[REDACTED] other than languages, there is NO statistical difference between the various Human ethnicities.
Characteristics of the races inhabiting The Flanaess The inmixture of Oeridian and Suel is expressed as (SO) in the list. The original Flannae stock shows up with either Oeridian or Suloise or both as a coppery or bronze overtone. Oeridian and Baklunish develops a fairly light complexion, but the skin coloration is true yellow. A hybrid of Baklunish and Flannae gives a golden-copper or golden-bronze color which is possibly the most attractive complexion of any of the admixtures of the basic races. In general, the skin color of an individual is of no particular importance. The dark Flan complexion shows up quite often in most nations. By contrast, the nobles of the Great Kingdom are proud of being light-skinned, just as the rulers of Tenh are overly conscious of the supposed superiority of their deep bronze color. In the central region of the Flanaess, from western Urnst Duchy to Geoff, there is little heed paid to either skin color or racial type, whether human or demi-human (or even humanoid, in some places). The main exception to this is the demihuman kingdoms, where humankind is judged inferior, especially in Celene.
Guess who the bad guys are? The pale-skinned, blonde haired and blue-eyed Suel racial supremacists
You're conflating species differentiation with bioessentialism. Dragonborn can breathe fire (a little bit). Tieflings have a pinch of fiendish magic. Goliaths have large, heavy frames good for moving heavy loads. These are indeed physiological differences. "All half-orcs are stupid", "all gnomes are scrawny twigmen", "all elves are graceful and wise and serene and just more perfect than you are" are not physiological differences, they are societal norms. Societal norms are not genetic. If it's not genetic (or a permanent magical twisting of your genetics, a'la the UA document that started this whole mess), it shouldn't be in your Lineage features.
No, "all half-orcs are stupid" isn't a societal norm.
Just like humans are more intelligent than cats, different species in the real world have different base levels of intelligence, and strength, and dexterity, etc.
The problem, Pangurjan, is that the numbers actively, permanently determine whether you are good at your job. The orcish wizard that gets an absolutely meaningless +2 to their Strength (that doesn't even match their character history) and a +0 to their Intelligence is always going to be worse at being a wizard than the damned gnome.
Yup, sure. But by that same token a flying aaracokra or a gnome with Darkvision is always going to be better as a scouting ranger than a dragonborn. So what's the difference?
Okay...sure. Explaining this for Time #701...
Because having wings, or having dark-adapted eyes, is not the same as having some sort of genetic memory that automatically makes you more skilled than an equally well trained individual from another species. The aarakocra can fly, the gnome can see better in the dark. Neither of those make the birb or the shortstack a better tracker, a better sneak, or a better survivalist that the durganman. Not in terms of training. Not in terms of skill. They offer advantages the durganman cannot benefit from without the aid of magic, certainly, but the durganman is just as skilled as his more exotic compatriots.
Again - you're telling my orcish wizard gal (any thoughts for names for her, non-grognard folks? I'm bad with goblinoid names) that she's less of a wizard than a Pretty Person simply because of her bloodline. That her training, her education, all her studies and efforts count for nothing - this other guy sitting over here gets to be better than her with less effort put in just because he was born to a different species.
It's horseshit. It's bioessential exclusionary ****ery and I refuse to have it in my games. All the "you can be just fine with a 15 instead of a 17" is nothing more than making lame excuses to preserve an outdated, unnecessary bit of game design that does nothing but limit ideas and exclude players. if I want to play with a 15 instead of a 17 in my "Good At Your Job" stat for a class, that should be my damn choice, not something forced on me because I had the sheer, unmitigated gall to play a "wrong" class/species combination.
Let's, instead, do away with the idea of "wrong" class/species combinations in the first place, shall we?
Its blatantly obvious many of you don't know a damn thing about the game or the various game worlds of Dungeons & Dragons. Newsflash, other than languages, there is NO statistical difference between the various Human ethnicities.
