiotic hating on us older fans, who had to put up with the Satanic Panic and other drek, is basically spitting in our face. And while many (though not all) of the changes to the game don't really bother me that much, its the arrogance that annoys me the most. Its the low-information group-think that has suddenly started hating on Tolkien (whose works I love) for things he not only DIDN'T WRITE but also for positions he CLEARLY didn't subscribe to if you do anything more than a cursory examination of his body of work. The same holds true for all the hating on E. Gary Gygax that I keep seeing repeated (mostly elsewhere, but still) especially when it comes to things like Alignment and how a medieval mindset views morality.....cause that's what it is, pseudo-medieval worlds in pre-D&D/OD&D/AD&D1E. Subscribing to modern sensibilities is actually BREAKING the Alignment (which is also an Objective Moral System in that Good/Neutral/Evil or Law-Chaos are clearly definable forces much like electromagnetism).
I'm far more cheesed off about the alterations to the lore that basically affect older games like Greyhawk, Its not JUST the thoughtless combining of Iggwilv and Natasha the Dark or combining The Elder Elemental God and Tharizdun (both of which were done while Gygax was alive and done without regards to how they completely upended plot threads scattered throughout Greyhawk's products). That and I'm personally TIRED of the drek fantasy armor. God, give me realistic armor drawings and seriously, stop using outdated terms that we know Gygax, Arneson, et al got wrong like "chain-mail'. If the term "race" is bothersome, why the frag aren't things like "studded leather" (which never existed and was clearly brigandine) changed if the game is to be "more correct". Don't change the lore, but correct things where they need to be instead. I mean, Demi-Human should be used for anything not an Elf, Man or Ork (since all 3 can interbreed successfully with viable offspring), otherwise Human and then Humanoid (other stuff Goliaths, etc).
I feel like using the orc wizard as a point of comparison is disingenuous. When the orc was first printed, that -2 to their Intelligence score meant the most they could have was a 13; if they were using the Standard Array. Most CR 1/4 NPCs have a better primary stat than a mere +1 modifier. Yes, the orc is better in other areas, but not that great. A starting spread of, say, 10 14 14 13 10 12 was about as good as they could hope for. If feats are off the table, then maybe 10 14 14 12 12 12; depending on their choice of background and skill proficiencies.
And remember, D&D did away with negative modifiers in 4e. To sum up, that initial negative modifier was a slap in the face. They made it better, but it still stings that it happened at all.
If the term "race" is bothersome, why the frag aren't things like "studded leather" (which never existed and was clearly brigandine) changed if the game is to be "more correct".
Umm ... one is a term that is currently part of a real world conversation that has literal life and death stakes for some people and the other one is ... just not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
If the term "race" is bothersome, why the frag aren't things like "studded leather" (which never existed and was clearly brigandine) changed if the game is to be "more correct".
Umm ... one is a term that is currently part of a real world conversation that has literal life and death stakes for some people and the other one is ... just not.
You do realize that "race" in D&D has NOTHING to do with how the word "race" was used in the real-world, right?
That's a concern that I see a lot, but don't really understand. The Tasha rules just mean that an Orc Wizard is equally as viable as a Gnome Wizard. What minmaxing or powergaming do they even think is going on?
I agree that it doesn't let you make broken characters. I think the concern is not that this allows min-maxers to play "broken" characters, but it is more enabling min-maxers to make perfect characters, rather than have a character who may have some imperfections that improve the realism and verisimilitude of the campaign. In short, "This is just enabling the min-maxers" is what I think is meant by this. I agree it certainly doesn't break the game, because you could already choose a race that maxed out your stats unless the DM explicitly prohibited it for some reason (race doesn't exist in my world; I don't allow min-maxing, whatever).
