I mean, I already told Nai after he took his shot at me, but I'd specifically decided to avoid responding to Pang's tear up there. Clearly me just remaining silent wasn't enough so here it is: I have no intention of (further) protesting all the doomspeakers, naysayers, worryworts, and other sorts trashing the new Lineage-inclined direction to the rules. Feel free to spend another five pages discussing the absolutely critical, completely gamebreaking, dealbreaking, and career-breaking issue of tortles losing their shells if they're twisted by magic into non-tortle beings.
if the Setting of 5E is FR...then yes there are baked in cultural and speciesist traits. that makes sense, it grounds the world. despite what people say it makes it feel MORE alive. and you need that baseline in order TO play against type.
I think all adventure modules are set in FR and the lore bits in the Core books are based in FR...heck even Volo and Xanathar are characters in FR.
if you want total setting agnostic....then do whatever the heck you want. but when everything is set in FR...there should be standard culture/lore traits for species and then the ability to play against those for story and fun.
Or we can understand that people have differentiating opinions and arguing and putting words in each other's mouths is not actually going to get us anywhere (which is why the other thread went to shit, both sides got toxic). Some people will not like this, some people will, and others aren't sure and need to see more to make their decisions.
I am hoping that we see a UA tackling how cultures will be handled in the future, and a more detailed statement from WotC on this new direction. We only have a blurb in the UA to go by right now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Or we can understand that people have differentiating opinions and arguing and putting words in each other's mouths is not actually going to get us anywhere (which is why the other thread went to shit, both sides got toxic). Some people will not like this, some people will, and others aren't sure and need to see more to make their decisions.
I am hoping that we see a UA tackling how cultures will be handled in the future, and a more detailed statement from WotC on this new direction. We only have a blurb in the UA to go by right now.
I welcome the idea of the changes they are making, but I really think that the Lineage idea needs to be put through the UA for real playtesting to work everything out. What we got in Tasha's seems like a weird alpha or beta test of a new system with the latest UA Lineage being an updated test version. All in all it feels incomplete.
(I kinda take issue with the "both sides got toxic" argument when individuals on one side who shall remain unnamed resorted to invalidating the experiences of multiracial folks like myself, but whatever; not worth it here...)
I'd love to see something that tackles cultural traits separately from physical ones. I do wonder how they might achieve that without breaking older content though, because so much of that is just baked into the old races. Tasha's tried, but was so lackluster it just...ugh, I can't even give it a gold star for effort.
Tasha's system was lackluster, but lackluster is better than nothing, and this is better than Tasha's. There are obviously the issues with physical characteristics of the parent race disappearing, which really needs changing, but overall this is much better than any other official racial system in 5e.
Tortle Dhampir should be able to stick to the ceiling and hide in their shell at the same time. A Tabaxi Hexblood should keep its claws. A Centaur Reborn (a horse and human stitched together?) should keep its Equine Build.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
(I kinda take issue with the "both sides got toxic" argument when individuals on one side who shall remain unnamed resorted to invalidating the experiences of multiracial folks like myself, but whatever; not worth it here...)
I agree with your point and disagree with it not being worth it. I debated with myself whether or not to even comment, but I feel like if it's not worth pointing out that people were invalidating the lived experiences of actual real people and being legitimately hurtful then it's not worth participating in a forum at all. I don't want to start any fights, but I also won't stand for abusive behavior. There was one person who blew into that other discussion like Delirium of the Endless and made some gatekeeping remarks, but if you're going to point to that as evidence of a certain "side" (ugh, I don't even like to think of it as there being sides) being toxic then I would challenge that you're cherry picking and that was not the typical sentiment of those expressing support for the lineage changes at all.
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!
With a new edition I hope a total revamp of the system (ASIs and alignment are entirely gone).
I just do not want two different systems within the same edition.
There's I think at least three officially supported ways of rolling (or point buying) a character. I think what's under discussion should be looked at more on those terms to realize "both/and" still results in game integrity.
I think having variety in how you select lineage/race isn't problematic _if_ the system that gives a player complete or at least more granular control over the characters lineage features can also be used to assemble existing races. If they can't do that, I feel they're actually selling the custom lineage builders short. I don't think the equivalency between the PHB and other published races and the lineage system are even yet. I can see building the lineage system up, and then addressing the created races through a UA process that may take a bit.
For example, I think one interesting UA experiment would be Dragon/humanoid lineages, where one option would be the Dragonborn as published, with maybe some room for custom traits reflected in current feat options and however feat and lineage traits shake out. In the same UA you'd get another guide on the similar but different Draconian (stats for which supposedly exist via "leaks" from a well known game influence whose name I can never spell right so will just be allusive). Said UA could do double duty for a Draconomicon as well as a presumed Dragolance setting book tied to the novels in the pipeline. Addressing the half dragon template in the MM as well. This sort of tripartite doc would also give players more faith that WotC is trying to do a comprehensive build up of the current rule set.