Characteristics of the races inhabiting The Flanaess The inmixture of Oeridian and Suel is expressed as (SO) in the list. The original Flannae stock shows up with either Oeridian or Suloise or both as a coppery or bronze overtone. Oeridian and Baklunish develops a fairly light complexion, but the skin coloration is true yellow. A hybrid of Baklunish and Flannae gives a golden-copper or golden-bronze color which is possibly the most attractive complexion of any of the admixtures of the basic races. In general, the skin color of an individual is of no particular importance. The dark Flan complexion shows up quite often in most nations. By contrast, the nobles of the Great Kingdom are proud of being light-skinned, just as the rulers of Tenh are overly conscious of the supposed superiority of their deep bronze color. In the central region of the Flanaess, from western Urnst Duchy to Geoff, there is little heed paid to either skin color or racial type, whether human or demi-human (or even humanoid, in some places). The main exception to this is the demihuman kingdoms, where humankind is judged inferior, especially in Celene.
Guess who the bad guys are? The pale-skinned, blonde haired and blue-eyed Suel racial supremacists
We get it. You love Grayhawk. Good for you.
Grayhawk isn't remotely relevant to the conversation.
Its blatantly obvious many of you don't know a damn thing about the game or the various game worlds of Dungeons & Dragons. Newsflash, other than languages, there is NO statistical difference between the various Human ethnicities.
Characteristics of the races inhabiting The Flanaess The inmixture of Oeridian and Suel is expressed as (SO) in the list. The original Flannae stock shows up with either Oeridian or Suloise or both as a coppery or bronze overtone. Oeridian and Baklunish develops a fairly light complexion, but the skin coloration is true yellow. A hybrid of Baklunish and Flannae gives a golden-copper or golden-bronze color which is possibly the most attractive complexion of any of the admixtures of the basic races. In general, the skin color of an individual is of no particular importance. The dark Flan complexion shows up quite often in most nations. By contrast, the nobles of the Great Kingdom are proud of being light-skinned, just as the rulers of Tenh are overly conscious of the supposed superiority of their deep bronze color. In the central region of the Flanaess, from western Urnst Duchy to Geoff, there is little heed paid to either skin color or racial type, whether human or demi-human (or even humanoid, in some places). The main exception to this is the demihuman kingdoms, where humankind is judged inferior, especially in Celene.
Guess who the bad guys are? The pale-skinned, blonde haired and blue-eyed Suel racial supremacists
Or at least the game up to 3e. Newsflash, a lot of players are younger than you are and have never played in Greyhawk. Your continued disruption seems like an active attempt to discourage them from playing, which could(probably in theory only, but still) make them stop before a 5e Greyhawk setting comes out and they actually have an opportunity to learn about it.
So, been following this thread and as Yurei can attest two two months ago was on the side of "We don't need the optional Tasha rules because that is something we can just do at the table."
And I have to throw my hat into the ring and also say that, man since reading through tasha's when it finally came out I completely flipped the script and am now on the other side of the table. Please give me more of these options, make my characters more unique and give me RAW methods of accomplish this. I DM two campaigns, and one of my players always comes up with some interesting thing that makes me go "YES, okay but how can I give you in game mechanics to benefit from this RP choice." Example: a Cleric in my CoS game (super annoyed I started that this week BEFORE these very themed lineages came out) has a Kalashtar that switched beliefs from the one of it's home, to a newer god in my world. So since they are level 3 we worked out that he spent 1 level as a different domain. Immediately I went "how can we represent this as a feature?" So I HB something that gives him a 50% chance each day to gain the level 1 war domain feature, but it requires him to RP turning back to the Quoiri and her old beliefs. So please give my players already built options so I don't have to keep doing this.
Yurei, I LOVE the new direction WoTC is going the new Lineages look amazing. PCs can now be gnomes with secrets, and vice versa. I think I had the initial "Change is bad" reaction but after playing with the book for two months (and having PCs get excited when they COULD switch that +1CHA to +1STR) made me feel awesome as a DM. I have fun when my players are having fun so seeing them get excited about something like that helped to change my mind.
But yes I like it and too hope to see it expand, as I realize I have been HBing basically what WoTC is now coming up with. So put it in a book and help my mind get some new sparks to give my PCs and their creative characters!
That's bioessentialism, and it is super poisonous to a lot of people. I've explained this about seven hundred times in seven hundred other threads, but people are still convinced that having the numbers that govern your skills, your training, your aptitudes and your life's work and effort not actually tied to your skills, training, aptitudes, and effort and instead being 100% derived purely based on what someone else thinks your given species "is just good and/or bad at" is somehow More Better Fun.
