I think a system with pick-and-choose modularity would be ideal, but I don't think we're going to get it, unfortunately...
We are on the cusp of a pick and choose system that I think would work. WotC just needs to get it together.
Choose a Lineage (Elf, Dwarf, etc.)
Select a Sub-Lineage (High, Mountain, etc)
Select a Culture (FR Elf, FR Dwarf, Nomad, etc)
Select a Background
Select a Class
Select a Subclass
Select a Feat
That would be a pretty interesting approach. I'm not sure we'd see it in this current edition, mostly because of WotC's antipathy for changing old content, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
I think a system with pick-and-choose modularity would be ideal, but I don't think we're going to get it, unfortunately...
We are on the cusp of a pick and choose system that I think would work. WotC just needs to get it together.
Choose a Lineage (Elf, Dwarf, etc.)
Select a Sub-Lineage (High, Mountain, etc)
Select a Culture (FR Elf, FR Dwarf, Nomad, etc)
Select a Background
Select a Class
Select a Subclass
Select a Feat
Using this system you could make a Hill Dwarf from a Nomadic clan from the Plains that prize Horsemanship (Animal Handling and Land Vehicles) and Archery (Proficient with Short Bow). In spite of all the standard training common for his clan, he wasn't much of a warrior or hunter but was better suited to keeping the clan's history and lore (Sage). All that time spent in telling stories for the clan's children led him to becoming a Bard once he was old enough to seek his own path. Naturally he went with the College of Lore as ancient tales and arcane secrets were of great interest to him. He had a knack for magic that helps him to excel beyond other fledgling bards (Magic Initiate).
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.
I think that hits the nail on the head of why I love this latest UA so much. It's given me so many ideas for things beyond species that are just plain weird! It doesn't matter what you were, what you are now is something completely different altogether. I think my favorite idea that I've had so far is a Reborn entity that resembles a clockwork human, but is actually a glorified Brain In A Jar comprised of multiple individuals who were brutally dissected and had their grey matter placed together to form a single entity.
I think a system with pick-and-choose modularity would be ideal, but I don't think we're going to get it, unfortunately...
We are on the cusp of a pick and choose system that I think would work. WotC just needs to get it together.
Choose a Lineage (Elf, Dwarf, etc.)
Select a Sub-Lineage (High, Mountain, etc)
Select a Culture (FR Elf, FR Dwarf, Nomad, etc)
Select a Background
Select a Class
Select a Subclass
Select a Feat
Using this system you could make a Hill Dwarf from a Nomadic clan from the Plains that prize Horsemanship (Animal Handling and Land Vehicles) and Archery (Proficient with Short Bow). In spite of all the standard training common for his clan, he wasn't much of a warrior or hunter but was better suited to keeping the clan's history and lore (Sage). All that time spent in telling stories for the clan's children led him to becoming a Bard once he was old enough to seek his own path. Naturally he went with the College of Lore as ancient tales and arcane secrets were of great interest to him. He had a knack for magic that helps him to excel beyond other fledgling bards (Magic Initiate).
I could really get behind this myself, fleshing out the system.
Using this system you could make a Hill Dwarf from a Nomadic clan from the Plains that prize Horsemanship (Animal Handling and Land Vehicles) and Archery (Proficient with Short Bow). In spite of all the standard training common for his clan, he wasn't much of a warrior or hunter but was better suited to keeping the clan's history and lore (Sage). All that time spent in telling stories for the clan's children led him to becoming a Bard once he was old enough to seek his own path. Naturally he went with the College of Lore as ancient tales and arcane secrets were of great interest to him. He had a knack for magic that helps him to excel beyond other fledgling bards (Magic Initiate).
See?
This is a pretty fantastic seed idea for a perfectly splendid character build that is completely impossible to create in the current 5e system. One cannot create a steppes horse-archer dwarf who is also a bard and loreseeker. Ya just can't do it without creating an entire homebrew species stat block for the character in question, or telling the player to "Use Your Imagination (C)" and pretend that they're a nomadic hill clansman even though their character sheet says they're actually a sedentary dwarf from the clannholds who knows stone like the back of his hand but has never met an animal that wasn't for eating in his entire life.
Why is this such a terrible horrible no-good very bad thing to aspire to?
Yeah, that's been irritating me greatly about this thread too, Mezz.
All this "but my tortle loses their shell and it doesn't make sense!" First of all, nobody here actually has a tortle PC they're actively playing in a campaign, and if they somehow are one of the less-than-one-percent of the population with an active tortle PC I'll bet five dollars that the PC in question will never be in a position to get dhampir'd.
