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.
I totally understand. I am from a small town in Montana where there were a total of six people playing Dungeons and Dragons, and there were some knock-out drag out fights.
Let me put this out though: Rule book comes out, allows this, and the DM still says no. There is absolutely nothing, no impetuous, for a bad DM to allow something that he or she doesn't like just because they don't like it. Having it in the rules doesn't solve the root issue: interpersonal disagreement and conflict over the way different players want to play the game. Having a modified ruleset doesn't fix that root issue.
I agree that if it is an online issue, then Yurei's concern is with the way the automation applies the printed rules and the difficulty in changing them. I am 100% ok with DDB having a "free range points" system. I think more options are always better than less. My concern comes back to the removal of race specific assignments. For my games, and again this is how I play (and i've had players go find other groups), if you can't come up with a GOOD RP reason to change your assigned points, then you have your assigned points. As a result of this i've had amazing players whose characters were not optimized, but still were amazing. And because of this some of my players went home, came back with a 15 page short story about their characters history, genology, difficult childhood traumas and daily diet to justify their request for a change in assigned points. This allowed me to have a great backstory on a player while letting that person build the character they want.
It's not a great defense of a rule set to say, "Well then break the rules!" Also Yurei is not a dude.
I call everyone dude, including my mother, wife, and female best friend. Okay dude?
And whenever folks on your side of this debate are response to folks on my side of this debate, a very common answers yous all give us is that if we don’t like these new rules we can simply ignore them. So... what? It’s good enough for us to have to break the rules, but you lot are too good for the same? Gee, double standard much?
@Aerchon: I know exactly why people take my posts negatively. I'm a hot-tempered, hot-blooded turbo***** who loves a big spicy meaty argument. Most of the time when a thread is on fire and driving fifty miles an hour doen the highway until the fuse hits zero? I'm having a grand old time. I also happen to be eloquent, good with words, and have been playing games of all sorts on various levels of competency for long enough to have a fairly keen sense for what makes a good game. I do not suffer weak challenges to my words, and a whole lot of folks who absolutely freaking hate me do so because they're not able to challenge my ideas strongly enough for me to care about their weak protests.
People react negatively to me because I'm enormously divisive and polarizing, I don't care not to be, and if someone doesn't hate me because of that, they enjoy watching me be Colorful. In your specific case? I'd love to devote a thousand words or two to informing you why you're wrong, but I'm not allowed to. Mezz, Naivarra, and several others have told me where to stick it, and after my own thread turned into a gloriously terrible tire fire I know I'm on thin ice.
That said? To keep it short because phone: why stop at species, if mechanical penalties for "biological traits" is okay? Why not impose a penalty based on gender, or height, or weight, or coloration? Why not impose penalties based on the nutrition level you received as a child? Why stop at the one physiological trait determining everything about your life?
If it's not okay to impose penalties based on any of those traits, why is it okay to impose a penalty based on who your daddy ****ed?
It's not a great defense of a rule set to say, "Well then break the rules!" Also Yurei is not a dude.
I call everyone dude, including my mother, wife, and female best friend. Okay dude?
And whenever folks on your side of this debate are response to folks on my side of this debate, a very common answers yous all give us is that if we don’t like these new rules we can simply ignore them. So... what? It’s good enough for us to have to break the rules, but you lot are too good for the same? Gee, double standard much?
The reason this isn't a double standard is because previously, my preferred ruling was not legal in 5e. Yours would now just be a subset of my system in D&D. The base would be that racial ability scores are floating, while your preferred version of races having hard-determined ASIs would be possible by you just going to each race and spending 2 seconds saying, "oh, half-orcs, they're strong and hardy. Check STR and check CON". That would be allowed through the RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
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.
I totally understand. I am from a small town in Montana where there were a total of six people playing Dungeons and Dragons, and there were some knock-out drag out fights.
Let me put this out though: Rule book comes out, allows this, and the DM still says no. There is absolutely nothing, no impetuous, for a bad DM to allow something that he or she doesn't like just because they don't like it. Having it in the rules doesn't solve the root issue: interpersonal disagreement and conflict over the way different players want to play the game. Having a modified ruleset doesn't fix that root issue.
I agree that if it is an online issue, then Yurei's concern is with the way the automation applies the printed rules and the difficulty in changing them. I am 100% ok with DDB having a "free range points" system. I think more options are always better than less. My concern comes back to the removal of race specific assignments. For my games, and again this is how I play (and i've had players go find other groups), if you can't come up with a GOOD RP reason to change your assigned points, then you have your assigned points. As a result of this i've had amazing players whose characters were not optimized, but still were amazing. And because of this some of my players went home, came back with a 15 page short story about their characters history, genology, difficult childhood traumas and daily diet to justify their request for a change in assigned points. This allowed me to have a great backstory on a player while letting that person build the character they want.
"Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good"
Will this solve bad DMs who just want to overrule player choice to run their table like a personal fiefdom where it's their way or the highway? Of course it won't. Nothing will solve that except a full on personality transplant for those DMs.
Would it solve the DM's who are just a bit pedantic and cling to rules a bit more than they should, and when the rules are changed to allow a thing will allow it? Yes it will.
That alone is reason enough to do it.
I think those inclined to do a 15 page backstory could equally be motivated by "Hey, take a day and give me a good backstory to justify why your character is like this." without having to do it to justify those attribute changes. I mean maybe that's my personal bias because I freaking love coming up with backstories and could likely have "ask me my characters backstory" for any character I've made that I'm invested enough in to play, regardless of rules/stats system
And I also think "My Orc was born weaker but had to make up for it with his intelligence" is a good enough start of a backstory to build on to justify a STR+2 being changed to INT (or WIS)+2.
I'll also note a couple more things.
I don't think the floating attributes have to always mesh up to a min-maxing thing. Depending upon rolls/build system or whatever, it's absolutely possible a player could go "I want to put this +2 in Charisma because I already have good STR and want to have more options for my character even if I won't be as good at talking as our Bard or Warlock"
Also, every society needs folks good with every stat. A traditional society of orcs still needs someone smart enough to figure out how to build the catapult, a traditional society of elves still needs at least a few folks capable of carrying heavy loads and digging ditches. While I love a long backstory as much as anyone else, I admit I couldn't ever see it as a necessary thing to justify an attribute change because, again, every society needs someone who doesn't fit that stereotypical mold of that society for some roles.
That said? To keep it short because phone: why stop at species, if mechanical penalties for "biological traits" is okay? Why not impose a penalty based on gender, or height, or weight, or coloration? Why not impose penalties based on the nutrition level you received as a child? Why stop at the one physiological trait determining everything about your life?
Horseshit.
Not getting a bonus ≠ getting a penalty
A bonus is “in addition to,” a penalty “takes away from.” If your PC’s Race/Species/Whatever gives you a +2 Con that doesn’t mean you got a -2 Cha. Stop conflating a lack of a bonus with an actual penalty. Or do you get just as pissy with your boss if you don’t get a bonus?
It's not a great defense of a rule set to say, "Well then break the rules!" Also Yurei is not a dude.
I call everyone dude, including my mother, wife, and female best friend. Okay dude?
And whenever folks on your side of this debate are response to folks on my side of this debate, a very common answers yous all give us is that if we don’t like these new rules we can simply ignore them. So... what? It’s good enough for us to have to break the rules, but you lot are too good for the same? Gee, double standard much?
The reason this isn't a double standard is because previously, my preferred ruling was not legal in 5e. Yours would now just be a subset of my system in D&D. The base would be that racial ability scores are floating, while your preferred version of races having hard-determined ASIs would be possible by you just going to each race and spending 2 seconds saying, "oh, half-orcs, they're strong and hardy. Check STR and check CON". That would be allowed through the RAW.
And before this it was even easier for you to say “put them wherever you want.” It was literally less work for you before to houserule than it is for me going forward.
As I continue to read this I think there are two separate factors.
1. The Unearthed Arcana (minus the upcoming shift in Assigned Points). Love or hate it, I don't think this matters much. For me the Dhampir is bleh, the Hexblood is brilliant and I am officially making every character I make a Returned NPC that my players accidently(?) killed off during their adventures. If this was all the UA put out I don't think there would be much discussion.
2. The upcoming changes to assigned points. I haven't read a single post that said: "I don't like that as an option, as long as it's only an option." I think a majority of opinions are that WoTC is making a purposeful approach to this to separate assigned ability points from race. I think the option to do that is fine, my bigger issue is that it isn't an option, its mandatory, and that takes...something...away from the game in my opinion. I don't know what that something is exactly; my comfortability, my enjoyment, my...etc, but it is taking something away. Just like those individuals who say they want to have free range points they can assign as they deem, I want assigned points to race, because it makes me happy. My happiness with D&D is no more or less valuable then any other players.
There is no difference between a bonus and a penalty except for where you set your baseline. Not getting a bonus when everyone else does is exactly the same thing as getting a penalty when no-one else does.
There is no difference between a bonus and a penalty except for where you set your baseline. Not getting a bonus when everyone else does is exactly the same thing as getting a penalty when no-one else does.
Well, if everyone at the table is dead set to min/Max their race/class choice and you don’t actually want to, then that’s the first sign you’re sitting at the wrong table.
It's not a great defense of a rule set to say, "Well then break the rules!" Also Yurei is not a dude.
I call everyone dude, including my mother, wife, and female best friend. Okay dude?
And whenever folks on your side of this debate are response to folks on my side of this debate, a very common answers yous all give us is that if we don’t like these new rules we can simply ignore them. So... what? It’s good enough for us to have to break the rules, but you lot are too good for the same? Gee, double standard much?