It is not. It is Less Worse Fun, and I'm glad Wizards is getting away from it.
100% is a bit much, don't you think? You can still designate Int your highest stat and raise it at every possible ASI and that is a sum of your experience, aptitude and training.
That extra +2 can be genetics because having better neuroconnectivity is a physical trait just like having wings or scales or being able to breath fire. Just because it's hidden inside skull doesn't mean it can't be there.
Personally I am not convinced that the division between genetics and bioessentialism is so cut and dry. It's an extreme example but you can throw a monkey in a library for a lifetime and it won't become an astrophysicist. A cheetah will never be as strong and as big as a tiger.
So your hypothetical orc can strive and flourish among other magic initiates but there might be some limitation simply by virtue of how their brain work. It's entirely realistic. And it can still achieve the same level of mastery, it might just take a bit longer (since the max is 20 and there is no penalty).
Females haven't had their strength limited since 1E.
And yet, people still think it's okay to limit orcs' intelligence, or gnomes' strength, or dwarves' dexterity, or whatever else someone decides a particular species is Simply Not Good At, Biologically. They canned gender-based statistical gaps decades ago and nobody's batted an eye in many years, but now that they're binning species-based statistical gaps people are flipping schitts. Hmmmmmmm.
It's not exactly the same thing, is it? The limits on Females were lifted because well, there are women who play and obviously no one wants to offend (even if they thought it was realistic).
Being offended on behalf of poor orcs that is some next level method RP-ing ;-) Calling elves names is another one, to be honest.
All things considered though, I am not against having the bare floating ASI free to choose. It was my position from the start that the bare mechanics should be as inclusive as possible while leaving most restrictions a matter for the setting/worldbuilding.
You're right, you did. But you're wrong, it does. Just read the post by Ophidimancer above, and it explains very clearly why it does.
However, if you feel so strongly that it is people who exclude themselves, consider this: the new lineage rules are now a part of the game. They are not going away, and people will use them. If you don't like that, the game is not excluding you. The same goes for any new lineages which use the new system, and any new content which requires it. The game is not excluding you by growing and evolving with the world around it, or by trying to bring in new players with a different world view to yours. You should have no objections, therefore: you are always free to exclude yourself.
I will continue to play the game as I always have. I have no feelings of exclusion. My concern is that these changes were made to appease a vocal minority who have no long term interest in the game or the hobby.
So?
Or to put it longer. Even if you're right and that it was to appeal to a vocal minority with no long term interest in the game/hobby, it's a change that opens the game to more people. As you said, you'll play the game as you always have, it doesn't effect you, you're not excluded, and the game opens itself to more people.
How is that a bad thing?
I'll admit I don't think you're right, because, ya know, as someone who has been into RPGs and Tabletop gaming since the freaking 90s, I'm only recently getting into DND because of a lot of these changes. There are people who have a lifelong general interest in the game as a concept and the hobby as a whole who actively avoided the actual ruleset because of these rules that have now been changed.
But again, even IF you were right, and it's just this 'vocal minority' ... how is that bad thing?
Again - you're telling my orcish wizard gal (any thoughts for names for her, non-grognard folks? I'm bad with goblinoid names) that she's less of a wizard than a Pretty Person simply because of her bloodline. That her training, her education, all her studies and efforts count for nothing - this other guy sitting over here gets to be better than her with less effort put in just because he was born to a different species.
Orcs haven't officially been goblinoids in a while, I think, but setting variances are a thing. That said, I have a thought. Have her go Bladesinger, learn green-flame blade, and name her Bendoo Burning Blade. Because alliteration rocks, and so does specializing in a previously elf-only subclass.
Woof, there's at least three people who have made this entire site feel hostile to me, and all I wanted to talk about was how cool it might be to play a frankenstein.
I am thoroughly out of this one.