And even if they are, just to spite me? Lean into it. Their shell breaks apart and falls off as the curse takes hold and warps their flesh and spirit both; they gather the pieces and make a breastplate out of them because they feel naked, vulnerable and simply unwhole without their shell, but wearing fragments of their old armor simply isn't the same. The weight is off, it doesn't work as well, and every day is a reminder that they're less than they were. Does the newly-made tortle-shaped dhampir hate the curse enough to purge it? Are they willing to undergo whatever agonizing process might restore them to full life and their natural state of being? Or will they come to rely on their new, darker gifts more than they ever did their trusty, sturdy shell?
How is that not cooler than "oh, I guess I'm a bloodsucking snapping turtle now, absolutely nothing has changed except I get an overpowered bite attack. Cool beans."?
"I'm an aarakocra, but my wings withered away and had to be amputated when a strange and indescribable color descended from the cosmos and inhabited my body, and now I'm only able to sustain myself by sapping the life-energies of other living beings. Speaking of, could you do me a solid and close your eyes and think of England for about, oh, 5 minutes or so?"
I think a system with pick-and-choose modularity would be ideal, but I don't think we're going to get it, unfortunately...
We are on the cusp of a pick and choose system that I think would work. WotC just needs to get it together.
Choose a Lineage (Elf, Dwarf, etc.)
Select a Sub-Lineage (High, Mountain, etc)
Select a Culture (FR Elf, FR Dwarf, Nomad, etc)
Select a Background
Select a Class
Select a Subclass
Select a Feat
I might rename 'lineage' to something like 'bloodline', and I'd probably delete step 2, moving everything there into either step 1 or step 3 (mostly step 3, but some exceptions like dragonborn colors). Likewise, steps 6 and 7 don't need to be part of character creation at all, though you could easily have cultural benefits that are equivalent to a feat, and maybe someone could take a feat (and some other small benefits like a language) in place of a culture (actually, making cultures a special type of feat allows for some other interesting combinations such as the person from one culture who gets adopted into another culture at a later point in their career).
I think a system with pick-and-choose modularity would be ideal, but I don't think we're going to get it, unfortunately...
We are on the cusp of a pick and choose system that I think would work. WotC just needs to get it together.
Choose a Lineage (Elf, Dwarf, etc.)
Select a Sub-Lineage (High, Mountain, etc)
Select a Culture (FR Elf, FR Dwarf, Nomad, etc)
Select a Background
Select a Class
Select a Subclass
Select a Feat
I might rename 'lineage' to something like 'bloodline', and I'd probably delete step 2, moving everything there into either step 1 or step 3 (mostly step 3, but some exceptions like dragonborn colors). Likewise, steps 6 and 7 don't need to be part of character creation at all, though you could easily have cultural benefits that are equivalent to a feat, and maybe someone could take a feat (and some other small benefits like a language) in place of a culture (actually, making cultures a special type of feat allows for some other interesting combinations such as the person from one culture who gets adopted into another culture at a later point in their career).
It was all just a thought. I'm not saying that this is what should be, just an example of what could be if you remove culture from race and made it a separate choice with its own effects on the character.
I think a system with pick-and-choose modularity would be ideal, but I don't think we're going to get it, unfortunately...
We are on the cusp of a pick and choose system that I think would work. WotC just needs to get it together.
Choose a Lineage (Elf, Dwarf, etc.)
Select a Sub-Lineage (High, Mountain, etc)
Select a Culture (FR Elf, FR Dwarf, Nomad, etc)
Select a Background
Select a Class
Select a Subclass
Select a Feat
This is how they should have approached it, if they were going to do this change. Right now they are trying to do an overhaul on a system that simply is not designed for this. The above is a great idea for 6E, and I think would be a brilliant way to meet both the current societal "issues" with D&D while focusing on gameplay. In my DM head, I am excited to join players on the adventure of creating their characters through the above system. I would happily spend $50 on the physical book, and $30 on the DnDbeyond support, for a full book that does nothing but present character creation options. 6E PH1 is simply the above, skills, spells and equipment. Take my money.
On a different note, I started off really disliking the UA, because I think it does something that I am uncomfortable with, which is remove the physical/mental aspects of character creation from the race. I am uncomfortable with this because it is the D&D I grew up playing with 2E, and has been consistent with all the way through. I am also uncomfortable because I believe WoTC is doing this to satisfy the cultural...zeitgeist of the moment, and developing rules around the loud internet rather than developing game rules that best enable the game to be played. I still believe WoTC is making a terrible mistake by doing this, as I believe there are costs to choosing different fantasy races, and those costs are worked into the RP. In my completely made up fantasy world that I share with my friends, elves will never be as strong as orcs. There may be the occasional elf as strong as a strong orc, but the average Orce will always be stronger and hardier. That cost is part of the game. There should be drawbacks to each choice you make, and how your player overcomes that disadvantage is part of what makes compelling RP (In my opinion).
