Why are you perpetuating this awful, incorrect idea that "Optimization" is at the other end of a scale from "Good, interesting, thematic" characters?
See, I could just as easily dismiss your stance unnecessarily as a glorifying of the Bohemian Failure Monkey and state that people who think Bohemian Failure Monkeys are cool/good/The Best D&D Characters are awful to have at the table. Someone who refuses to start the game with a number higher than 13 or an array with more than sixty points in it, who's bought one hundred percent into that stupid terrible nonsense about "Failure is more interesting than success!", who hates combat and wishes the game was nothing but an endless series of alternations between An Artistic Study of the Powerlessness of Man against Monsters of Our Primal Id (i.e. hiding from dangerous things that want to eat you) and An Artistic Study of the Intrinsic Flaws of Man and the Brokenness of Our Souls (i.e. emoting about their tragic backstory and myriad Byronic character flaws, usually without any attempt whatsoever to correct those flaws).
That guy can take his coffeehouse poser True Art "deeply interesting" character sheet, make a paper airplane out of it, and toss it merrily out the window a second or two before he follows it. Because I and the rest of my table are throwing him out that window. Possibly with mechanical assistance. I know a welder and a machinist who both have extensive mechanical backgrounds - we could kajigger a One-Armed Purple Ponce-apult if we needed one.
You don't need terrible horrible no-good very bad numbers to make a character interesting. Numeric flaws are not the only character flaws one can play. Bohemian Failure Monkeys are deeply frustrating wastes of space, not Super Interesting and Deeply Compelling Byronic Champions. You can have a character that is both competently assembled on the mechanical side and interesting to play and follow along with on the narrative side.
Stormwind Fallacy. You're perpetuating it. Stahppit.
Sidebar on "Failure is More Interesting than Success!", for those who felt attacked by that quip above and because this is the one thing I'd erase from the Internet completely if I could:
You're wrong. Like, objectively wrong, not just 'your opinion is different than mine therefore I perceive you to be wrong'.
"Failure is more interesting than success!" is missing several key words. The proper phrase is "Overcoming failure is more interesting than effortless success!", and even that statement is deeply flawed. Overcoming adversity is the essence of a Hero Fantasy, and adversity can come in many forms. Failure is only one of them, and a 'Hero' character who constantly fails at everything they try to do and displays no useful skills nor any attempt to develop or acquire useful skills is not worth telling the tale of.
Many folks cherish the "farmboy from nothing who rises to become a legendary hero" story arc, the Rags to Riches Skywalker's Journey. That can be great. It's a classic for a reason. The key part there, though, is that the farmboy from nothing has to rise, and become a Legendary Hero. Skywalker started as a moisture-farmer nobody who barely knew the good end of a lightsaber from the bad end; he ended (in the original movies, anyways) as an ace fighter pilot Jedi Master Hero of the Rebellion. He did not spend his entire campaign being deliberately useless, actively obstructing and impeding his friends and allies because 'Failure is more interesting than success!' in an explicit attempt to avoid as much character growth as possible.
"Failure is more interesting than success!" is a deep and actively toxic misunderstanding of the nature of storytelling, and if you insist on taking it as your gameplay credo, you have no place at my table. Or the table of anyone who'd like to play a proper game of D&D. Or any other cooperative roleplaying game, for that matter.
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.
Precisely. In a similar way, the Swastika has been used in many places, by many cultures, with a vastly different meaning. In the far east it was a symbol of spirituality, and in Europe a symbol of good luck. However, if you use it in new content nowadays (outside academic or specialist circles where the meaning is clear), it has one meaning, and that is a bad one.
You mention race in the context of a group of people now, and it get intrinsically linked back to the common everyday usage. Any new player will, most likely, link it as such, especially if they have had issues with racial discrimination in the past. Saying "Oh, but it means something else here" doesn't really cut it, especially when many of the themes of racial traits etc are so closely linked with racial stereotyping and worse issues in the real world.
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.
It was already the case. Or are you claiming that you have to be a gnome to be a good wizard, just because of the race bonuses ?
That is the problem there, exactly there, people reject 90% of the options of the game because they think that having a -1 on some rolls is going to make them instantly die.
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.
Then what is preventing you from playing an Orc Wizard pre-Tasha. Absolutely nothing. We had an orcish bard in our ToA campaign and gues what, not only did he survive, but everyone had a lot of fun playing with him...
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.