I'm sorry your first hot thread was this trashfire. Please don't assume everybody's like this. General Discussion is always a cesspit in any forum I've ever been in - you'll likely have better luck finding more engaging conversations in Tips and Tactics, or some of the class-specific forums. They're slower-moving, but they tend to be less prone to knee-jerk reactionary nonsense than GD is. If the other Loudmouth Club folks weren't taking an enforced siesta, then Third would be backing us up 100% and Sposta would at least be arguing from passion and investment rather than just bad-faith grognardism.
The problem, Pangurjan, is that the numbers actively, permanently determine whether you are good at your job. The orcish wizard that gets an absolutely meaningless +2 to their Strength (that doesn't even match their character history) and a +0 to their Intelligence is always going to be worse at being a wizard than the damned gnome.
Yup, sure. But by that same token a flying aaracokra or a gnome with Darkvision is always going to be better as a scouting ranger than a dragonborn. So what's the difference?
Okay...sure. Explaining this for Time #701...
Because having wings, or having dark-adapted eyes, is not the same as having some sort of genetic memory that automatically makes you more skilled than an equally well trained individual from another species. The aarakocra can fly, the gnome can see better in the dark. Neither of those make the birb or the shortstack a better tracker, a better sneak, or a better survivalist that the durganman. Not in terms of training. Not in terms of skill. They offer advantages the durganman cannot benefit from without the aid of magic, certainly, but the durganman is just as skilled as his more exotic compatriots.
BS. A racial +2 to an ability isn't skill, it's talent or innate advantage. It's not something the character had to train to achieve, it's something they were born with. An elephant doesn't have to train to be able to carry heavier loads than a horse, it simply can because of physiological differences. I can't outrun my dog no matter how hard I train or how little he trains (that's fine, Usain Bolt couldn't outrun my dog either). Skill, training is whatever stat you choose to put in an ability and whether you spend a class-based ASI on improving that ability further.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
An elephant doesn't have to train to be able to carry heavier loads than a horse, it simply can because of physiological differences. I can't outrun my dog no matter how hard I train or how little he trains (that's fine, Usain Bolt couldn't outrun my dog either). Skill, training is whatever stat you choose to put in an ability and whether you spend a class-based ASI on improving that ability further.
And if we untied ASI from race/species..... we could give that elephant a feature allowing it to carry more than the horse!
The problem, Pangurjan, is that the numbers actively, permanently determine whether you are good at your job. The orcish wizard that gets an absolutely meaningless +2 to their Strength (that doesn't even match their character history) and a +0 to their Intelligence is always going to be worse at being a wizard than the damned gnome.
Yup, sure. But by that same token a flying aaracokra or a gnome with Darkvision is always going to be better as a scouting ranger than a dragonborn. So what's the difference?
Okay...sure. Explaining this for Time #701...
Because having wings, or having dark-adapted eyes, is not the same as having some sort of genetic memory that automatically makes you more skilled than an equally well trained individual from another species. The aarakocra can fly, the gnome can see better in the dark. Neither of those make the birb or the shortstack a better tracker, a better sneak, or a better survivalist that the durganman. Not in terms of training. Not in terms of skill. They offer advantages the durganman cannot benefit from without the aid of magic, certainly, but the durganman is just as skilled as his more exotic compatriots.
BS. A racial +2 to an ability isn't skill, it's talent or innate advantage. It's not something the character had to train to achieve, it's something they were born with. An elephant doesn't have to train to be able to carry heavier loads than a horse, it simply can because of physiological differences. I can't outrun my dog no matter how hard I train or how little he trains (that's fine, Usain Bolt couldn't outrun my dog either). Skill, training is whatever stat you choose to put in an ability and whether you spend a class-based ASI on improving that ability further.
That's not necessarily true. A +2 to an ability score could be biological, but it can also be cultural or circumstantial. A warrior culture is going to value Strength (or Dexterity) and weapons training. A mountain dwarf is trained in light and medium armor and has +2 Strength. They need that Strength to adequately fight in that armor. A half-orc with the same +2 might have it because they've been getting in scraps all their life. Whether raised in a nomadic, Darwinian orc tribe that forced regular combat or on the streets of Neverwinter, learning to defend themselves from people still bearing grudges from the War of the Silver Marches, they had to learn how to throw punches and take them (Relentless Endurance).