If you are a min/max player, then these rules are of benefit to you because you now are able to empower your characters scores to meet your gaming needs. I truly and honestly believe that this choice is not a good one for Dungeons and Dragons as a whole, and when the D&D craze dies down in several years, those decisions may have significant impact on the support of players who will be burned and not purchase 6E and forward. Anecdotally I know several individuals who stopped playing because of 4e (which is crazy to me, I thought 4e was brilliant for what it was) and when 5e came around they no longer were interested in WoTC or D&D. Again, just anecdotal evidence but without a larger data set available, it supports my belief.
Having read through the previous thread, and this one, I truly feel like everyone wants the same thing: A game they can play. I don't believe having ability points associated with race/species has any negative consequence, either socially or game play. I also believe that any DM worth his salt, when asked about a Tiefling that wants to drop their points into STR instead of CHA, will say: "Why?" instead of "No!" If the player comes back and says: "I want to play a fighter!" Nothing is stopping that player from playing the fighter with the assigned points. But if the player (or DM since I love collaborating with my players) comes back and says: "My great-great-great-great-great Granddaddy was the Balor Thulath, who laid waste to the Celestial fortress Ixandor and whose name is still used to motivate troops during the blood war!" Well, hell, that sounds like a great reason! Here is your +2 STR and +1 CON good Tiefling Sir!
Using this system you could make a Hill Dwarf from a Nomadic clan from the Plains that prize Horsemanship (Animal Handling and Land Vehicles) and Archery (Proficient with Short Bow). In spite of all the standard training common for his clan, he wasn't much of a warrior or hunter but was better suited to keeping the clan's history and lore (Sage). All that time spent in telling stories for the clan's children led him to becoming a Bard once he was old enough to seek his own path. Naturally he went with the College of Lore as ancient tales and arcane secrets were of great interest to him. He had a knack for magic that helps him to excel beyond other fledgling bards (Magic Initiate).
See?
This is a pretty fantastic seed idea for a perfectly splendid character build that is completely impossible to create in the current 5e system. One cannot create a steppes horse-archer dwarf who is also a bard and loreseeker. Ya just can't do it without creating an entire homebrew species stat block for the character in question, or telling the player to "Use Your Imagination (C)" and pretend that they're a nomadic hill clansman even though their character sheet says they're actually a sedentary dwarf from the clannholds who knows stone like the back of his hand but has never met an animal that wasn't for eating in his entire life.
Why is this such a terrible horrible no-good very bad thing to aspire to?
Hi Yurei. Long time reader, first time responder of your posts.
It sounds to me like your issue is more with the DnDBeyond automation ability (and other online automations) and Adventurers League then with the rule system as a whole. In-person D&D has no issue with these change, DM just says: "Sure, annotate your character sheet with the correct info."
And to think - that guy's allowed to say all that nonsense free and clear. But if I try and answer it, I get dogpiled and told to sod off and stop ruining threads.
And to think - that guy's allowed to say all that nonsense free and clear. But if I try and answer it, I get dogpiled and told to sod off and stop ruining threads.
Not even remotely cool, DDB.
Hi Yurei:
I appreciate you taking the time to distill my opinion down to one word, but I think you missed a few things in there. If I had to take a guess as to why people respond to you negatively on certain posts, it may be that when a person reads your responses it could feel like you believe your opinions should be carefully considered and given room to breathe and be evaluated, but others should not have that same consideration.
Could everyone try to deescalate before this goes thermonuclear?
I'm not upset. I'm just reading forum posts and posting my opinion. She just responded to my post in a way that I didn't appreciate.
I think Yurei has some great ideas in her posts, and I think she makes valid points about the Tortle and Dhampir; noone is going to play a Dhampir Tortle, and if they do then their shell rots off. *shrug* If the PC wants to keep his shell, in my world, thats fine. It's just soft and leathery and doesn't provide and AC.
My statement to about automation isn't an attack, it's an observation. In pen and paper D&D these things are not a concern. They start to become a concern when automation is involved and limits the ability to change/modify things. My biggest concern with the whole UA thing and future methodologies is how DDB will incorporate that into the automation. If future sourcebooks move away from assigned points, but I want to keep them, will there be a "toggle" that allows me to turn that on or off.