The reason this isn't a double standard is because previously, my preferred ruling was not legal in 5e. Yours would now just be a subset of my system in D&D. The base would be that racial ability scores are floating, while your preferred version of races having hard-determined ASIs would be possible by you just going to each race and spending 2 seconds saying, "oh, half-orcs, they're strong and hardy. Check STR and check CON". That would be allowed through the RAW.
And before this it was even easier for you to say “put them wherever you want.” It was literally less work for you before to houserule than it is for me going forward.
Not on D&D Beyond and other digital platforms.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
It's not a great defense of a rule set to say, "Well then break the rules!" Also Yurei is not a dude.
I call everyone dude, including my mother, wife, and female best friend. Okay dude?
And whenever folks on your side of this debate are response to folks on my side of this debate, a very common answers yous all give us is that if we don’t like these new rules we can simply ignore them. So... what? It’s good enough for us to have to break the rules, but you lot are too good for the same? Gee, double standard much?
I think the future of D&D is going to be closer to Tasha's than what was in the PHB for 5e. The latest UA clearly states as much. I would much rather try to push for a workable version through the use of the Surveys and Polls provided by WotC. Denial of the changes that are coming won't stop them. Ranting into the internet void won't stop them. Ranting and screaming at each other won't stop them. We can either accept that the game is changing and try to move forward or we can't accept it and get left behind as the rest of the world moves on without us.
I have stated before that I am unhappy with the changes as they are, but I also think this could be a great new direction for the game if the bugs are worked out.
It's not a great defense of a rule set to say, "Well then break the rules!" Also Yurei is not a dude.
I call everyone dude, including my mother, wife, and female best friend. Okay dude?
And whenever folks on your side of this debate are response to folks on my side of this debate, a very common answers yous all give us is that if we don’t like these new rules we can simply ignore them. So... what? It’s good enough for us to have to break the rules, but you lot are too good for the same? Gee, double standard much?
The reason this isn't a double standard is because previously, my preferred ruling was not legal in 5e. Yours would now just be a subset of my system in D&D. The base would be that racial ability scores are floating, while your preferred version of races having hard-determined ASIs would be possible by you just going to each race and spending 2 seconds saying, "oh, half-orcs, they're strong and hardy. Check STR and check CON". That would be allowed through the RAW.
And before this it was even easier for you to say “put them wherever you want.” It was literally less work for you before to houserule than it is for me going forward.
Not on D&D Beyond and other digital platforms.
When it comes to these conversations that is absolutely irrelevant. If your issue is with the platform then take it up with the people who run the platform. That has nothing to do with the game itself. To debate the relative merits/flaws you have to assume pencil and paper because that’s when you debate rules and divest them from 3rd party limitations that have absolutely nothing to do with the game, the writers, or the rules.
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.
I totally understand. I am from a small town in Montana where there were a total of six people playing Dungeons and Dragons, and there were some knock-out drag out fights.
Let me put this out though: Rule book comes out, allows this, and the DM still says no. There is absolutely nothing, no impetuous, for a bad DM to allow something that he or she doesn't like just because they don't like it. Having it in the rules doesn't solve the root issue: interpersonal disagreement and conflict over the way different players want to play the game. Having a modified ruleset doesn't fix that root issue.
I agree that if it is an online issue, then Yurei's concern is with the way the automation applies the printed rules and the difficulty in changing them. I am 100% ok with DDB having a "free range points" system. I think more options are always better than less. My concern comes back to the removal of race specific assignments. For my games, and again this is how I play (and i've had players go find other groups), if you can't come up with a GOOD RP reason to change your assigned points, then you have your assigned points. As a result of this i've had amazing players whose characters were not optimized, but still were amazing. And because of this some of my players went home, came back with a 15 page short story about their characters history, genology, difficult childhood traumas and daily diet to justify their request for a change in assigned points. This allowed me to have a great backstory on a player while letting that person build the character they want.
"Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good"
Will this solve bad DMs who just want to overrule player choice to run their table like a personal fiefdom where it's their way or the highway? Of course it won't. Nothing will solve that except a full on personality transplant for those DMs.
Would it solve the DM's who are just a bit pedantic and cling to rules a bit more than they should, and when the rules are changed to allow a thing will allow it? Yes it will.
That alone is reason enough to do it.
I think those inclined to do a 15 page backstory could equally be motivated by "Hey, take a day and give me a good backstory to justify why your character is like this." without having to do it to justify those attribute changes. I mean maybe that's my personal bias because I freaking love coming up with backstories and could likely have "ask me my characters backstory" for any character I've made that I'm invested enough in to play, regardless of rules/stats system
And I also think "My Orc was born weaker but had to make up for it with his intelligence" is a good enough start of a backstory to build on to justify a STR+2 being changed to INT (or WIS)+2.
I'll also note a couple more things.