An elephant doesn't have to train to be able to carry heavier loads than a horse, it simply can because of physiological differences. I can't outrun my dog no matter how hard I train or how little he trains (that's fine, Usain Bolt couldn't outrun my dog either). Skill, training is whatever stat you choose to put in an ability and whether you spend a class-based ASI on improving that ability further.
And if we untied ASI from race/species..... we could give that elephant a feature allowing it to carry more than the horse!
Fantastic, but again: 1) we don't have all that many such features and 2) what is the fundamental difference between an ASI and such a feature?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"Their only interest is imposing their worldview on others."
Pot, meet kettle. You are objecting to an optional rule being added to a game because it doesn't fit with your world view.
Also, like it or not, there is a large and growing portion of society who take these matters seriously. Many of them are the younger people who WotC want to capture as players for the long term. D&D is a product to sell, and it makes a lot of sense to make changes to it to make it more appealing to their target audiences.
The "optional" rule was already added. Now it's not optional anymore. Disliking this is different from saying the custom lineage shouldn't have been added at all. Which wasn't the case.
An elephant doesn't have to train to be able to carry heavier loads than a horse, it simply can because of physiological differences. I can't outrun my dog no matter how hard I train or how little he trains (that's fine, Usain Bolt couldn't outrun my dog either). Skill, training is whatever stat you choose to put in an ability and whether you spend a class-based ASI on improving that ability further.
And if we untied ASI from race/species..... we could give that elephant a feature allowing it to carry more than the horse!
Fantastic, but again: 1) we don't have all that many such features and 2) what is the fundamental difference between an ASI and such a feature?
A feature would simply dictate how the elephant can carry more.
if we leave the "an elephant has to have a +2 STR because inherently they can carry more than the horse" as how it must be done, well then we have an issue because at some point down the road in levels.... well the horse and the elephant will both have 20 STR and be carrying the same about of weight.
But if we say elephants carry weight is 25xSTR well then we don't have an issue because an average horse will not be able to carry as much as an average elephant.
"Their only interest is imposing their worldview on others."
Pot, meet kettle. You are objecting to an optional rule being added to a game because it doesn't fit with your world view.
Also, like it or not, there is a large and growing portion of society who take these matters seriously. Many of them are the younger people who WotC want to capture as players for the long term. D&D is a product to sell, and it makes a lot of sense to make changes to it to make it more appealing to their target audiences.
The "optional" rule was already added. Now it's not optional anymore. Disliking this is different from saying the custom lineage shouldn't have been added at all. Which wasn't the case.
First off... anything outside the 3 core books is considered optional. So if the new stuff follows a new philosophy it is still optional. Does it suck because those people who want to not use floating ASIs can't use the new stuff without the "optional thing" becoming "non-optional" sure I'll give you that. But if they want to use the new lineages in the UA they have already said they want to use optional stuff (since UA is not part of the core 3). Sometimes you can't just accept 1 option if you want to use a branch off of the disliked option
Not saying it is a good way to move forward. Like I said it does suck that those that want to stick to non floating ASIs can't keep that philosophy and use the new stuff going to come out of WoTC. But wait.... floating ASIs are not new since some core races have them, but I guess we were fine when it was "Just a few" Vs "all"
"Their only interest is imposing their worldview on others."
Pot, meet kettle. You are objecting to an optional rule being added to a game because it doesn't fit with your world view.
Also, like it or not, there is a large and growing portion of society who take these matters seriously. Many of them are the younger people who WotC want to capture as players for the long term. D&D is a product to sell, and it makes a lot of sense to make changes to it to make it more appealing to their target audiences.
The "optional" rule was already added. Now it's not optional anymore. Disliking this is different from saying the custom lineage shouldn't have been added at all. Which wasn't the case.
This isn't like a video game where they patched out a feature and you can never ever use it again.
It's still optional even if it's the default method they'll use going forward.
"Their only interest is imposing their worldview on others."
Pot, meet kettle. You are objecting to an optional rule being added to a game because it doesn't fit with your world view.
Also, like it or not, there is a large and growing portion of society who take these matters seriously. Many of them are the younger people who WotC want to capture as players for the long term. D&D is a product to sell, and it makes a lot of sense to make changes to it to make it more appealing to their target audiences.