Using this system you could make a Hill Dwarf from a Nomadic clan from the Plains that prize Horsemanship (Animal Handling and Land Vehicles) and Archery (Proficient with Short Bow). In spite of all the standard training common for his clan, he wasn't much of a warrior or hunter but was better suited to keeping the clan's history and lore (Sage). All that time spent in telling stories for the clan's children led him to becoming a Bard once he was old enough to seek his own path. Naturally he went with the College of Lore as ancient tales and arcane secrets were of great interest to him. He had a knack for magic that helps him to excel beyond other fledgling bards (Magic Initiate).
See?
This is a pretty fantastic seed idea for a perfectly splendid character build that is completely impossible to create in the current 5e system. One cannot create a steppes horse-archer dwarf who is also a bard and loreseeker. Ya just can't do it without creating an entire homebrew species stat block for the character in question, or telling the player to "Use Your Imagination (C)" and pretend that they're a nomadic hill clansman even though their character sheet says they're actually a sedentary dwarf from the clannholds who knows stone like the back of his hand but has never met an animal that wasn't for eating in his entire life.
Why is this such a terrible horrible no-good very bad thing to aspire to?
Hi Yurei. Long time reader, first time responder of your posts.
It sounds to me like your issue is more with the DnDBeyond automation ability (and other online automations) and Adventurers League then with the rule system as a whole. In-person D&D has no issue with these change, DM just says: "Sure, annotate your character sheet with the correct info."
I think you're being a bit idealistic here.
Just because you've had DMs who were cool with such changes and things, does not mean that all DMs are.
There is such a thing as Rules Lawyer DMs. Heck, I've seen threads where DM's proudly state they wouldn't allow a player to say their Dwarf character is 6' tall, despite it having no impact whatsoever on the rules.
It is to the players advantage if the book basically says "Hey, customize your character a ton" so at least the players have the book on their side when making their case to the DM. Regardless of online or in person playing.
Using this system you could make a Hill Dwarf from a Nomadic clan from the Plains that prize Horsemanship (Animal Handling and Land Vehicles) and Archery (Proficient with Short Bow). In spite of all the standard training common for his clan, he wasn't much of a warrior or hunter but was better suited to keeping the clan's history and lore (Sage). All that time spent in telling stories for the clan's children led him to becoming a Bard once he was old enough to seek his own path. Naturally he went with the College of Lore as ancient tales and arcane secrets were of great interest to him. He had a knack for magic that helps him to excel beyond other fledgling bards (Magic Initiate).
See?
This is a pretty fantastic seed idea for a perfectly splendid character build that is completely impossible to create in the current 5e system. One cannot create a steppes horse-archer dwarf who is also a bard and loreseeker. Ya just can't do it without creating an entire homebrew species stat block for the character in question, or telling the player to "Use Your Imagination (C)" and pretend that they're a nomadic hill clansman even though their character sheet says they're actually a sedentary dwarf from the clannholds who knows stone like the back of his hand but has never met an animal that wasn't for eating in his entire life.
Why is this such a terrible horrible no-good very bad thing to aspire to?
Horseshit. It is absolutely buildable in the current system. It just takes a player going to their DM and saying they want to and for the DM to say okay. That’s all it takes with the current system.
And I know you’reabout to go off on some tirade about DMs that don’t allow that kind of thing and to that I say “Drop your shitty DM, hey someone better and stop whining about it.” I mean, srsly. If your DM is unwilling to swap around some cultural traits for your character then they suck sweaty balls and aren’t worth your time.
And I know you are likely also about to launch on some tirade about how the dwarf is locked in because of the Racial Ability Bonuses and that is also absolutely irrelevant. Those 3 point you get from being a Hill Dwarf are a pittance compared to the other 27 points from character creation are for. The +2 Con and +1 Wis only represent a little bit of genetic predisposition to be stout and observant. The other 27 points represent all of that personal predisposition towards Bardliness. Not getting a +2 to Cha instead of Con doesn’t make you a “worse” Bard, just a different one, one that’s a little better at Concentration and Perception checks.
And considering that 90% of a PC’s training happens after character creation.... Seriously, levels 1-5 are apprentices, levels 6-10 are journeymen, then masters from 11-15 and finally grand masters from 16-20. It seems like you just want to skip to 16th level and play to 20th. Then just do that.