I don't think the floating attributes have to always mesh up to a min-maxing thing. Depending upon rolls/build system or whatever, it's absolutely possible a player could go "I want to put this +2 in Charisma because I already have good STR and want to have more options for my character even if I won't be as good at talking as our Bard or Warlock"
Also, every society needs folks good with every stat. A traditional society of orcs still needs someone smart enough to figure out how to build the catapult, a traditional society of elves still needs at least a few folks capable of carrying heavy loads and digging ditches. While I love a long backstory as much as anyone else, I admit I couldn't ever see it as a necessary thing to justify an attribute change because, again, every society needs someone who doesn't fit that stereotypical mold of that society for some roles.
I tried responding to specific sections of this. As evidenced by my whopping 30 forum posts I don't chime in often.
1. I have to disagree with you about the DM issue. Rules don't solve DM issues; conversations do. Going a little bit deeper, and I get to because of you quote at the beginning, legislating every decision eliminates the free will of the group to determine their collective play style. If a rule is made for every situation, then people arn't playing D&D, they are playing a computer game. I truly truly believe that the issue here is that so many people have joined D&D in the last years, and the difficulty in having conversations with DM's and other players just hasn't been emphasized. If my players want to do something I don't want them to tell me the rules for why, I want them to justify it in the game. Again, since I can't make this over-emphasized, I am fine with floating assignment as an option, but I am NOT ok with removing the pre-assigned points.
2. I'm with you. I joined a pick up game at an LGS, and pulled out my characters backstory (with footnotes). The DM said: "don't care, are you a Tank, Ranged or Melee?" Not my type of game.
3. For my game, I want more than "because I want it." for changes. I want it to be rationalized and developed. For my players, ive found that is more motivating the de-motivating. I never say no right away, I always make them sell me on it.
4. Adventurers already exceed the societal norm. If you are doing the point buy method for Elves, the average Wood Elf is going to drop his 15 in Dex. And adventurer may drop his into STR...he is already exceptional.
Good Points though, I like your reasoning. I just don't see the value in REMOVING an option while adding one.
As I continue to read this I think there are two separate factors.
1. The Unearthed Arcana (minus the upcoming shift in Assigned Points). Love or hate it, I don't think this matters much. For me the Dhampir is bleh, the Hexblood is brilliant and I am officially making every character I make a Returned NPC that my players accidently(?) killed off during their adventures. If this was all the UA put out I don't think there would be much discussion.
2. The upcoming changes to assigned points. I haven't read a single post that said: "I don't like that as an option, as long as it's only an option." I think a majority of opinions are that WoTC is making a purposeful approach to this to separate assigned ability points from race. I think the option to do that is fine, my bigger issue is that it isn't an option, its mandatory, and that takes...something...away from the game in my opinion. I don't know what that something is exactly; my comfortability, my enjoyment, my...etc, but it is taking something away. Just like those individuals who say they want to have free range points they can assign as they deem, I want assigned points to race, because it makes me happy. My happiness with D&D is no more or less valuable then any other players.
To have a side-discussion:
I think both these I have to reply with this being part of the fun of D&D and discussing things. See me, I'm totally down for that Dhampir type, I've already worked up a few since it was added to the site. Then again I'm also someone who was huge into Vampire Hunter D when I saw it as a teen, and always loved Blade. Although I do figure if I play one I'll totally go against type "No, I'm not angsty and quiet, I've got freaking awesome vampire powers. The only time I'm being all dark is so I can use the trope to intimidate someone for info"
As the second point. There we can come to an agreement, neither one of us should be the arbiter of all things D&D. Our happiness no more or less important than that of other players. I will note, however, I do think these rules changes make it more likely that more people will be able to find ways to create the characters they want, which will make for more happy players overall.
Folks are free to disagree with that belief, and maybe it does take away something for you and some folks to accomplish that, and it does suck that anyone has to feel they're losing a part of a thing they love but, I'll use a different thing I'm passionate about, comic books as an example.
I was a HUGE fan of the original Young Justice comic book. I could not stand the Young Justice cartoon, the characters were all wrong in a multitude of ways, I watched a few eps before giving up. The YJ cartoon became the YJ everyone thinks of, but I'm honestly not mad at it, I'm glad that some form of that stuff I loved is making way more people than ever read the comic I loved happy. and ironically, that cartoons popularity lead to a semi-revival of the comic crew that I loved. What I loved may never be "THE" YJ people think of when they hear the name again, but it didn't stop existing, and I certainly didn't stop enjoying it, just because the new shiny cartoon that more people loved was out there.
It's not a great defense of a rule set to say, "Well then break the rules!" Also Yurei is not a dude.
I call everyone dude, including my mother, wife, and female best friend. Okay dude?
And whenever folks on your side of this debate are response to folks on my side of this debate, a very common answers yous all give us is that if we don’t like these new rules we can simply ignore them. So... what? It’s good enough for us to have to break the rules, but you lot are too good for the same? Gee, double standard much?