The problem is then that it's not "your favourite race" anymore. It's just a technical twisting of what used to be the race, with characteristic matching its history and its culture. But purely technical, with no soul whatsoever.
And of course, at that point, comes the wangrod defense of "but I'm still doing roleplaying, here is a 3 pages long backstory explaining how I came to be this way". But it's just post-fact explanation of the technical choices, you did not choose the character because the culture was pleasing to you, you just crafted something purely technically and then thought long and hard how to present it so that it was not the case.
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.
It means nothing in terms of culture and history, in terms of personality and relationships with the other constituents of the world.
But, unfortunely it still means lots of things in terms of technical capacity, otherwise believe me, most of the people arguing for the change would not even bother. If there's no technical power associated to a topic, you rarely see them post...
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.
In case you missed all the previous editions and settings, traditions does not mean a thing. The tradition of elves in Faerun has nothing to do with the ones on Athas or Eberron. Breaks like this, which were culturally justified were fantastic and people love these settings.
Breaks which are just for technical convenience are pathetic in what should be a roleplaying game first and foremost.
Wow, this is just absolutely rife with poor logic, defensiveness, sarcasm, and cognitive dissonance. Which appears to be a pattern in your response to this entire concept.
1. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be moderately effective at the one or two things your class relies on most. Which is why most min/maxers will only choose Gnome or some other race with an INT bonus when building a Wizard. The things you're decrying were already happening en masse, but with a lot less room for creativity.
2. If moving ASI around to make your character concept more viable (ie Orc Wizard v. Gnome Wizard) means that you are no longer playing "your favourite race" (good job putting words I did not use in quotes there, bud), then there is no mechanical reason to make that change. Ipso facto, it's only something done for RP purposes. If giving an Orc an INT bonus instead of a STR bonus means it's no longer an Orc, then what other appeal is there other than to play a character who is an outsider to their own race? If there's no RP reason, and it doesn't give you better stats ("purely technical" in your words), then why bother doing it? Why not just stick with the default of a Gnome or other race with INT boosts? Why not just stick with the trope or archetype? You're accusing people of only wanting to do things for technical reasons while ignoring that there are ways to game the technical side without these changes and they have existed for decades. Your absolutely inability to and disinterest in inquiring your own line of thought here is positively staggering.
3. With all your blah blah blah about culture and history and especially with other settings, you seem to be under a rather large misapprehension that the ability to move around starting racial ASI for a player character is something that fundamentally alters the lore of that race, its history, or culture within whichever setting its dealing with. Which it doesn't. These are options for Player Characters, not a sweeping change made that says all cultures and histories and species are identical.
In Faerun Gnomes are, as a culture, generally the clever ones and Orcs are, as a culture, generally the smashy ones, and...guess what? That's still true. But now you have the opportunity to create a singular character (which does not affect the race, culture, or history as a whole) who has different gifts than are generally the trend for their people. Just as humanity includes both Muhammad Ali and Neil deGrasse Tyson, one with many physical gifts and one with many mental, there is no reason there cannot be an Orc naturally gifted in matters of the mind who chooses to pursue that. Who is not interested in war or physical pursuits and would rather read books and learn histories, even if that means leaving their clan.
These rules are here to allow the crafting of individuals, not rewrite the entire concept of a race, whether that word refers to a species or a culture or both simultaneously. Not everyone from France eats snails, not everyone from Japan loves anime, not everyone from Russia wears furry hats, and not everyone in America eats at McDonald's four times a day. And really, fantasy (whether Tolkien or Howard or Lovecraft or whoever else, that whole debate is dumb and beside the point) is fundamentally about exceptional, unique individuals who do big, extraordinary things. Sure, Luke Skywalker's a farm boy, but there's a zillion farm boys on Tatooine. Not all of them are son of the most powerful Force-user alive. King Arthur's just a blacksmith's apprentice, except oh wait no he's not he's the lost son of the king. Countless sci-fi stories (including a lot of superheroes like Spider-Man) are about that one bullied kid who loves science instead of football.
This is intrinsic to the very concept of epic stories and genre tales. You are arguing against me deciding I want to play Orc Spider-Man because no, every Orc must be Flash Thompson. They are an entire culture of Flash Thompsons. There can be no Peter Parker. That's a violation. There can't be an Orc that likes test tubes more than pigskins. No individual is allowed to be that individual. It's a fundamentally racist argument that dictates every individual must conform to the archetypes (or worse, stereotypes) of their race. Every black person does crime and eats watermelon. Every Asian is a terrible driver who's good at math. Every latinx person owns a llama and eats only tacos. This is what you're arguing. Conformity.