Everyone is naturally going to want their character to be at least somewhat effective and choose a race that boosts stats for their chosen class, or pick a class that matches the boosts from their preferred race
This statement is self-contradictory. There is a huge difference between being somewhat effective (which you can do with a 15 in your prime stat) and being maximally optimized, which is what you are taking about when you pick a race that exactly matches your class requirements. So if your class is primary cha, secondary dex, you must have a race that gives +2 cha, +1 dex and anything else is unacceptable. Getting +2/+1 in your 2 main stats is not "somewhat effective" -- it is maximally optimized (you literally can do no better with a standard array than starting out with +2 in the 15 and +1 in the 14 (although I guess a case could be made to flip it and start with 16-16 rather than 17-15, since you get bonuses on the even #s).
In other words, in your example above, the Gnome Wizard choice is not to make the character somewhat effective -- it makes the character maximally optimized (when looking at stat bonuses). The Orc Wizard would be actually somewhat effective.
The problem is that for min-maxers, optimized is "barely effective" to them (because what they really want is a 20 in their prime stat, and at level 1 they can't have it yet), and the Orc Wizard is hopelessly broken and unplayable. (Yes, I am exaggerating... but not by much, actually.)
If race no longer matters at all and means nothing, then opening up race/class combos is not something exploitable for minmaxing and/or powergaming.
Again, I agree it doesn't "break" anything; I think what people mean here is that it is further enabling a mechanical/optimization-based take on character creation over making good, interesting, thematic characters.
Even on some of the D&D "tv shows" out there, I have noticed this for a long time -- that people pick these potentially interesting races to play like tieflings or high elves and then RP their character as basically a human, and if you didn't know from episode 1 that this character was another race, there is nothing about the RP or anything that happens in game which would clue you in. (Not everyone does this... Anna Coulter on the Chain of Acheron plays her tiefling named Judge as a terrifying devil-man... but she is the exception rather than the rule.) I am in the camp that says what is the point of having race (or species) at all, if it means nothing? If the Orc Wizard is going to act, have stats, and essentially be, completely un-differentiated from the Gnome Wizard (and if, on top of that, they're all going to just "act human") -- why bother having them? Just play humans.
Which, by the way, everyone could already do with out all these redesigns of the game -- variant human: any feat you want + stat bonus in whatever stat you want. If it's THAT important to you, that's all the min-maxing you could ever want right there.
You do realize that "race" in D&D has NOTHING to do with how the word "race" was used in the real-world, right?
That may be the writers intent, but intentions don't fully dictate consequences and impact. If it has not impacted you negatively, great! It's a nice privilege to have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
There is a huge difference between being somewhat effective (which you can do with a 15 in your prime stat) and being maximally optimized, which is what you are taking about when you pick a race that exactly matches your class requirements. So if your class is primary cha, secondary dex, you must have a race that gives +2 cha, +1 dex and anything else is unacceptable. Getting +2/+1 in your 2 main stats is not "somewhat effective" -- it is maximally optimized (you literally can do no better with a standard array than starting out with +2 in the 15 and +1 in the 14 (although I guess a case could be made to flip it and start with 16-16 rather than 17-15, since you get bonuses on the even #s).
The real min-maxers will just go with Custom Lineage to have an 18 with a half-feat... ;)
(Edit: apologies, in my quote-snipping I removed the part where it says this is a reply to BioWizard.)
The problem is that for min-maxers, optimized is "barely effective" to them (because what they really want is a 20 in their prime stat, and at level 1 they can't have it yet), and the Orc Wizard is hopelessly broken and unplayable. (Yes, I am exaggerating... but not by much, actually.)
You're making a lot of assumptions about these "min-maxer" strawmen. Some people just want to play characters that perform well.
Again, I agree it doesn't "break" anything; I think what people mean here is that it is further enabling a mechanical/optimization-based take on character creation over making good, interesting, thematic characters.
Case in point: those two things are not mutually exclusive.
(Someone already mentioned the Stormwind Fallacy, I see.)