I think the future of D&D is going to be closer to Tasha's than what was in the PHB for 5e. The latest UA clearly states as much. I would much rather try to push for a workable version through the use of the Surveys and Polls provided by WotC. Denial of the changes that are coming won't stop them. Ranting into the internet void won't stop them. Ranting and screaming at each other won't stop them. We can either accept that the game is changing and try to move forward or we can't accept it and get left behind as the rest of the world moves on without us.
I have stated before that I am unhappy with the changes as they are, but I also think this could be a great new direction for the game if the bugs are worked out.
I would rather go back and play 2e again than this post Tasha’s bologna. This is getting into the realm of the game not really being D&D anymore, or being D&D in name only. If I wanted to play a system that worked like that then I could go play Savage Worlds or the Hero System. I play D&D because I want a race/class system and preparing spells and tracking alignment and all of those things it seems so many people hate. If that hate D&D so much, why the heck do they play it?
As I continue to read this I think there are two separate factors.
1. The Unearthed Arcana (minus the upcoming shift in Assigned Points). Love or hate it, I don't think this matters much. For me the Dhampir is bleh, the Hexblood is brilliant and I am officially making every character I make a Returned NPC that my players accidently(?) killed off during their adventures. If this was all the UA put out I don't think there would be much discussion.
2. The upcoming changes to assigned points. I haven't read a single post that said: "I don't like that as an option, as long as it's only an option." I think a majority of opinions are that WoTC is making a purposeful approach to this to separate assigned ability points from race. I think the option to do that is fine, my bigger issue is that it isn't an option, its mandatory, and that takes...something...away from the game in my opinion. I don't know what that something is exactly; my comfortability, my enjoyment, my...etc, but it is taking something away. Just like those individuals who say they want to have free range points they can assign as they deem, I want assigned points to race, because it makes me happy. My happiness with D&D is no more or less valuable then any other players.
To have a side-discussion:
I think both these I have to reply with this being part of the fun of D&D and discussing things. See me, I'm totally down for that Dhampir type, I've already worked up a few since it was added to the site. Then again I'm also someone who was huge into Vampire Hunter D when I saw it as a teen, and always loved Blade. Although I do figure if I play one I'll totally go against type "No, I'm not angsty and quiet, I've got freaking awesome vampire powers. The only time I'm being all dark is so I can use the trope to intimidate someone for info"
As the second point. There we can come to an agreement, neither one of us should be the arbiter of all things D&D. Our happiness no more or less important than that of other players. I will note, however, I do think these rules changes make it more likely that more people will be able to find ways to create the characters they want, which will make for more happy players overall.
Folks are free to disagree with that belief, and maybe it does take away something for you and some folks to accomplish that, and it does suck that anyone has to feel they're losing a part of a thing they love but, I'll use a different thing I'm passionate about, comic books as an example.
I was a HUGE fan of the original Young Justice comic book. I could not stand the Young Justice cartoon, the characters were all wrong in a multitude of ways, I watched a few eps before giving up. The YJ cartoon became the YJ everyone thinks of, but I'm honestly not mad at it, I'm glad that some form of that stuff I loved is making way more people than ever read the comic I loved happy. and ironically, that cartoons popularity lead to a semi-revival of the comic crew that I loved. What I loved may never be "THE" YJ people think of when they hear the name again, but it didn't stop existing, and I certainly didn't stop enjoying it, just because the new shiny cartoon that more people loved was out there.
As El Dorado taught us.
"Both. Both is good"
Vampire Hunter D is so freaking good. Whenever I wanted to play a dark brooding vampiry guy, that's what was in my head.
With your other point, let me ask this: I've said over and over I am ok with them making the floating points an option, as long as they retain the assigned points as an option as well. Do you feel the same?
I call everyone dude, including my mother, wife, and female best friend. Okay dude?
I have no right to tell you how to address anyone else in your life, but I would prefer not to be called dude because I don't like it. So no, it's not okay for you to call me that. As for Yurei's case I was just correcting what seemed to be a mistake, come to find it's not a mistake it's just an eccentricity of your speech.
And whenever folks on your side of this debate are response to folks on my side of this debate, a very common answers yous all give us is that if we don’t like these new rules we can simply ignore them. So... what? It’s good enough for us to have to break the rules, but you lot are too good for the same? Gee, double standard much?
I don't have a side in this. I have expressed my personal opinion of something, and if it happens to match up with other people's that's great, but it doesn't mean I also agree with anything else they've said, so I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth. This entire statement has completely no relevance to anything I've said.
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!
It's not a great defense of a rule set to say, "Well then break the rules!" Also Yurei is not a dude.
I call everyone dude, including my mother, wife, and female best friend. Okay dude?
And whenever folks on your side of this debate are response to folks on my side of this debate, a very common answers yous all give us is that if we don’t like these new rules we can simply ignore them. So... what? It’s good enough for us to have to break the rules, but you lot are too good for the same? Gee, double standard much?