It isn’t a “terrible horrible no-good very bad thing to aspire to,” you just refuse to see the possibilities of the current system because if it isn’t explicitly stated that something is permissible in the rules you flip out about the failure of the system. And if you can’t have 1337 stats and save the universe right away you get impatient. You really just want to skip to the Grand Master tier of PC development but for some reason think that should start sooner than 16th level. Dude, just skip to 16th level, you’ll probably be happier.
Using this system you could make a Hill Dwarf from a Nomadic clan from the Plains that prize Horsemanship (Animal Handling and Land Vehicles) and Archery (Proficient with Short Bow). In spite of all the standard training common for his clan, he wasn't much of a warrior or hunter but was better suited to keeping the clan's history and lore (Sage). All that time spent in telling stories for the clan's children led him to becoming a Bard once he was old enough to seek his own path. Naturally he went with the College of Lore as ancient tales and arcane secrets were of great interest to him. He had a knack for magic that helps him to excel beyond other fledgling bards (Magic Initiate).
See?
This is a pretty fantastic seed idea for a perfectly splendid character build that is completely impossible to create in the current 5e system. One cannot create a steppes horse-archer dwarf who is also a bard and loreseeker. Ya just can't do it without creating an entire homebrew species stat block for the character in question, or telling the player to "Use Your Imagination (C)" and pretend that they're a nomadic hill clansman even though their character sheet says they're actually a sedentary dwarf from the clannholds who knows stone like the back of his hand but has never met an animal that wasn't for eating in his entire life.
Why is this such a terrible horrible no-good very bad thing to aspire to?
Hi Yurei. Long time reader, first time responder of your posts.
It sounds to me like your issue is more with the DnDBeyond automation ability (and other online automations) and Adventurers League then with the rule system as a whole. In-person D&D has no issue with these change, DM just says: "Sure, annotate your character sheet with the correct info."
I think you're being a bit idealistic here.
Just because you've had DMs who were cool with such changes and things, does not mean that all DMs are.
There is such a thing as Rules Lawyer DMs. Heck, I've seen threads where DM's proudly state they wouldn't allow a player to say their Dwarf character is 6' tall, despite it having no impact whatsoever on the rules.
It is to the players advantage if the book basically says "Hey, customize your character a ton" so at least the players have the book on their side when making their case to the DM. Regardless of online or in person playing.
I totally see your point here, but my response to that is: Find another group. I am not being hard headed here, I am honestly wondering why you just don't find another group or DM. I mostly DM, but i've played with pick up groups, and walked away from the table when the DM or other players engaged in a way that I didn't find fun. I didn't rant, I didn't fight it, if they want to play a certain way and that's not how I want to play, I just go find another group or create my own. The only time I make a fuss is when people go offensive with stuff, and I think its inappropriate on a societal/social level. Then I do get up and make a scene, because that's not what this is about.
I tell players all the time: This is a game, if you're not having fun you have options, You are not forced to play Dungeons and Dragons, and you NEVER have to play with people that don't make the game fun for you as well.
Using this system you could make a Hill Dwarf from a Nomadic clan from the Plains that prize Horsemanship (Animal Handling and Land Vehicles) and Archery (Proficient with Short Bow). In spite of all the standard training common for his clan, he wasn't much of a warrior or hunter but was better suited to keeping the clan's history and lore (Sage). All that time spent in telling stories for the clan's children led him to becoming a Bard once he was old enough to seek his own path. Naturally he went with the College of Lore as ancient tales and arcane secrets were of great interest to him. He had a knack for magic that helps him to excel beyond other fledgling bards (Magic Initiate).
See?
This is a pretty fantastic seed idea for a perfectly splendid character build that is completely impossible to create in the current 5e system. One cannot create a steppes horse-archer dwarf who is also a bard and loreseeker. Ya just can't do it without creating an entire homebrew species stat block for the character in question, or telling the player to "Use Your Imagination (C)" and pretend that they're a nomadic hill clansman even though their character sheet says they're actually a sedentary dwarf from the clannholds who knows stone like the back of his hand but has never met an animal that wasn't for eating in his entire life.
Why is this such a terrible horrible no-good very bad thing to aspire to?
Hi Yurei. Long time reader, first time responder of your posts.
It sounds to me like your issue is more with the DnDBeyond automation ability (and other online automations) and Adventurers League then with the rule system as a whole. In-person D&D has no issue with these change, DM just says: "Sure, annotate your character sheet with the correct info."
I think you're being a bit idealistic here.
Just because you've had DMs who were cool with such changes and things, does not mean that all DMs are.
There is such a thing as Rules Lawyer DMs. Heck, I've seen threads where DM's proudly state they wouldn't allow a player to say their Dwarf character is 6' tall, despite it having no impact whatsoever on the rules.