The "optional" rule was already added. Now it's not optional anymore. Disliking this is different from saying the custom lineage shouldn't have been added at all. Which wasn't the case.
This isn't like a video game where they patched out a feature and you can never ever use it again.
It's still optional even if it's the default method they'll use going forward.
Not if it becomes the standard.
Then DNDBeyond only supports that new standard.
That would involve a lot more work for DMs who don't want to use the new standard, because they will have to create a lot of homebrew things on this web site in order to continue to use their previous purchases.
An elephant doesn't have to train to be able to carry heavier loads than a horse, it simply can because of physiological differences. I can't outrun my dog no matter how hard I train or how little he trains (that's fine, Usain Bolt couldn't outrun my dog either). Skill, training is whatever stat you choose to put in an ability and whether you spend a class-based ASI on improving that ability further.
And if we untied ASI from race/species..... we could give that elephant a feature allowing it to carry more than the horse!
Fantastic, but again: 1) we don't have all that many such features and 2) what is the fundamental difference between an ASI and such a feature?
A feature would simply dictate how the elephant can carry more.
if we leave the "an elephant has to have a +2 STR because inherently they can carry more than the horse" as how it must be done, well then we have an issue because at some point down the road in levels.... well the horse and the elephant will both have 20 STR and be carrying the same about of weight.
But if we say elephants carry weight is 25xSTR well then we don't have an issue because an average horse will not be able to carry as much as an average elephant.
If we gave elephants and horses class levels, sure. We don't, so we don't have this issue.
An elephant doesn't have to have +2 Str because they can carry more than a horse. An elephant should have a higher strength than a horse because it is physically stronger. It can carry more because it is stronger, not the other way around.
A specific carrying modifier, like Powerful Build, is not suitable for representing a strength difference. It affects carrying, nothing else. An 18 Str goliath is not stronger than a 20 Str half-orc. In fact, the half-orc is stronger. Yet the goliath can carry a lot more weight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
[REDACTED] other than languages, there is NO statistical difference between the various Human ethnicities.
Characteristics of the races inhabiting The Flanaess
The inmixture of Oeridian and Suel is expressed as (SO) in the list. The original Flannae stock shows up with either Oeridian or Suloise or both as a coppery or bronze overtone. Oeridian and Baklunish develops a fairly light complexion, but the skin coloration is true yellow. A hybrid of Baklunish and Flannae gives a golden-copper or golden-bronze color which is possibly the most attractive complexion of any of the admixtures of the basic races.
In general, the skin color of an individual is of no particular importance. The dark Flan complexion shows up quite often in most nations. By contrast, the nobles of the Great Kingdom are proud of being light-skinned, just as the rulers of Tenh are overly conscious of the supposed superiority of their deep bronze color. In the central region of the Flanaess, from western Urnst Duchy to Geoff, there is little heed paid to either skin color or racial type, whether human or demi-human (or even humanoid, in some places). The main exception to this is the demihuman kingdoms, where humankind is judged inferior, especially in Celene.
Guess who the bad guys are? The pale-skinned, blonde haired and blue-eyed Suel racial supremacists
No, "all half-orcs are stupid" isn't a societal norm.
Just like humans are more intelligent than cats, different species in the real world have different base levels of intelligence, and strength, and dexterity, etc.
Okay...sure. Explaining this for Time #701...
Because having wings, or having dark-adapted eyes, is not the same as having some sort of genetic memory that automatically makes you more skilled than an equally well trained individual from another species. The aarakocra can fly, the gnome can see better in the dark. Neither of those make the birb or the shortstack a better tracker, a better sneak, or a better survivalist that the durganman. Not in terms of training. Not in terms of skill. They offer advantages the durganman cannot benefit from without the aid of magic, certainly, but the durganman is just as skilled as his more exotic compatriots.
Again - you're telling my orcish wizard gal (any thoughts for names for her, non-grognard folks? I'm bad with goblinoid names) that she's less of a wizard than a Pretty Person simply because of her bloodline. That her training, her education, all her studies and efforts count for nothing - this other guy sitting over here gets to be better than her with less effort put in just because he was born to a different species.