I think the future of D&D is going to be closer to Tasha's than what was in the PHB for 5e. The latest UA clearly states as much. I would much rather try to push for a workable version through the use of the Surveys and Polls provided by WotC. Denial of the changes that are coming won't stop them. Ranting into the internet void won't stop them. Ranting and screaming at each other won't stop them. We can either accept that the game is changing and try to move forward or we can't accept it and get left behind as the rest of the world moves on without us.
I have stated before that I am unhappy with the changes as they are, but I also think this could be a great new direction for the game if the bugs are worked out.
I would rather go back and play 2e again than this post Tasha’s bologna. This is getting into the realm of the game not really being D&D anymore, or being S&D in name only. If I wanted to play a system that worked like that then I could go play Savage Worlds or the Hero System. I play D&D because I want a race/class system and preparing spells and tracking alignment and all of those things it seems so many people hate. If that hate D&D so much, why the heck do they play it?
Then I am sorry. It looks like WotC and D&D is going to leave you behind. It isn't really a matter of maybe or if anymore. These changes are going to be the new normal going forward. WotC said it, in writing, and proclaimed to to the world. Those that don't like it are going to have to make a choice. WotC has already made theirs. This not an attack, I am merely stating the facts as they currently stand.
@Aerchon: I know exactly why people take my posts negatively. I'm a hot-tempered, hot-blooded turbo***** who loves a big spicy meaty argument. Most of the time when a thread is on fire and driving fifty miles an hour doen the highway until the fuse hits zero? I'm having a grand old time. I also happen to be eloquent, good with words, and have been playing games of all sorts on various levels of competency for long enough to have a fairly keen sense for what makes a good game. I do not suffer weak challenges to my words, and a whole lot of folks who absolutely freaking hate me do so because they're not able to challenge my ideas strongly enough for me to care about their weak protests.
People react negatively to me because I'm enormously divisive and polarizing, I don't care not to be, and if someone doesn't hate me because of that, they enjoy watching me be Colorful. In your specific case? I'd love to devote a thousand words or two to informing you why you're wrong, but I'm not allowed to. Mezz, Naivarra, and several others have told me where to stick it, and after my own thread turned into a gloriously terrible tire fire I know I'm on thin ice.
That said? To keep it short because phone: why stop at species, if mechanical penalties for "biological traits" is okay? Why not impose a penalty based on gender, or height, or weight, or coloration? Why not impose penalties based on the nutrition level you received as a child? Why stop at the one physiological trait determining everything about your life?
If it's not okay to impose penalties based on any of those traits, why is it okay to impose a penalty based on who your daddy ****ed?
Hi Yurei.
I appreciate that you and I are on separate sides of this. Thanks for the response!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I totally understand. I am from a small town in Montana where there were a total of six people playing Dungeons and Dragons, and there were some knock-out drag out fights.
Let me put this out though: Rule book comes out, allows this, and the DM still says no. There is absolutely nothing, no impetuous, for a bad DM to allow something that he or she doesn't like just because they don't like it. Having it in the rules doesn't solve the root issue: interpersonal disagreement and conflict over the way different players want to play the game. Having a modified ruleset doesn't fix that root issue.
I agree that if it is an online issue, then Yurei's concern is with the way the automation applies the printed rules and the difficulty in changing them. I am 100% ok with DDB having a "free range points" system. I think more options are always better than less. My concern comes back to the removal of race specific assignments. For my games, and again this is how I play (and i've had players go find other groups), if you can't come up with a GOOD RP reason to change your assigned points, then you have your assigned points. As a result of this i've had amazing players whose characters were not optimized, but still were amazing. And because of this some of my players went home, came back with a 15 page short story about their characters history, genology, difficult childhood traumas and daily diet to justify their request for a change in assigned points. This allowed me to have a great backstory on a player while letting that person build the character they want.
I call everyone dude, including my mother, wife, and female best friend. Okay dude?
And whenever folks on your side of this debate are response to folks on my side of this debate, a very common answers yous all give us is that if we don’t like these new rules we can simply ignore them. So... what? It’s good enough for us to have to break the rules, but you lot are too good for the same? Gee, double standard much?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Posting from phone, pardon typos.
@Aerchon: I know exactly why people take my posts negatively. I'm a hot-tempered, hot-blooded turbo***** who loves a big spicy meaty argument. Most of the time when a thread is on fire and driving fifty miles an hour doen the highway until the fuse hits zero? I'm having a grand old time. I also happen to be eloquent, good with words, and have been playing games of all sorts on various levels of competency for long enough to have a fairly keen sense for what makes a good game. I do not suffer weak challenges to my words, and a whole lot of folks who absolutely freaking hate me do so because they're not able to challenge my ideas strongly enough for me to care about their weak protests.