Even on some of the D&D "tv shows" out there, I have noticed this for a long time -- that people pick these potentially interesting races to play like tieflings or high elves and then RP their character as basically a human, and if you didn't know from episode 1 that this character was another race, there is nothing about the RP or anything that happens in game which would clue you in. (Not everyone does this... Anna Coulter on the Chain of Acheron plays her tiefling named Judge as a terrifying devil-man... but she is the exception rather than the rule.) I am in the camp that says what is the point of having race (or species) at all, if it means nothing? If the Orc Wizard is going to act, have stats, and essentially be, completely un-differentiated from the Gnome Wizard (and if, on top of that, they're all going to just "act human") -- why bother having them? Just play humans.
Which, by the way, everyone could already do with out all these redesigns of the game -- variant human: any feat you want + stat bonus in whatever stat you want. If it's THAT important to you, that's all the min-maxing you could ever want right there.
Why is it so wrong and bad for these players to play tieflings or high elves as "basically human"? I'd bet they just want to play a "person" with some cool features and not have jerks on the internet tell them they are bad roleplayers for it.
Personally, I don't have any issue with the new lineage system in TCoE or the UA in the OP. It seems a step in the right direction.
However, TBH I don't think it has been done the right way. It seems to have been done as a reactionary "we must be seen to have done something" instead of finding the best way.
The reason they need to be seen to be doing something, IMHO, is quite obvious: A system of innate differences between races is offensive in modern society (and should be, too, with race being used in the same way as it is in every day language). The problem is that the meaning of race in D&D isn't the same as in the real world. It is more like species. The Orc or Elf race is not the same as the Asian or Middle Eastern race (it's more like Human and Neanderthal), but the fact that the same word is used with tightly codified differences is obviously going to be highly inflammatory. If D&D is going to continue attracting new players, it cannot be seen to be promoting the outdated belief that different races have fundamental, unalterable differences.
Now to me, the simplest way forward would just be to rename race to species. Unfortunately, given how embedded the term race is in the game, just renaming it probably wouldn't work. WotC would be accused of side stepping the issue, most players would continue using the word race, and the game would continue alienating people.
Overall, I'm in agreement with many in this thread that the new system is not too bad, but is only half done (at most). IMHO, they need to either flesh out/strengthen Backgrounds, or add a new "Culture" selection. However, most of this is a sticking plaster, and really they need a new edition to clean it up and make it work for the sensibilities of a whole new generation.
One thing really bugging me about these design direction changes is they go and create a ton of inconsistencies.
New feats from Tasha's and species spells in this UA can be cast from spell slots.
Old feats like magic initiate, and old species such as genasi can't cast from spell slots.
I hope we get an errata bringing the old ones into line with the new standard. I love a lot of the new design direction, but I dislike how it leaves the old stuff outdated.
Ha! Called it! Tasha's is the 3.5 / Essentials book of the 5e line! It the new normal going forwards!
I would love an errata. But even without one, I like the direction and it won't stop me from using the old feats and such and as a DM I'll probably start allowing players to cast from spell slots and such.
Spells acquired via Magic Intitiate could be cast from spell slots so long as you had levels in the corresponding class, or could cast spells from that class. For example, an Eldritch Knight with Magic Initiate (Wizard) could cast that 1st-level wizard spell using their spell slots.
So I see a bunch of people are being needlessly difficult over a children's game, and I'm just going to skip right past all over that to say that hey, I really like this new direction. There are flaws and things that could or should be reexamined and smoothed out, but generally speaking, the math is the dumbest part of D&D, largely arbitrary or representational, and frequently fudged for Rule of Cool reasons. All this new direction really is is Wizards going "Yup, that's alright with us." I genuinely don't get the uproar. People want to futz about with the implementation, that's one thing. But I don't understand being philosophically against delimiting imagination and fun.