Because fundamentally, what those ASI represent is aptitude and training. A character who has a natural leaning and interest, and has pursued a thing, should be better at that thing. An Orc Wizard (particularly under the older 5e rules with the -2 INT) could max out at 13 for their primary stat, making them fundamentally worse at their #1 interest than say a Gnome Fighter who starts with a +2 and layered that on top of a 12 in INT. It's an afterthought for them, and they're better at it than someone for whom its their life's defining pursuit. That is bad, broken game design that focuses purely on easy math and ignores roleplaying.
And again, there is no reason to use the new Tasha rules with floating racial ASIs other than roleplaying. You're terrified (baselessly) of minmaxers and powergamers potentially misusing it (while never once giving a concrete example of what that would even look like or how it's possible) and ignoring that they're going to do their thing no matter what, and before Tasha, that just led to a bunch of Wood Elf Rangers and Orc Barbarians and Gnome Wizards so everything felt the same. If anything, this all just gives those same players who, again, were already doing what you're afraid of, the opportunity to add roleplaying to their repertoire. They can get the numbers they care so much about while also having a reason to try a Changeling Ranger or Halfling Barbarian or Minotaur Wizard, which can open them up to a whole new aspect of the game they were already ignoring. And it lets the people who are more interested in the roleplay and the character and the narrative explore that narrative freely without being worse at what should be their absolute best traits than character who do not need those traits at all.
Like...everything about your argument is wrong. Stupid, ill-informed, cognitively dissonant, misunderstanding the nature of the genre, and logistically, factually, demonstrably wrong.
I'd respect it more if you just straight said "I don't like it because it's not what I'm used to." If you're going to be a difficult, grumpy gatekeeper, at least be honest.
I don't think Lyxen is being a gatekeeper. He knows he can't stop anyone from doing what they want to at their table, and if he's running a group then the group will have to adhere to his rules. After all, the rules presented in Tasha's are optional.
Some people would be more than happy to tear down everything. What they'd put in its place...I have no idea. Arcanist Press and their Ancestry and Culture series is, I think, a step in the right direction. But gosh darn it if they aren't jerks about it. Orcs aren't genetically evil, and I wish they'd just stop harping on something that isn't true.
There should be distinct cultures. There should be some default assumptions. That said, player characters are also exceptional individuals. And as exceptions, they prove (test) the rule. But that rule should still exist. Whether you live up to it or push back against it, it helps to build the world.
I regret that you have to put up with Certain Users after my own patience finally snapped, but it looks like the fight is in good hands after all.
Nevertheless. Much as I suppose it was inevitable, the thread wasn't actually supposed to be Rehash of Why Moving Numbers Are Good/bad #4792. I shall make one attempt to course correct.
What do folks think of the idea of "Lineage", as opposed to "Race/Species", being an idea that encompasses your character's origin even beyond the possibility of what skin you were born in? That the species of your birth isn't necessarily the defining factor of your Heroic Origin, and that Lineages beyond Dude/Ork-with-a-K/Shortstack/Token Hottie can exist alongside or in place of the traditional idea of 'Race' i.e. Species?
I regret that you have to put up with Certain Users after my own patience finally snapped, but it looks like the fight is in good hands after all.
Nevertheless. Much as I suppose it was inevitable, the thread wasn't actually supposed to be Rehash of Why Moving Numbers Are Good/bad #4792. I shall make one attempt to course correct.
What do folks think of the idea of "Lineage", as opposed to "Race/Species", being an idea that encompasses your character's origin even beyond the possibility of what skin you were born in? That the species of your birth isn't necessarily the defining factor of your Heroic Origin, and that Lineages beyond Dude/Ork-with-a-K/Shortstack/Token Hottie can exist alongside or in place of the traditional idea of 'Race' i.e. Species?
I honestly think it is a great idea, but only half of one. If you are going to separate culture from Race to create Lineage, then you need to also provide Culture (or preferably enhance Backgrounds) as a separate choice instead of just throwing it out all together.
@Lyxen, this isn't for powergamers/munchkins/minmaxers. This is for people who want more customizability with their races. People that want more unique characters, not just a standard, stereotypical member of their race.
Listen, nothing in the official rules prevents you from doing that. Absolutely nothing. I have played for 30+ years with rulesets that had these "stereotypes" and no one complained, because we knew that we could roleplay around them. And that if specific settings like Dark Sun gave us other standards we would play by them to better enjoy the setting.