People react negatively to me because I'm enormously divisive and polarizing, I don't care not to be, and if someone doesn't hate me because of that, they enjoy watching me be Colorful. In your specific case? I'd love to devote a thousand words or two to informing you why you're wrong, but I'm not allowed to. Mezz, Naivarra, and several others have told me where to stick it, and after my own thread turned into a gloriously terrible tire fire I know I'm on thin ice.
That said? To keep it short because phone: why stop at species, if mechanical penalties for "biological traits" is okay? Why not impose a penalty based on gender, or height, or weight, or coloration? Why not impose penalties based on the nutrition level you received as a child? Why stop at the one physiological trait determining everything about your life?
If it's not okay to impose penalties based on any of those traits, why is it okay to impose a penalty based on who your daddy ****ed?
Please do not contact or message me.
The reason this isn't a double standard is because previously, my preferred ruling was not legal in 5e. Yours would now just be a subset of my system in D&D. The base would be that racial ability scores are floating, while your preferred version of races having hard-determined ASIs would be possible by you just going to each race and spending 2 seconds saying, "oh, half-orcs, they're strong and hardy. Check STR and check CON". That would be allowed through the RAW.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
"Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good"
Will this solve bad DMs who just want to overrule player choice to run their table like a personal fiefdom where it's their way or the highway?
Of course it won't. Nothing will solve that except a full on personality transplant for those DMs.
Would it solve the DM's who are just a bit pedantic and cling to rules a bit more than they should, and when the rules are changed to allow a thing will allow it?
Yes it will.
That alone is reason enough to do it.
I think those inclined to do a 15 page backstory could equally be motivated by "Hey, take a day and give me a good backstory to justify why your character is like this." without having to do it to justify those attribute changes.
I mean maybe that's my personal bias because I freaking love coming up with backstories and could likely have "ask me my characters backstory" for any character I've made that I'm invested enough in to play, regardless of rules/stats system
And I also think "My Orc was born weaker but had to make up for it with his intelligence" is a good enough start of a backstory to build on to justify a STR+2 being changed to INT (or WIS)+2.
I'll also note a couple more things.
I don't think the floating attributes have to always mesh up to a min-maxing thing.
Depending upon rolls/build system or whatever, it's absolutely possible a player could go "I want to put this +2 in Charisma because I already have good STR and want to have more options for my character even if I won't be as good at talking as our Bard or Warlock"
Also, every society needs folks good with every stat.
A traditional society of orcs still needs someone smart enough to figure out how to build the catapult, a traditional society of elves still needs at least a few folks capable of carrying heavy loads and digging ditches.
While I love a long backstory as much as anyone else, I admit I couldn't ever see it as a necessary thing to justify an attribute change because, again, every society needs someone who doesn't fit that stereotypical mold of that society for some roles.
Horseshit.
Not getting a bonus ≠ getting a penalty
A bonus is “in addition to,” a penalty “takes away from.” If your PC’s Race/Species/Whatever gives you a +2 Con that doesn’t mean you got a -2 Cha. Stop conflating a lack of a bonus with an actual penalty. Or do you get just as pissy with your boss if you don’t get a bonus?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
And before this it was even easier for you to say “put them wherever you want.” It was literally less work for you before to houserule than it is for me going forward.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
As I continue to read this I think there are two separate factors.
1. The Unearthed Arcana (minus the upcoming shift in Assigned Points). Love or hate it, I don't think this matters much. For me the Dhampir is bleh, the Hexblood is brilliant and I am officially making every character I make a Returned NPC that my players accidently(?) killed off during their adventures. If this was all the UA put out I don't think there would be much discussion.
2. The upcoming changes to assigned points. I haven't read a single post that said: "I don't like that as an option, as long as it's only an option." I think a majority of opinions are that WoTC is making a purposeful approach to this to separate assigned ability points from race. I think the option to do that is fine, my bigger issue is that it isn't an option, its mandatory, and that takes...something...away from the game in my opinion. I don't know what that something is exactly; my comfortability, my enjoyment, my...etc, but it is taking something away. Just like those individuals who say they want to have free range points they can assign as they deem, I want assigned points to race, because it makes me happy. My happiness with D&D is no more or less valuable then any other players.
There is no difference between a bonus and a penalty except for where you set your baseline. Not getting a bonus when everyone else does is exactly the same thing as getting a penalty when no-one else does.
Well, if everyone at the table is dead set to min/Max their race/class choice and you don’t actually want to, then that’s the first sign you’re sitting at the wrong table.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Not on D&D Beyond and other digital platforms.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think the future of D&D is going to be closer to Tasha's than what was in the PHB for 5e. The latest UA clearly states as much. I would much rather try to push for a workable version through the use of the Surveys and Polls provided by WotC. Denial of the changes that are coming won't stop them. Ranting into the internet void won't stop them. Ranting and screaming at each other won't stop them. We can either accept that the game is changing and try to move forward or we can't accept it and get left behind as the rest of the world moves on without us.