It's horseshit. It's bioessential exclusionary ****ery and I refuse to have it in my games. All the "you can be just fine with a 15 instead of a 17" is nothing more than making lame excuses to preserve an outdated, unnecessary bit of game design that does nothing but limit ideas and exclude players. if I want to play with a 15 instead of a 17 in my "Good At Your Job" stat for a class, that should be my damn choice, not something forced on me because I had the sheer, unmitigated gall to play a "wrong" class/species combination.
Let's, instead, do away with the idea of "wrong" class/species combinations in the first place, shall we?
Please do not contact or message me.
We get it. You love Grayhawk. Good for you.
Grayhawk isn't remotely relevant to the conversation.
Or at least the game up to 3e. Newsflash, a lot of players are younger than you are and have never played in Greyhawk. Your continued disruption seems like an active attempt to discourage them from playing, which could(probably in theory only, but still) make them stop before a 5e Greyhawk setting comes out and they actually have an opportunity to learn about it.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
So, been following this thread and as Yurei can attest two two months ago was on the side of "We don't need the optional Tasha rules because that is something we can just do at the table."
And I have to throw my hat into the ring and also say that, man since reading through tasha's when it finally came out I completely flipped the script and am now on the other side of the table. Please give me more of these options, make my characters more unique and give me RAW methods of accomplish this. I DM two campaigns, and one of my players always comes up with some interesting thing that makes me go "YES, okay but how can I give you in game mechanics to benefit from this RP choice." Example: a Cleric in my CoS game (super annoyed I started that this week BEFORE these very themed lineages came out) has a Kalashtar that switched beliefs from the one of it's home, to a newer god in my world. So since they are level 3 we worked out that he spent 1 level as a different domain. Immediately I went "how can we represent this as a feature?" So I HB something that gives him a 50% chance each day to gain the level 1 war domain feature, but it requires him to RP turning back to the Quoiri and her old beliefs. So please give my players already built options so I don't have to keep doing this.
Yurei, I LOVE the new direction WoTC is going the new Lineages look amazing. PCs can now be gnomes with secrets, and vice versa. I think I had the initial "Change is bad" reaction but after playing with the book for two months (and having PCs get excited when they COULD switch that +1CHA to +1STR) made me feel awesome as a DM. I have fun when my players are having fun so seeing them get excited about something like that helped to change my mind.
But yes I like it and too hope to see it expand, as I realize I have been HBing basically what WoTC is now coming up with. So put it in a book and help my mind get some new sparks to give my PCs and their creative characters!
100% is a bit much, don't you think? You can still designate Int your highest stat and raise it at every possible ASI and that is a sum of your experience, aptitude and training.
That extra +2 can be genetics because having better neuroconnectivity is a physical trait just like having wings or scales or being able to breath fire. Just because it's hidden inside skull doesn't mean it can't be there.
Personally I am not convinced that the division between genetics and bioessentialism is so cut and dry. It's an extreme example but you can throw a monkey in a library for a lifetime and it won't become an astrophysicist. A cheetah will never be as strong and as big as a tiger.
So your hypothetical orc can strive and flourish among other magic initiates but there might be some limitation simply by virtue of how their brain work. It's entirely realistic. And it can still achieve the same level of mastery, it might just take a bit longer (since the max is 20 and there is no penalty).
Being offended on behalf of poor orcs that is some next level method RP-ing ;-) Calling elves names is another one, to be honest.
All things considered though, I am not against having the bare floating ASI free to choose. It was my position from the start that the bare mechanics should be as inclusive as possible while leaving most restrictions a matter for the setting/worldbuilding.
So?
Or to put it longer.
Even if you're right and that it was to appeal to a vocal minority with no long term interest in the game/hobby, it's a change that opens the game to more people.
As you said, you'll play the game as you always have, it doesn't effect you, you're not excluded, and the game opens itself to more people.
How is that a bad thing?
I'll admit I don't think you're right, because, ya know, as someone who has been into RPGs and Tabletop gaming since the freaking 90s, I'm only recently getting into DND because of a lot of these changes.
There are people who have a lifelong general interest in the game as a concept and the hobby as a whole who actively avoided the actual ruleset because of these rules that have now been changed.
But again, even IF you were right, and it's just this 'vocal minority' ... how is that bad thing?