The only people who complain about these limits are people who think that, if they go over them, it will make a technically weaker character. So sorry, no, it's all about powergamers/munchkins/minmaxers.
I completely agree, my character creation has completely changed with Tasha's. I am now able to play characters that would have been incredibly sup-optimal in the past but because I can change the starting stat bumps, skills, efficiencies and languages I can make them not only playable but well optimised.
What do folks think of the idea of "Lineage", as opposed to "Race/Species", being an idea that encompasses your character's origin even beyond the possibility of what skin you were born in? That the species of your birth isn't necessarily the defining factor of your Heroic Origin, and that Lineages beyond Dude/Ork-with-a-K/Shortstack/Token Hottie can exist alongside or in place of the traditional idea of 'Race' i.e. Species?
To reiterate my previous post, and to also aid in trying to move the conversation away from the current fire that is growing, I need to see more to feel good about this current direction. It's one thing to make the statement, it's another to actually follow through with it in a way that doesn't just feel like a tacked on clunky mess to try and appease everyone. I don't reject the notion of adding more options and creating a system that allows meaningful choices or the idea of separating racial traits and cultural traits, but they need to showcase how cultural traits are going to be handled going forward as well. The current background system isn't sufficient enough, especially since the older races aren't being updated as of yet to match this new direction.
Basically, I need to see much more effort in revamping this system if that is what they are truly aiming for, less it looks like hollow words and empty promises. I hope that properly explains my current thoughts on the matter. They may change, but that's where I stand right now.
What do folks think of the idea of "Lineage", as opposed to "Race/Species", being an idea that encompasses your character's origin even beyond the possibility of what skin you were born in? That the species of your birth isn't necessarily the defining factor of your Heroic Origin, and that Lineages beyond Dude/Ork-with-a-K/Shortstack/Token Hottie can exist alongside or in place of the traditional idea of 'Race' i.e. Species?
I think it's a good move, even if I feel like they rightly wanted to do away with the word "race" entirely but aren't going all the way with that for some reason. Instead they are just kind of shifting emphasis.
I regret that you have to put up with Certain Users after my own patience finally snapped, but it looks like the fight is in good hands after all.
Nevertheless. Much as I suppose it was inevitable, the thread wasn't actually supposed to be Rehash of Why Moving Numbers Are Good/bad #4792. I shall make one attempt to course correct.
What do folks think of the idea of "Lineage", as opposed to "Race/Species", being an idea that encompasses your character's origin even beyond the possibility of what skin you were born in? That the species of your birth isn't necessarily the defining factor of your Heroic Origin, and that Lineages beyond Dude/Ork-with-a-K/Shortstack/Token Hottie can exist alongside or in place of the traditional idea of 'Race' i.e. Species?
I'd be vastly in favor of something I think I saw you propose earlier, wherein the three pillars become four, with a kind of lineage/biology option, class mostly as-is, then a background split into an occupation/training and a culture/upbringing thing. Actually, I'd love to see background beefed up in general. When they were first talking about messing with racial ASI pre-Tasha leaks, I actually kind of assumed they'd just move ASI to backgrounds instead of race, given that what you've done literally your entire life has more of an effect on who you are today than your genetics.
I regret that you have to put up with Certain Users after my own patience finally snapped, but it looks like the fight is in good hands after all.
Nevertheless. Much as I suppose it was inevitable, the thread wasn't actually supposed to be Rehash of Why Moving Numbers Are Good/bad #4792. I shall make one attempt to course correct.
What do folks think of the idea of "Lineage", as opposed to "Race/Species", being an idea that encompasses your character's origin even beyond the possibility of what skin you were born in? That the species of your birth isn't necessarily the defining factor of your Heroic Origin, and that Lineages beyond Dude/Ork-with-a-K/Shortstack/Token Hottie can exist alongside or in place of the traditional idea of 'Race' i.e. Species?
I'd be vastly in favor of something I think I saw you propose earlier, wherein the three pillars become four, with a kind of lineage/biology option, class mostly as-is, then a background split into an occupation/training and a culture/upbringing thing. Actually, I'd love to see background beefed up in general. When they were first talking about messing with racial ASI pre-Tasha leaks, I actually kind of assumed they'd just move ASI to backgrounds instead of race, given that what you've done literally your entire life has more of an effect on who you are today than your genetics.