It is to the players advantage if the book basically says "Hey, customize your character a ton" so at least the players have the book on their side when making their case to the DM. Regardless of online or in person playing.
I totally see your point here, but my response to that is: Find another group. I am not being hard headed here, I am honestly wondering why you just don't find another group or DM. I mostly DM, but i've played with pick up groups, and walked away from the table when the DM or other players engaged in a way that I didn't find fun. I didn't rant, I didn't fight it, if they want to play a certain way and that's not how I want to play, I just go find another group or create my own. The only time I make a fuss is when people go offensive with stuff, and I think its inappropriate on a societal/social level. Then I do get up and make a scene, because that's not what this is about.
I tell players all the time: This is a game, if you're not having fun you have options, You are not forced to play Dungeons and Dragons, and you NEVER have to play with people that don't make the game fun for you as well.
Well there's a bit of a catch-22 here. You were saying Yureis issues where more just online, not in person. If online is the issue, then Yureis solutions work for it. If in-person is the issue, then the "find another group" is not possible for a lot of people.
Yeah, if you're in a medium/large city then you can probably hang out at the local game store (in non-pandemic times) and find another group in an hour or two. If you're in a small town with a few thousand people at best, you're stuck with the like 4 other people in town who give a crap about D&D. If one of them is a bit retentive and reductive, not even malicious, but just prone to being "but the book says this"-ish, then, yes, the book NOT saying that and giving more options again fixes this issue.
It doesn't have to be "just quit and find another group" even in the circumstances where that even is an option, it can be "Hey look, the rules say I can do this" would fix it, when the DM isn't being malicious just a bit retentive/reductive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That would be a pretty interesting approach. I'm not sure we'd see it in this current edition, mostly because of WotC's antipathy for changing old content, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
Using this system you could make a Hill Dwarf from a Nomadic clan from the Plains that prize Horsemanship (Animal Handling and Land Vehicles) and Archery (Proficient with Short Bow). In spite of all the standard training common for his clan, he wasn't much of a warrior or hunter but was better suited to keeping the clan's history and lore (Sage). All that time spent in telling stories for the clan's children led him to becoming a Bard once he was old enough to seek his own path. Naturally he went with the College of Lore as ancient tales and arcane secrets were of great interest to him. He had a knack for magic that helps him to excel beyond other fledgling bards (Magic Initiate).
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think that hits the nail on the head of why I love this latest UA so much. It's given me so many ideas for things beyond species that are just plain weird! It doesn't matter what you were, what you are now is something completely different altogether. I think my favorite idea that I've had so far is a Reborn entity that resembles a clockwork human, but is actually a glorified Brain In A Jar comprised of multiple individuals who were brutally dissected and had their grey matter placed together to form a single entity.
I LOVE IT!
I could really get behind this myself, fleshing out the system.
"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
See?
This is a pretty fantastic seed idea for a perfectly splendid character build that is completely impossible to create in the current 5e system. One cannot create a steppes horse-archer dwarf who is also a bard and loreseeker. Ya just can't do it without creating an entire homebrew species stat block for the character in question, or telling the player to "Use Your Imagination (C)" and pretend that they're a nomadic hill clansman even though their character sheet says they're actually a sedentary dwarf from the clannholds who knows stone like the back of his hand but has never met an animal that wasn't for eating in his entire life.
Why is this such a terrible horrible no-good very bad thing to aspire to?
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah, that's been irritating me greatly about this thread too, Mezz.
All this "but my tortle loses their shell and it doesn't make sense!" First of all, nobody here actually has a tortle PC they're actively playing in a campaign, and if they somehow are one of the less-than-one-percent of the population with an active tortle PC I'll bet five dollars that the PC in question will never be in a position to get dhampir'd.
And even if they are, just to spite me? Lean into it. Their shell breaks apart and falls off as the curse takes hold and warps their flesh and spirit both; they gather the pieces and make a breastplate out of them because they feel naked, vulnerable and simply unwhole without their shell, but wearing fragments of their old armor simply isn't the same. The weight is off, it doesn't work as well, and every day is a reminder that they're less than they were. Does the newly-made tortle-shaped dhampir hate the curse enough to purge it? Are they willing to undergo whatever agonizing process might restore them to full life and their natural state of being? Or will they come to rely on their new, darker gifts more than they ever did their trusty, sturdy shell?
How is that not cooler than "oh, I guess I'm a bloodsucking snapping turtle now, absolutely nothing has changed except I get an overpowered bite attack. Cool beans."?