Though I'm not against this new direction, I probably won't be using it in my games. But I think most people arguing against it are doing so because they're afraid of min-maxers taking advantage of the new rules to make broken characters.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
That's a concern that I see a lot, but don't really understand. The Tasha rules just mean that an Orc Wizard is equally as viable as a Gnome Wizard. What minmaxing or powergaming do they even think is going on? If you're using standard array or point-buy, there isn't a lot of manipulation available to break a character, and if you're rolling, the possibility for characters getting broken is there from moment zero, with some characters getting an 18 then matching with racials to max at 20 at level one.
Everyone is naturally going to want their character to be at least somewhat effective and choose a race that boosts stats for their chosen class, or pick a class that matches the boosts from their preferred race, all this means is that there's more options to do that.
And also, the same people whinging about minmaxers or powergamers are also the same ones claiming that race is now an empty meat suit that means nothing. If race means nothing now, then what race benefits are people getting that breaks a previously not-terribly-viable character like a Tiefling Monk or whatever? You can't have both these things be true. If race no longer matters at all and means nothing, then opening up race/class combos is not something exploitable for minmaxing and/or powergaming. The cognitive dissonance in this position is strong and more evidence that people are just struggling because TRADITION.
New is not intrinsically bad, and not everything requires an ideological stance.
I did not need Wizards to tell me that what I did at my own table in my own house was between me and my players - not in 2001, and sure as hell not in 2021.
I did not need Wizards to tell me that Japanese Samurai had a different culture than Native Americans, even without living on another planet in another dimension.
#OpenDnD
But a lot of people do. Not every statement and decision is for everyone who might hear or see it.
Woof, the "get off my lawn" energy is very, very strong here.
Ahh the Stormwind Fallacy.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yep. Personally, it seems to come from snot-nosed goofs who arrogantly tell us older fans, in not so many words, "You suck, the game sucks and we're going to make it better cause you suck!" This idiotic hating on us older fans, who had to put up with the Satanic Panic and other drek, is basically spitting in our face. And while many (though not all) of the changes to the game don't really bother me that much, its the arrogance that annoys me the most. Its the low-information group-think that has suddenly started hating on Tolkien (whose works I love) for things he not only DIDN'T WRITE but also for positions he CLEARLY didn't subscribe to if you do anything more than a cursory examination of his body of work. The same holds true for all the hating on E. Gary Gygax that I keep seeing repeated (mostly elsewhere, but still) especially when it comes to things like Alignment and how a medieval mindset views morality.....cause that's what it is, pseudo-medieval worlds in pre-D&D/OD&D/AD&D1E. Subscribing to modern sensibilities is actually BREAKING the Alignment (which is also an Objective Moral System in that Good/Neutral/Evil or Law-Chaos are clearly definable forces much like electromagnetism).
I'm far more cheesed off about the alterations to the lore that basically affect older games like Greyhawk, Its not JUST the thoughtless combining of Iggwilv and Natasha the Dark or combining The Elder Elemental God and Tharizdun (both of which were done while Gygax was alive and done without regards to how they completely upended plot threads scattered throughout Greyhawk's products). That and I'm personally TIRED of the drek fantasy armor. God, give me realistic armor drawings and seriously, stop using outdated terms that we know Gygax, Arneson, et al got wrong like "chain-mail'. If the term "race" is bothersome, why the frag aren't things like "studded leather" (which never existed and was clearly brigandine) changed if the game is to be "more correct". Don't change the lore, but correct things where they need to be instead. I mean, Demi-Human should be used for anything not an Elf, Man or Ork (since all 3 can interbreed successfully with viable offspring), otherwise Human and then Humanoid (other stuff Goliaths, etc).
I feel like using the orc wizard as a point of comparison is disingenuous. When the orc was first printed, that -2 to their Intelligence score meant the most they could have was a 13; if they were using the Standard Array. Most CR 1/4 NPCs have a better primary stat than a mere +1 modifier. Yes, the orc is better in other areas, but not that great. A starting spread of, say, 10 14 14 13 10 12 was about as good as they could hope for. If feats are off the table, then maybe 10 14 14 12 12 12; depending on their choice of background and skill proficiencies.