Third posted this homebrew on the first page, but I created something that is sorta like that. You get one ASI from your species, one from background and one from class. I feel that it balances natural traits, upbringing, and current occupation pretty well.
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.
And this is why Post-Modernism is a cancer. You're literally using The Queen of Hearts argument from Alice in Wonderland.
Wow. Just... wow. Read through the thread. The grognards are out in force for this one.
I like new stuff. I'll always give new stuff a shot. I don't see any downsides to the new stuff.
And this is what I'm talking about when I say its become acceptable to basically spit in the faces of those of us who were here first, who helped grow the game when it was under assault from the culture at large during The Satanic Panic and then during the horrific tenure of Lorraine Williams. Get stuffed. Its bad enough WotC treats us as morons who can't be trusted to not drown in a bowl of soup [REDACTED]
That's pretty elegant. Would there be any way for something like Variant Human to still exist, some way for them to get that feat that makes everyone love them so much? Maybe skip the +1 racial entirely, and just get one from class and one from background?
I regret that you have to put up with Certain Users after my own patience finally snapped, but it looks like the fight is in good hands after all.
Nevertheless. Much as I suppose it was inevitable, the thread wasn't actually supposed to be Rehash of Why Moving Numbers Are Good/bad #4792. I shall make one attempt to course correct.
What do folks think of the idea of "Lineage", as opposed to "Race/Species", being an idea that encompasses your character's origin even beyond the possibility of what skin you were born in? That the species of your birth isn't necessarily the defining factor of your Heroic Origin, and that Lineages beyond Dude/Ork-with-a-K/Shortstack/Token Hottie can exist alongside or in place of the traditional idea of 'Race' i.e. Species?
I'd be vastly in favor of something I think I saw you propose earlier, wherein the three pillars become four, with a kind of lineage/biology option, class mostly as-is, then a background split into an occupation/training and a culture/upbringing thing. Actually, I'd love to see background beefed up in general. When they were first talking about messing with racial ASI pre-Tasha leaks, I actually kind of assumed they'd just move ASI to backgrounds instead of race, given that what you've done literally your entire life has more of an effect on who you are today than your genetics.
The problem with this is it makes a few assumptions. The first is that racial ability score increases are genetic, like alignment. They're not. It's reflective of the archetypal culture. In a culture where everyone is expected to be able to fight, strength or dexterity, and some kind of weapon training, makes sense. A society that embraces curiosity and values education is going to see a bump in Intelligence.
The second is that all ASIs should be reflective of a background. An elf noble, growing up in the comfort of Evereska, and an orc noble, leading a nomadic tribe across mountains or plains, likely have different cultural expectations thrust upon them. Their scores should reflect that as well.
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.
And this is why Post-Modernism is a cancer. You're literally using The Queen of Hearts argument from Alice in Wonderland.
The difference is that the Queen was making a bad-faith argument to get her way while sitting in a position of power over very literal life and death after being aggravated by the Cheshire Cat acting as an unseen third party to exacerbate the situation.
All actions can have unintended consequences. Most drunk drivers don't mean to kill anyone, but whoop! Still dead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Bio.
Bio.
Bio.
Why are you perpetuating this awful, incorrect idea that "Optimization" is at the other end of a scale from "Good, interesting, thematic" characters?
See, I could just as easily dismiss your stance unnecessarily as a glorifying of the Bohemian Failure Monkey and state that people who think Bohemian Failure Monkeys are cool/good/The Best D&D Characters are awful to have at the table. Someone who refuses to start the game with a number higher than 13 or an array with more than sixty points in it, who's bought one hundred percent into that stupid terrible nonsense about "Failure is more interesting than success!", who hates combat and wishes the game was nothing but an endless series of alternations between An Artistic Study of the Powerlessness of Man against Monsters of Our Primal Id (i.e. hiding from dangerous things that want to eat you) and An Artistic Study of the Intrinsic Flaws of Man and the Brokenness of Our Souls (i.e. emoting about their tragic backstory and myriad Byronic character flaws, usually without any attempt whatsoever to correct those flaws).
That guy can take his coffeehouse poser True Art "deeply interesting" character sheet, make a paper airplane out of it, and toss it merrily out the window a second or two before he follows it. Because I and the rest of my table are throwing him out that window. Possibly with mechanical assistance. I know a welder and a machinist who both have extensive mechanical backgrounds - we could kajigger a One-Armed Purple Ponce-apult if we needed one.