Maybe I'll even finally see Dragonrage as a option both for Dragon lineage beings as well as the Path of the Dragon Barbarian for which I've been salivating a not inconsiderable amount of dragon drool. As long as flipping tables happen, I'll be happy.
@Ophidimancer: I apologize, that was an extremely poor choice of words on my part. I meant it's not worth talking about the old thread in this one (the comments will probably get deleted anyway), but I already did that regardless, so I might as well own it.
There was a lot of abhorrent behavior that popped up in that thread, including harassment and straight-up racism, and frankly I'm surprised there haven't been any bans handed out because of them. Saying that both sides engaged in poor behavior kind of erases the fact that there was harassment and racism being thrown.
I think given the way the current system is set up the current UA feels more like race replacement then racial options. I agree with Third, you should be able to be a reborn dragonborn that maintains your breath weapon. I would be all for more race templates, which it feels like we are getting with this UA, and race additions and be totally fine if we never get another "old way" race again, but substituting the old races for this new system seems very flawed to me. Unless they make a larger change to the UA I would much rather maintain the "old way" races have been done.
I also just have a problem with some of the abilities that are gained as a part of these UA races that feel more like class abilities, but that is besides the point.
If they did something like a 2 step race system where you pick the base race and then an additional linage thing that would be really cool. The base race would determine certain things, and the linage option would determine other things. I think that would be cool, especially if they added that for all of the current races as well. Imagine having each race have two parts the "primary" and the "Lineage" where the primary would determine about half of your character and you would get to choose from a list of things that you would get, and the "Linage" would be the other half of the character and you would determine the other half of what you get biased on that. If you wanted to be full certain thing then you would just choose the two parts of the Orc for example. Then you could be half Vampire half Dragonborn or Half Minitour Half Elf or Half Tortal Half Grung. That seems a lot more interesting (and I'll admit complicated) then what they are currently presenting us, but if it is suppose to be an optional rule anyway I don't see a problem with it.
I don't think anyone minds the idea of a "species" being a collection of biological traits hardwired into the species. Birbs fly, fish swim, dhampirs consume the vital fluids of the living to briefly assuage their eternal torment, we all know the drill. The question is whether "Lineage" can be broader than just 'species', and what mechanical role - if any - culture should play in character creation.
It's why arguing over whether dhampir-cursed tortles still have their shells or not is a stupid waste of time. The one single case in all of D&D where that will actually happen in a legit, non-bullshit game, the DM will adjudicate something and nobody will know or care. Instead, there should be a debate over whether "Lineage" extends beyond species, i.e. what you were born as doesn't matter anymore because something happened to you that transcends your original parentage, or whether it does not and we don't want to see "Lineage" options like dhampir, hexblood, or Reborn anymore. As well, related to the broader subject of creating characters that are a better reflection of their players' intent and which don't have nearly so many negative things to say about people in general, the idea of whether "Background" and "Culture" are the same thing or whether the Three Pillars (more like two and a quarter, but still) of Character Creation should be split into Four Pillars, instead.
I don't know whether 'Culture' needs to be its own entire fourth mechanical pillar. That puts a lot of stress on future settings books, which are then required to spend a great many pages filling that pillar in. Perhaps this would be a space where narrative freedom is better than strict rules, and where a section in the new 5.5 PHB and 5.5 DMG that we so desperately need can offer examples of possible cultural traits a DM could use and advice on how to create one's own cultures. Nevertheless, "Culture" feels like it should be something that informs character decisions and a character's viewpoint more than something which offers concrete mechanical bonuses. Concrete bonuses are the realm of Backgrounds, which need to be revamped into a stronger system for enabling the sorts of decision a culture might influence.
And one's numbers needs to be divorced from all three. Or four. Or however many you wind up with.
@Rodney: Unfortunately, the specific thread I was referring to had a LOT of those -isms in it, especially racism. I'm trying not to say any more on the matter for fear of thread derailment, but I'll just add that the last 5 pages of that particular thread were...OOF.
It may surprise you to learn that Dwarven Resilience was actually cited as a cultural trait by WotC's design team because of the long-running fantasy trope of dwarves having a strong drinking culture. It's easy enough to retcon into being a physical trait like fire resistance, but I think that just goes to show how pervasive the idea of cultural and biological traits being inseparable was when 5e was released.
I'm actually planning on using a similar system of free-floating attribute points for my next campaign (+6 total instead of +4; I know it'll make my players overpowered, but I have my reasons)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And here I thought I was trying to show a little bit of restraint in my reply. Don't lock anything on my account, I'll show myself the door.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I mean, this is the 300th thread on this exact topic. I'd be shocked if it played out any differently from the previous 299...