Orcs haven't officially been goblinoids in a while, I think, but setting variances are a thing. That said, I have a thought. Have her go Bladesinger, learn green-flame blade, and name her Bendoo Burning Blade. Because alliteration rocks, and so does specializing in a previously elf-only subclass.
I'm sorry your first hot thread was this trashfire. Please don't assume everybody's like this. General Discussion is always a cesspit in any forum I've ever been in - you'll likely have better luck finding more engaging conversations in Tips and Tactics, or some of the class-specific forums. They're slower-moving, but they tend to be less prone to knee-jerk reactionary nonsense than GD is. If the other Loudmouth Club folks weren't taking an enforced siesta, then Third would be backing us up 100% and Sposta would at least be arguing from passion and investment rather than just bad-faith grognardism.
Please do not contact or message me.
BS. A racial +2 to an ability isn't skill, it's talent or innate advantage. It's not something the character had to train to achieve, it's something they were born with. An elephant doesn't have to train to be able to carry heavier loads than a horse, it simply can because of physiological differences. I can't outrun my dog no matter how hard I train or how little he trains (that's fine, Usain Bolt couldn't outrun my dog either). Skill, training is whatever stat you choose to put in an ability and whether you spend a class-based ASI on improving that ability further.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
And if we untied ASI from race/species..... we could give that elephant a feature allowing it to carry more than the horse!
That's not necessarily true. A +2 to an ability score could be biological, but it can also be cultural or circumstantial. A warrior culture is going to value Strength (or Dexterity) and weapons training. A mountain dwarf is trained in light and medium armor and has +2 Strength. They need that Strength to adequately fight in that armor. A half-orc with the same +2 might have it because they've been getting in scraps all their life. Whether raised in a nomadic, Darwinian orc tribe that forced regular combat or on the streets of Neverwinter, learning to defend themselves from people still bearing grudges from the War of the Silver Marches, they had to learn how to throw punches and take them (Relentless Endurance).
Fantastic, but again: 1) we don't have all that many such features and 2) what is the fundamental difference between an ASI and such a feature?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The "optional" rule was already added. Now it's not optional anymore. Disliking this is different from saying the custom lineage shouldn't have been added at all. Which wasn't the case.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
A feature would simply dictate how the elephant can carry more.
if we leave the "an elephant has to have a +2 STR because inherently they can carry more than the horse" as how it must be done, well then we have an issue because at some point down the road in levels.... well the horse and the elephant will both have 20 STR and be carrying the same about of weight.
But if we say elephants carry weight is 25xSTR well then we don't have an issue because an average horse will not be able to carry as much as an average elephant.
First off... anything outside the 3 core books is considered optional. So if the new stuff follows a new philosophy it is still optional. Does it suck because those people who want to not use floating ASIs can't use the new stuff without the "optional thing" becoming "non-optional" sure I'll give you that. But if they want to use the new lineages in the UA they have already said they want to use optional stuff (since UA is not part of the core 3). Sometimes you can't just accept 1 option if you want to use a branch off of the disliked option
Not saying it is a good way to move forward. Like I said it does suck that those that want to stick to non floating ASIs can't keep that philosophy and use the new stuff going to come out of WoTC. But wait.... floating ASIs are not new since some core races have them, but I guess we were fine when it was "Just a few" Vs "all"
This isn't like a video game where they patched out a feature and you can never ever use it again.
It's still optional even if it's the default method they'll use going forward.
Not if it becomes the standard.
Then DNDBeyond only supports that new standard.
That would involve a lot more work for DMs who don't want to use the new standard, because they will have to create a lot of homebrew things on this web site in order to continue to use their previous purchases.
If we gave elephants and horses class levels, sure. We don't, so we don't have this issue.
An elephant doesn't have to have +2 Str because they can carry more than a horse. An elephant should have a higher strength than a horse because it is physically stronger. It can carry more because it is stronger, not the other way around.
A specific carrying modifier, like Powerful Build, is not suitable for representing a strength difference. It affects carrying, nothing else. An 18 Str goliath is not stronger than a 20 Str half-orc. In fact, the half-orc is stronger. Yet the goliath can carry a lot more weight.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].