You don't need terrible horrible no-good very bad numbers to make a character interesting. Numeric flaws are not the only character flaws one can play. Bohemian Failure Monkeys are deeply frustrating wastes of space, not Super Interesting and Deeply Compelling Byronic Champions. You can have a character that is both competently assembled on the mechanical side and interesting to play and follow along with on the narrative side.
Stormwind Fallacy. You're perpetuating it. Stahppit.
Sidebar on "Failure is More Interesting than Success!", for those who felt attacked by that quip above and because this is the one thing I'd erase from the Internet completely if I could:
You're wrong. Like, objectively wrong, not just 'your opinion is different than mine therefore I perceive you to be wrong'.
"Failure is more interesting than success!" is missing several key words. The proper phrase is "Overcoming failure is more interesting than effortless success!", and even that statement is deeply flawed. Overcoming adversity is the essence of a Hero Fantasy, and adversity can come in many forms. Failure is only one of them, and a 'Hero' character who constantly fails at everything they try to do and displays no useful skills nor any attempt to develop or acquire useful skills is not worth telling the tale of.
Many folks cherish the "farmboy from nothing who rises to become a legendary hero" story arc, the Rags to Riches Skywalker's Journey. That can be great. It's a classic for a reason. The key part there, though, is that the farmboy from nothing has to rise, and become a Legendary Hero. Skywalker started as a moisture-farmer nobody who barely knew the good end of a lightsaber from the bad end; he ended (in the original movies, anyways) as an ace fighter pilot Jedi Master Hero of the Rebellion. He did not spend his entire campaign being deliberately useless, actively obstructing and impeding his friends and allies because 'Failure is more interesting than success!' in an explicit attempt to avoid as much character growth as possible.
"Failure is more interesting than success!" is a deep and actively toxic misunderstanding of the nature of storytelling, and if you insist on taking it as your gameplay credo, you have no place at my table. Or the table of anyone who'd like to play a proper game of D&D. Or any other cooperative roleplaying game, for that matter.
Please do not contact or message me.
Precisely. In a similar way, the Swastika has been used in many places, by many cultures, with a vastly different meaning. In the far east it was a symbol of spirituality, and in Europe a symbol of good luck. However, if you use it in new content nowadays (outside academic or specialist circles where the meaning is clear), it has one meaning, and that is a bad one.
You mention race in the context of a group of people now, and it get intrinsically linked back to the common everyday usage. Any new player will, most likely, link it as such, especially if they have had issues with racial discrimination in the past. Saying "Oh, but it means something else here" doesn't really cut it, especially when many of the themes of racial traits etc are so closely linked with racial stereotyping and worse issues in the real world.
Wow. Just... wow. Read through the thread. The grognards are out in force for this one.
I like new stuff. I'll always give new stuff a shot. I don't see any downsides to the new stuff.
Wow, this is just absolutely rife with poor logic, defensiveness, sarcasm, and cognitive dissonance. Which appears to be a pattern in your response to this entire concept.
1. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be moderately effective at the one or two things your class relies on most. Which is why most min/maxers will only choose Gnome or some other race with an INT bonus when building a Wizard. The things you're decrying were already happening en masse, but with a lot less room for creativity.
2. If moving ASI around to make your character concept more viable (ie Orc Wizard v. Gnome Wizard) means that you are no longer playing "your favourite race" (good job putting words I did not use in quotes there, bud), then there is no mechanical reason to make that change. Ipso facto, it's only something done for RP purposes. If giving an Orc an INT bonus instead of a STR bonus means it's no longer an Orc, then what other appeal is there other than to play a character who is an outsider to their own race? If there's no RP reason, and it doesn't give you better stats ("purely technical" in your words), then why bother doing it? Why not just stick with the default of a Gnome or other race with INT boosts? Why not just stick with the trope or archetype? You're accusing people of only wanting to do things for technical reasons while ignoring that there are ways to game the technical side without these changes and they have existed for decades. Your absolutely inability to and disinterest in inquiring your own line of thought here is positively staggering.
3. With all your blah blah blah about culture and history and especially with other settings, you seem to be under a rather large misapprehension that the ability to move around starting racial ASI for a player character is something that fundamentally alters the lore of that race, its history, or culture within whichever setting its dealing with. Which it doesn't. These are options for Player Characters, not a sweeping change made that says all cultures and histories and species are identical.