I mean, I already told Nai after he took his shot at me, but I'd specifically decided to avoid responding to Pang's tear up there. Clearly me just remaining silent wasn't enough so here it is: I have no intention of (further) protesting all the doomspeakers, naysayers, worryworts, and other sorts trashing the new Lineage-inclined direction to the rules. Feel free to spend another five pages discussing the absolutely critical, completely gamebreaking, dealbreaking, and career-breaking issue of tortles losing their shells if they're twisted by magic into non-tortle beings.
Carry on.
Please do not contact or message me.
the issue is more Setting for me.
if the Setting of 5E is FR...then yes there are baked in cultural and speciesist traits. that makes sense, it grounds the world. despite what people say it makes it feel MORE alive. and you need that baseline in order TO play against type.
I think all adventure modules are set in FR and the lore bits in the Core books are based in FR...heck even Volo and Xanathar are characters in FR.
if you want total setting agnostic....then do whatever the heck you want. but when everything is set in FR...there should be standard culture/lore traits for species and then the ability to play against those for story and fun.
No Yurei, we MUST argue 30+ pages about shells, birbs, and centaur hooves and why everything is ruined. It's Internet LAW! *smacks table*
Or we can understand that people have differentiating opinions and arguing and putting words in each other's mouths is not actually going to get us anywhere (which is why the other thread went to shit, both sides got toxic). Some people will not like this, some people will, and others aren't sure and need to see more to make their decisions.
I am hoping that we see a UA tackling how cultures will be handled in the future, and a more detailed statement from WotC on this new direction. We only have a blurb in the UA to go by 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
Here Here!!
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
In answer to the OP, no. I don't think D&D should have races as they are in the PHB in the future. I would like to see a revamp of the entire system.
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 welcome the idea of the changes they are making, but I really think that the Lineage idea needs to be put through the UA for real playtesting to work everything out. What we got in Tasha's seems like a weird alpha or beta test of a new system with the latest UA Lineage being an updated test version. All in all it feels incomplete.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
With a new edition I hope a total revamp of the system (ASIs and alignment are entirely gone).
I just do not want two different systems within the same edition.
(I kinda take issue with the "both sides got toxic" argument when individuals on one side who shall remain unnamed resorted to invalidating the experiences of multiracial folks like myself, but whatever; not worth it here...)
I'd love to see something that tackles cultural traits separately from physical ones. I do wonder how they might achieve that without breaking older content though, because so much of that is just baked into the old races. Tasha's tried, but was so lackluster it just...ugh, I can't even give it a gold star for effort.
To answer the title of the thread and the OP: No.
Tasha's system was lackluster, but lackluster is better than nothing, and this is better than Tasha's. There are obviously the issues with physical characteristics of the parent race disappearing, which really needs changing, but overall this is much better than any other official racial system in 5e.
Tortle Dhampir should be able to stick to the ceiling and hide in their shell at the same time. A Tabaxi Hexblood should keep its claws. A Centaur Reborn (a horse and human stitched together?) should keep its Equine Build.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I agree with your point and disagree with it not being worth it. I debated with myself whether or not to even comment, but I feel like if it's not worth pointing out that people were invalidating the lived experiences of actual real people and being legitimately hurtful then it's not worth participating in a forum at all. I don't want to start any fights, but I also won't stand for abusive behavior. There was one person who blew into that other discussion like Delirium of the Endless and made some gatekeeping remarks, but if you're going to point to that as evidence of a certain "side" (ugh, I don't even like to think of it as there being sides) being toxic then I would challenge that you're cherry picking and that was not the typical sentiment of those expressing support for the lineage changes at all.
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's I think at least three officially supported ways of rolling (or point buying) a character. I think what's under discussion should be looked at more on those terms to realize "both/and" still results in game integrity.
I think having variety in how you select lineage/race isn't problematic _if_ the system that gives a player complete or at least more granular control over the characters lineage features can also be used to assemble existing races. If they can't do that, I feel they're actually selling the custom lineage builders short. I don't think the equivalency between the PHB and other published races and the lineage system are even yet. I can see building the lineage system up, and then addressing the created races through a UA process that may take a bit.
For example, I think one interesting UA experiment would be Dragon/humanoid lineages, where one option would be the Dragonborn as published, with maybe some room for custom traits reflected in current feat options and however feat and lineage traits shake out. In the same UA you'd get another guide on the similar but different Draconian (stats for which supposedly exist via "leaks" from a well known game influence whose name I can never spell right so will just be allusive). Said UA could do double duty for a Draconomicon as well as a presumed Dragolance setting book tied to the novels in the pipeline. Addressing the half dragon template in the MM as well. This sort of tripartite doc would also give players more faith that WotC is trying to do a comprehensive build up of the current rule set.