And remember, D&D did away with negative modifiers in 4e. To sum up, that initial negative modifier was a slap in the face. They made it better, but it still stings that it happened at all.
Umm ... one is a term that is currently part of a real world conversation that has literal life and death stakes for some people and the other one is ... just not.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
You do realize that "race" in D&D has NOTHING to do with how the word "race" was used in the real-world, right?
I agree that it doesn't let you make broken characters. I think the concern is not that this allows min-maxers to play "broken" characters, but it is more enabling min-maxers to make perfect characters, rather than have a character who may have some imperfections that improve the realism and verisimilitude of the campaign. In short, "This is just enabling the min-maxers" is what I think is meant by this. I agree it certainly doesn't break the game, because you could already choose a race that maxed out your stats unless the DM explicitly prohibited it for some reason (race doesn't exist in my world; I don't allow min-maxing, whatever).
This statement is self-contradictory. There is a huge difference between being somewhat effective (which you can do with a 15 in your prime stat) and being maximally optimized, which is what you are taking about when you pick a race that exactly matches your class requirements. So if your class is primary cha, secondary dex, you must have a race that gives +2 cha, +1 dex and anything else is unacceptable. Getting +2/+1 in your 2 main stats is not "somewhat effective" -- it is maximally optimized (you literally can do no better with a standard array than starting out with +2 in the 15 and +1 in the 14 (although I guess a case could be made to flip it and start with 16-16 rather than 17-15, since you get bonuses on the even #s).
In other words, in your example above, the Gnome Wizard choice is not to make the character somewhat effective -- it makes the character maximally optimized (when looking at stat bonuses). The Orc Wizard would be actually somewhat effective.
The problem is that for min-maxers, optimized is "barely effective" to them (because what they really want is a 20 in their prime stat, and at level 1 they can't have it yet), and the Orc Wizard is hopelessly broken and unplayable. (Yes, I am exaggerating... but not by much, actually.)
Again, I agree it doesn't "break" anything; I think what people mean here is that it is further enabling a mechanical/optimization-based take on character creation over making good, interesting, thematic characters.
Even on some of the D&D "tv shows" out there, I have noticed this for a long time -- that people pick these potentially interesting races to play like tieflings or high elves and then RP their character as basically a human, and if you didn't know from episode 1 that this character was another race, there is nothing about the RP or anything that happens in game which would clue you in. (Not everyone does this... Anna Coulter on the Chain of Acheron plays her tiefling named Judge as a terrifying devil-man... but she is the exception rather than the rule.) I am in the camp that says what is the point of having race (or species) at all, if it means nothing? If the Orc Wizard is going to act, have stats, and essentially be, completely un-differentiated from the Gnome Wizard (and if, on top of that, they're all going to just "act human") -- why bother having them? Just play humans.
Which, by the way, everyone could already do with out all these redesigns of the game -- variant human: any feat you want + stat bonus in whatever stat you want. If it's THAT important to you, that's all the min-maxing you could ever want right there.
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.
That may be the writers intent, but intentions don't fully dictate consequences and impact. If it has not impacted you negatively, great! It's a nice privilege to have.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The real min-maxers will just go with Custom Lineage to have an 18 with a half-feat... ;)
(Edit: apologies, in my quote-snipping I removed the part where it says this is a reply to BioWizard.)
You're making a lot of assumptions about these "min-maxer" strawmen. Some people just want to play characters that perform well.
Case in point: those two things are not mutually exclusive.
(Someone already mentioned the Stormwind Fallacy, I see.)
Why is it so wrong and bad for these players to play tieflings or high elves as "basically human"? I'd bet they just want to play a "person" with some cool features and not have jerks on the internet tell them they are bad roleplayers for it.
No thanks. This book is banned at my table. Tasha's Everyone Gets a Trophy.