In Faerun Gnomes are, as a culture, generally the clever ones and Orcs are, as a culture, generally the smashy ones, and...guess what? That's still true. But now you have the opportunity to create a singular character (which does not affect the race, culture, or history as a whole) who has different gifts than are generally the trend for their people. Just as humanity includes both Muhammad Ali and Neil deGrasse Tyson, one with many physical gifts and one with many mental, there is no reason there cannot be an Orc naturally gifted in matters of the mind who chooses to pursue that. Who is not interested in war or physical pursuits and would rather read books and learn histories, even if that means leaving their clan.
These rules are here to allow the crafting of individuals, not rewrite the entire concept of a race, whether that word refers to a species or a culture or both simultaneously. Not everyone from France eats snails, not everyone from Japan loves anime, not everyone from Russia wears furry hats, and not everyone in America eats at McDonald's four times a day. And really, fantasy (whether Tolkien or Howard or Lovecraft or whoever else, that whole debate is dumb and beside the point) is fundamentally about exceptional, unique individuals who do big, extraordinary things. Sure, Luke Skywalker's a farm boy, but there's a zillion farm boys on Tatooine. Not all of them are son of the most powerful Force-user alive. King Arthur's just a blacksmith's apprentice, except oh wait no he's not he's the lost son of the king. Countless sci-fi stories (including a lot of superheroes like Spider-Man) are about that one bullied kid who loves science instead of football.
This is intrinsic to the very concept of epic stories and genre tales. You are arguing against me deciding I want to play Orc Spider-Man because no, every Orc must be Flash Thompson. They are an entire culture of Flash Thompsons. There can be no Peter Parker. That's a violation. There can't be an Orc that likes test tubes more than pigskins. No individual is allowed to be that individual. It's a fundamentally racist argument that dictates every individual must conform to the archetypes (or worse, stereotypes) of their race. Every black person does crime and eats watermelon. Every Asian is a terrible driver who's good at math. Every latinx person owns a llama and eats only tacos. This is what you're arguing. Conformity.
Because fundamentally, what those ASI represent is aptitude and training. A character who has a natural leaning and interest, and has pursued a thing, should be better at that thing. An Orc Wizard (particularly under the older 5e rules with the -2 INT) could max out at 13 for their primary stat, making them fundamentally worse at their #1 interest than say a Gnome Fighter who starts with a +2 and layered that on top of a 12 in INT. It's an afterthought for them, and they're better at it than someone for whom its their life's defining pursuit. That is bad, broken game design that focuses purely on easy math and ignores roleplaying.
And again, there is no reason to use the new Tasha rules with floating racial ASIs other than roleplaying. You're terrified (baselessly) of minmaxers and powergamers potentially misusing it (while never once giving a concrete example of what that would even look like or how it's possible) and ignoring that they're going to do their thing no matter what, and before Tasha, that just led to a bunch of Wood Elf Rangers and Orc Barbarians and Gnome Wizards so everything felt the same. If anything, this all just gives those same players who, again, were already doing what you're afraid of, the opportunity to add roleplaying to their repertoire. They can get the numbers they care so much about while also having a reason to try a Changeling Ranger or Halfling Barbarian or Minotaur Wizard, which can open them up to a whole new aspect of the game they were already ignoring. And it lets the people who are more interested in the roleplay and the character and the narrative explore that narrative freely without being worse at what should be their absolute best traits than character who do not need those traits at all.
Like...everything about your argument is wrong. Stupid, ill-informed, cognitively dissonant, misunderstanding the nature of the genre, and logistically, factually, demonstrably wrong.
I'd respect it more if you just straight said "I don't like it because it's not what I'm used to." If you're going to be a difficult, grumpy gatekeeper, at least be honest.
I don't think Lyxen is being a gatekeeper. He knows he can't stop anyone from doing what they want to at their table, and if he's running a group then the group will have to adhere to his rules. After all, the rules presented in Tasha's are optional.
Some people would be more than happy to tear down everything. What they'd put in its place...I have no idea. Arcanist Press and their Ancestry and Culture series is, I think, a step in the right direction. But gosh darn it if they aren't jerks about it. Orcs aren't genetically evil, and I wish they'd just stop harping on something that isn't true.
There should be distinct cultures. There should be some default assumptions. That said, player characters are also exceptional individuals. And as exceptions, they prove (test) the rule. But that rule should still exist. Whether you live up to it or push back against it, it helps to build the world.
Oh, bravo, Avenger. Beautifully written.
I regret that you have to put up with Certain Users after my own patience finally snapped, but it looks like the fight is in good hands after all.