Please do not contact or message me.
"I'm an aarakocra, but my wings withered away and had to be amputated when a strange and indescribable color descended from the cosmos and inhabited my body, and now I'm only able to sustain myself by sapping the life-energies of other living beings. Speaking of, could you do me a solid and close your eyes and think of England for about, oh, 5 minutes or so?"
I might rename 'lineage' to something like 'bloodline', and I'd probably delete step 2, moving everything there into either step 1 or step 3 (mostly step 3, but some exceptions like dragonborn colors). Likewise, steps 6 and 7 don't need to be part of character creation at all, though you could easily have cultural benefits that are equivalent to a feat, and maybe someone could take a feat (and some other small benefits like a language) in place of a culture (actually, making cultures a special type of feat allows for some other interesting combinations such as the person from one culture who gets adopted into another culture at a later point in their career).
It was all just a thought. I'm not saying that this is what should be, just an example of what could be if you remove culture from race and made it a separate choice with its own effects on the character.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
This is how they should have approached it, if they were going to do this change. Right now they are trying to do an overhaul on a system that simply is not designed for this. The above is a great idea for 6E, and I think would be a brilliant way to meet both the current societal "issues" with D&D while focusing on gameplay. In my DM head, I am excited to join players on the adventure of creating their characters through the above system. I would happily spend $50 on the physical book, and $30 on the DnDbeyond support, for a full book that does nothing but present character creation options. 6E PH1 is simply the above, skills, spells and equipment. Take my money.
On a different note, I started off really disliking the UA, because I think it does something that I am uncomfortable with, which is remove the physical/mental aspects of character creation from the race. I am uncomfortable with this because it is the D&D I grew up playing with 2E, and has been consistent with all the way through. I am also uncomfortable because I believe WoTC is doing this to satisfy the cultural...zeitgeist of the moment, and developing rules around the loud internet rather than developing game rules that best enable the game to be played. I still believe WoTC is making a terrible mistake by doing this, as I believe there are costs to choosing different fantasy races, and those costs are worked into the RP. In my completely made up fantasy world that I share with my friends, elves will never be as strong as orcs. There may be the occasional elf as strong as a strong orc, but the average Orce will always be stronger and hardier. That cost is part of the game. There should be drawbacks to each choice you make, and how your player overcomes that disadvantage is part of what makes compelling RP (In my opinion).
If you are a min/max player, then these rules are of benefit to you because you now are able to empower your characters scores to meet your gaming needs. I truly and honestly believe that this choice is not a good one for Dungeons and Dragons as a whole, and when the D&D craze dies down in several years, those decisions may have significant impact on the support of players who will be burned and not purchase 6E and forward. Anecdotally I know several individuals who stopped playing because of 4e (which is crazy to me, I thought 4e was brilliant for what it was) and when 5e came around they no longer were interested in WoTC or D&D. Again, just anecdotal evidence but without a larger data set available, it supports my belief.
Having read through the previous thread, and this one, I truly feel like everyone wants the same thing: A game they can play. I don't believe having ability points associated with race/species has any negative consequence, either socially or game play. I also believe that any DM worth his salt, when asked about a Tiefling that wants to drop their points into STR instead of CHA, will say: "Why?" instead of "No!" If the player comes back and says: "I want to play a fighter!" Nothing is stopping that player from playing the fighter with the assigned points. But if the player (or DM since I love collaborating with my players) comes back and says: "My great-great-great-great-great Granddaddy was the Balor Thulath, who laid waste to the Celestial fortress Ixandor and whose name is still used to motivate troops during the blood war!" Well, hell, that sounds like a great reason! Here is your +2 STR and +1 CON good Tiefling Sir!
Just my thoughts.
Hi Yurei. Long time reader, first time responder of your posts.
It sounds to me like your issue is more with the DnDBeyond automation ability (and other online automations) and Adventurers League then with the rule system as a whole. In-person D&D has no issue with these change, DM just says: "Sure, annotate your character sheet with the correct info."
.
..
...
...sigh
And to think - that guy's allowed to say all that nonsense free and clear. But if I try and answer it, I get dogpiled and told to sod off and stop ruining threads.
Not even remotely cool, DDB.
Please do not contact or message me.
Hi Yurei:
I appreciate you taking the time to distill my opinion down to one word, but I think you missed a few things in there. If I had to take a guess as to why people respond to you negatively on certain posts, it may be that when a person reads your responses it could feel like you believe your opinions should be carefully considered and given room to breathe and be evaluated, but others should not have that same consideration.