Maybe I'll even finally see Dragonrage as a option both for Dragon lineage beings as well as the Path of the Dragon Barbarian for which I've been salivating a not inconsiderable amount of dragon drool. As long as flipping tables happen, I'll be happy.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
@Ophidimancer: I apologize, that was an extremely poor choice of words on my part. I meant it's not worth talking about the old thread in this one (the comments will probably get deleted anyway), but I already did that regardless, so I might as well own it.
There was a lot of abhorrent behavior that popped up in that thread, including harassment and straight-up racism, and frankly I'm surprised there haven't been any bans handed out because of them. Saying that both sides engaged in poor behavior kind of erases the fact that there was harassment and racism being thrown.
I think given the way the current system is set up the current UA feels more like race replacement then racial options. I agree with Third, you should be able to be a reborn dragonborn that maintains your breath weapon. I would be all for more race templates, which it feels like we are getting with this UA, and race additions and be totally fine if we never get another "old way" race again, but substituting the old races for this new system seems very flawed to me. Unless they make a larger change to the UA I would much rather maintain the "old way" races have been done.
I also just have a problem with some of the abilities that are gained as a part of these UA races that feel more like class abilities, but that is besides the point.
If they did something like a 2 step race system where you pick the base race and then an additional linage thing that would be really cool. The base race would determine certain things, and the linage option would determine other things. I think that would be cool, especially if they added that for all of the current races as well. Imagine having each race have two parts the "primary" and the "Lineage" where the primary would determine about half of your character and you would get to choose from a list of things that you would get, and the "Linage" would be the other half of the character and you would determine the other half of what you get biased on that. If you wanted to be full certain thing then you would just choose the two parts of the Orc for example. Then you could be half Vampire half Dragonborn or Half Minitour Half Elf or Half Tortal Half Grung. That seems a lot more interesting (and I'll admit complicated) then what they are currently presenting us, but if it is suppose to be an optional rule anyway I don't see a problem with it.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
I think a system with pick-and-choose modularity would be ideal, but I don't think we're going to get it, unfortunately...
Put it this way.
I don't think anyone minds the idea of a "species" being a collection of biological traits hardwired into the species. Birbs fly, fish swim, dhampirs consume the vital fluids of the living to briefly assuage their eternal torment, we all know the drill. The question is whether "Lineage" can be broader than just 'species', and what mechanical role - if any - culture should play in character creation.
It's why arguing over whether dhampir-cursed tortles still have their shells or not is a stupid waste of time. The one single case in all of D&D where that will actually happen in a legit, non-bullshit game, the DM will adjudicate something and nobody will know or care. Instead, there should be a debate over whether "Lineage" extends beyond species, i.e. what you were born as doesn't matter anymore because something happened to you that transcends your original parentage, or whether it does not and we don't want to see "Lineage" options like dhampir, hexblood, or Reborn anymore. As well, related to the broader subject of creating characters that are a better reflection of their players' intent and which don't have nearly so many negative things to say about people in general, the idea of whether "Background" and "Culture" are the same thing or whether the Three Pillars (more like two and a quarter, but still) of Character Creation should be split into Four Pillars, instead.
I don't know whether 'Culture' needs to be its own entire fourth mechanical pillar. That puts a lot of stress on future settings books, which are then required to spend a great many pages filling that pillar in. Perhaps this would be a space where narrative freedom is better than strict rules, and where a section in the new 5.5 PHB and 5.5 DMG that we so desperately need can offer examples of possible cultural traits a DM could use and advice on how to create one's own cultures. Nevertheless, "Culture" feels like it should be something that informs character decisions and a character's viewpoint more than something which offers concrete mechanical bonuses. Concrete bonuses are the realm of Backgrounds, which need to be revamped into a stronger system for enabling the sorts of decision a culture might influence.
And one's numbers needs to be divorced from all three. Or four. Or however many you wind up with.
Please do not contact or message me.
We are on the cusp of a pick and choose system that I think would work. WotC just needs to get it together.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
@Rodney: Unfortunately, the specific thread I was referring to had a LOT of those -isms in it, especially racism. I'm trying not to say any more on the matter for fear of thread derailment, but I'll just add that the last 5 pages of that particular thread were...OOF.
It may surprise you to learn that Dwarven Resilience was actually cited as a cultural trait by WotC's design team because of the long-running fantasy trope of dwarves having a strong drinking culture. It's easy enough to retcon into being a physical trait like fire resistance, but I think that just goes to show how pervasive the idea of cultural and biological traits being inseparable was when 5e was released.
I'm actually planning on using a similar system of free-floating attribute points for my next campaign (+6 total instead of +4; I know it'll make my players overpowered, but I have my reasons)