Nevertheless. Much as I suppose it was inevitable, the thread wasn't actually supposed to be Rehash of Why Moving Numbers Are Good/bad #4792. I shall make one attempt to course correct.
What do folks think of the idea of "Lineage", as opposed to "Race/Species", being an idea that encompasses your character's origin even beyond the possibility of what skin you were born in? That the species of your birth isn't necessarily the defining factor of your Heroic Origin, and that Lineages beyond Dude/Ork-with-a-K/Shortstack/Token Hottie can exist alongside or in place of the traditional idea of 'Race' i.e. Species?
Please do not contact or message me.
Dang straight. Some of us go to Wendy's or Arby's. They have the meats.
I honestly think it is a great idea, but only half of one. If you are going to separate culture from Race to create Lineage, then you need to also provide Culture (or preferably enhance Backgrounds) as a separate choice instead of just throwing it out all together.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I completely agree, my character creation has completely changed with Tasha's. I am now able to play characters that would have been incredibly sup-optimal in the past but because I can change the starting stat bumps, skills, efficiencies and languages I can make them not only playable but well optimised.
Hey. I only eat at Arby's once a day. Usually.
Quarantine Life...
I'd kill for a frickin' Wendy's in this podunk two-bar town...
Please do not contact or message me.
How about we add a Chipotle instead?
To reiterate my previous post, and to also aid in trying to move the conversation away from the current fire that is growing, I need to see more to feel good about this current direction. It's one thing to make the statement, it's another to actually follow through with it in a way that doesn't just feel like a tacked on clunky mess to try and appease everyone. I don't reject the notion of adding more options and creating a system that allows meaningful choices or the idea of separating racial traits and cultural traits, but they need to showcase how cultural traits are going to be handled going forward as well. The current background system isn't sufficient enough, especially since the older races aren't being updated as of yet to match this new direction.
Basically, I need to see much more effort in revamping this system if that is what they are truly aiming for, less it looks like hollow words and empty promises. I hope that properly explains my current thoughts on the matter. They may change, but that's where I stand right now.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
I think it's a good move, even if I feel like they rightly wanted to do away with the word "race" entirely but aren't going all the way with that for some reason. Instead they are just kind of shifting emphasis.
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!
I'd be vastly in favor of something I think I saw you propose earlier, wherein the three pillars become four, with a kind of lineage/biology option, class mostly as-is, then a background split into an occupation/training and a culture/upbringing thing. Actually, I'd love to see background beefed up in general. When they were first talking about messing with racial ASI pre-Tasha leaks, I actually kind of assumed they'd just move ASI to backgrounds instead of race, given that what you've done literally your entire life has more of an effect on who you are today than your genetics.
Third posted this homebrew on the first page, but I created something that is sorta like that. You get one ASI from your species, one from background and one from class. I feel that it balances natural traits, upbringing, and current occupation pretty well.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/homebrew-house-rules/88284-revised-system-for-determining-ability-score
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
And this is why Post-Modernism is a cancer. You're literally using The Queen of Hearts argument from Alice in Wonderland.
And this is what I'm talking about when I say its become acceptable to basically spit in the faces of those of us who were here first, who helped grow the game when it was under assault from the culture at large during The Satanic Panic and then during the horrific tenure of Lorraine Williams. Get stuffed. Its bad enough WotC treats us as morons who can't be trusted to not drown in a bowl of soup [REDACTED]
That's pretty elegant. Would there be any way for something like Variant Human to still exist, some way for them to get that feat that makes everyone love them so much? Maybe skip the +1 racial entirely, and just get one from class and one from background?
The problem with this is it makes a few assumptions. The first is that racial ability score increases are genetic, like alignment. They're not. It's reflective of the archetypal culture. In a culture where everyone is expected to be able to fight, strength or dexterity, and some kind of weapon training, makes sense. A society that embraces curiosity and values education is going to see a bump in Intelligence.
The second is that all ASIs should be reflective of a background. An elf noble, growing up in the comfort of Evereska, and an orc noble, leading a nomadic tribe across mountains or plains, likely have different cultural expectations thrust upon them. Their scores should reflect that as well.
The difference is that the Queen was making a bad-faith argument to get her way while sitting in a position of power over very literal life and death after being aggravated by the Cheshire Cat acting as an unseen third party to exacerbate the situation.
All actions can have unintended consequences. Most drunk drivers don't mean to kill anyone, but whoop! Still dead.