Could everyone try to deescalate before this goes thermonuclear?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I'm not upset. I'm just reading forum posts and posting my opinion. She just responded to my post in a way that I didn't appreciate.
I think Yurei has some great ideas in her posts, and I think she makes valid points about the Tortle and Dhampir; noone is going to play a Dhampir Tortle, and if they do then their shell rots off. *shrug* If the PC wants to keep his shell, in my world, thats fine. It's just soft and leathery and doesn't provide and AC.
My statement to about automation isn't an attack, it's an observation. In pen and paper D&D these things are not a concern. They start to become a concern when automation is involved and limits the ability to change/modify things. My biggest concern with the whole UA thing and future methodologies is how DDB will incorporate that into the automation. If future sourcebooks move away from assigned points, but I want to keep them, will there be a "toggle" that allows me to turn that on or off.
I think you're being a bit idealistic here.
Just because you've had DMs who were cool with such changes and things, does not mean that all DMs are.
There is such a thing as Rules Lawyer DMs.
Heck, I've seen threads where DM's proudly state they wouldn't allow a player to say their Dwarf character is 6' tall, despite it having no impact whatsoever on the rules.
It is to the players advantage if the book basically says "Hey, customize your character a ton" so at least the players have the book on their side when making their case to the DM.
Regardless of online or in person playing.
Horseshit. It is absolutely buildable in the current system. It just takes a player going to their DM and saying they want to and for the DM to say okay. That’s all it takes with the current system.
And I know you’reabout to go off on some tirade about DMs that don’t allow that kind of thing and to that I say “Drop your shitty DM, hey someone better and stop whining about it.” I mean, srsly. If your DM is unwilling to swap around some cultural traits for your character then they suck sweaty balls and aren’t worth your time.
And I know you are likely also about to launch on some tirade about how the dwarf is locked in because of the Racial Ability Bonuses and that is also absolutely irrelevant. Those 3 point you get from being a Hill Dwarf are a pittance compared to the other 27 points from character creation are for. The +2 Con and +1 Wis only represent a little bit of genetic predisposition to be stout and observant. The other 27 points represent all of that personal predisposition towards Bardliness. Not getting a +2 to Cha instead of Con doesn’t make you a “worse” Bard, just a different one, one that’s a little better at Concentration and Perception checks.
And considering that 90% of a PC’s training happens after character creation.... Seriously, levels 1-5 are apprentices, levels 6-10 are journeymen, then masters from 11-15 and finally grand masters from 16-20. It seems like you just want to skip to 16th level and play to 20th. Then just do that.
It isn’t a “terrible horrible no-good very bad thing to aspire to,” you just refuse to see the possibilities of the current system because if it isn’t explicitly stated that something is permissible in the rules you flip out about the failure of the system. And if you can’t have 1337 stats and save the universe right away you get impatient. You really just want to skip to the Grand Master tier of PC development but for some reason think that should start sooner than 16th level. Dude, just skip to 16th level, you’ll probably be happier.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I totally see your point here, but my response to that is: Find another group. I am not being hard headed here, I am honestly wondering why you just don't find another group or DM. I mostly DM, but i've played with pick up groups, and walked away from the table when the DM or other players engaged in a way that I didn't find fun. I didn't rant, I didn't fight it, if they want to play a certain way and that's not how I want to play, I just go find another group or create my own. The only time I make a fuss is when people go offensive with stuff, and I think its inappropriate on a societal/social level. Then I do get up and make a scene, because that's not what this is about.
I tell players all the time: This is a game, if you're not having fun you have options, You are not forced to play Dungeons and Dragons, and you NEVER have to play with people that don't make the game fun for you as well.
It's not a great defense of a rule set to say, "Well then break the rules!" Also Yurei is not a dude.
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!
Well there's a bit of a catch-22 here.
You were saying Yureis issues where more just online, not in person.
If online is the issue, then Yureis solutions work for it.
If in-person is the issue, then the "find another group" is not possible for a lot of people.
Yeah, if you're in a medium/large city then you can probably hang out at the local game store (in non-pandemic times) and find another group in an hour or two.
If you're in a small town with a few thousand people at best, you're stuck with the like 4 other people in town who give a crap about D&D.
If one of them is a bit retentive and reductive, not even malicious, but just prone to being "but the book says this"-ish, then, yes, the book NOT saying that and giving more options again fixes this issue.
It doesn't have to be "just quit and find another group" even in the circumstances where that even is an option, it can be "Hey look, the rules say I can do this" would fix it, when the DM isn't being malicious just a bit retentive/reductive.