I have stated before that I am unhappy with the changes as they are, but I also think this could be a great new direction for the game if the bugs are worked out.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
When it comes to these conversations that is absolutely irrelevant. If your issue is with the platform then take it up with the people who run the platform. That has nothing to do with the game itself. To debate the relative merits/flaws you have to assume pencil and paper because that’s when you debate rules and divest them from 3rd party limitations that have absolutely nothing to do with the game, the writers, or the rules.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I tried responding to specific sections of this. As evidenced by my whopping 30 forum posts I don't chime in often.
1. I have to disagree with you about the DM issue. Rules don't solve DM issues; conversations do. Going a little bit deeper, and I get to because of you quote at the beginning, legislating every decision eliminates the free will of the group to determine their collective play style. If a rule is made for every situation, then people arn't playing D&D, they are playing a computer game. I truly truly believe that the issue here is that so many people have joined D&D in the last years, and the difficulty in having conversations with DM's and other players just hasn't been emphasized. If my players want to do something I don't want them to tell me the rules for why, I want them to justify it in the game. Again, since I can't make this over-emphasized, I am fine with floating assignment as an option, but I am NOT ok with removing the pre-assigned points.
2. I'm with you. I joined a pick up game at an LGS, and pulled out my characters backstory (with footnotes). The DM said: "don't care, are you a Tank, Ranged or Melee?" Not my type of game.
3. For my game, I want more than "because I want it." for changes. I want it to be rationalized and developed. For my players, ive found that is more motivating the de-motivating. I never say no right away, I always make them sell me on it.
4. Adventurers already exceed the societal norm. If you are doing the point buy method for Elves, the average Wood Elf is going to drop his 15 in Dex. And adventurer may drop his into STR...he is already exceptional.
Good Points though, I like your reasoning. I just don't see the value in REMOVING an option while adding one.
To have a side-discussion:
I think both these I have to reply with this being part of the fun of D&D and discussing things.
See me, I'm totally down for that Dhampir type, I've already worked up a few since it was added to the site.
Then again I'm also someone who was huge into Vampire Hunter D when I saw it as a teen, and always loved Blade.
Although I do figure if I play one I'll totally go against type "No, I'm not angsty and quiet, I've got freaking awesome vampire powers. The only time I'm being all dark is so I can use the trope to intimidate someone for info"
As the second point.
There we can come to an agreement, neither one of us should be the arbiter of all things D&D. Our happiness no more or less important than that of other players.
I will note, however, I do think these rules changes make it more likely that more people will be able to find ways to create the characters they want, which will make for more happy players overall.
Folks are free to disagree with that belief, and maybe it does take away something for you and some folks to accomplish that, and it does suck that anyone has to feel they're losing a part of a thing they love but, I'll use a different thing I'm passionate about, comic books as an example.
I was a HUGE fan of the original Young Justice comic book.
I could not stand the Young Justice cartoon, the characters were all wrong in a multitude of ways, I watched a few eps before giving up.
The YJ cartoon became the YJ everyone thinks of, but I'm honestly not mad at it, I'm glad that some form of that stuff I loved is making way more people than ever read the comic I loved happy.
and ironically, that cartoons popularity lead to a semi-revival of the comic crew that I loved.
What I loved may never be "THE" YJ people think of when they hear the name again, but it didn't stop existing, and I certainly didn't stop enjoying it, just because the new shiny cartoon that more people loved was out there.
As El Dorado taught us.
"Both. Both is good"
I would rather go back and play 2e again than this post Tasha’s bologna. This is getting into the realm of the game not really being D&D anymore, or being D&D in name only. If I wanted to play a system that worked like that then I could go play Savage Worlds or the Hero System. I play D&D because I want a race/class system and preparing spells and tracking alignment and all of those things it seems so many people hate. If that hate D&D so much, why the heck do they play it?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Vampire Hunter D is so freaking good. Whenever I wanted to play a dark brooding vampiry guy, that's what was in my head.
With your other point, let me ask this: I've said over and over I am ok with them making the floating points an option, as long as they retain the assigned points as an option as well. Do you feel the same?
I have no right to tell you how to address anyone else in your life, but I would prefer not to be called dude because I don't like it. So no, it's not okay for you to call me that. As for Yurei's case I was just correcting what seemed to be a mistake, come to find it's not a mistake it's just an eccentricity of your speech.
I don't have a side in this. I have expressed my personal opinion of something, and if it happens to match up with other people's that's great, but it doesn't mean I also agree with anything else they've said, so I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth. This entire statement has completely no relevance to anything I've said.
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!
Then I am sorry. It looks like WotC and D&D is going to leave you behind. It isn't really a matter of maybe or if anymore. These changes are going to be the new normal going forward. WotC said it, in writing, and proclaimed to to the world. Those that don't like it are going to have to make a choice. WotC has already made theirs. This not an attack, I am merely stating the facts as they currently stand.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Hi Yurei.
I appreciate that you and I are on separate sides of this. Thanks for the response!