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.
Ok I did another reply to another post of yours so I'll try to keep my long winded self in check to do a short reply here.
I think we can agree there should definitely be more emphasis from all corners of D&D (and RPGs in general...and arguably just society in general) to try to talk things out and make the table a community thing. Though I'd also argue threads like this, and the 20something one earlier, can prove that, well, not everybody listens no matter how much everyone talks.
The thing I'd argue most is, I don't think you need there to be a rule that says "Orcs have +2 Str bonus" to achieve the same effect you're desiring.
Heck, I'd argue you can do it regardless of any stats discussions. "Hey, I want to have a good idea of your character and their history, give me at least 1 page backstory on who they are and how they got to this point in their life". You can do that for every player, and if they're wanting to play a charming bard Orc, odds are that backstory will give the information of why they should have the +2 to CHA instead of STR without ever having had to say "Justify the CHA bonus instead of the STR bonus"
Ok that's under 6 paragraphs so I'm gonna stop there. Wait, how many paragraphs is this. Well stopping here anyway ;)
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?
To quote myself from the other thread:
FWIW, many people play D&D because it's the popular tabletop. I'm not sure of the numbers, but possibly something like 90% of the TTRPG market (and that's just 5e). And D&D has dndbeyond, with all the books and material coded right in. It handles most of the math, etc. That's better support than any other TTRPG has ever had. You want to take advantage of that, you play D&D 5e. A significant chunk of players play "D&D or bust" because anything else requires too much work, or they can't find players, or they can't find GMs, or no one is publishing adventures...
So it's not that surprising that people who have issues with the game want to change it --- or, more appropriately, celebrate when the game gets new officially supported options that fit their preferences.
WOTC wants more customers, including more young customers, so of course they're trying to be more inclusive.
I've gotten to the point where I'm wondering if the issue is with the forced perception of what a race "should be" and how players want to play them.
It feels like the conversation has transitioned from mechanical implementation and into a debate of nature v nurture and how that effects an individual as well as if knowledge can be passed via genetics (both things are heavily debated by people much more qualified than a TTRPG forum). I think it is important to remember that the races as they are currently are bound to specific world settings so much so that we now have 3 of the exact same orc as 3 different races between 3 books. It makes sense to me that even if a dwarf isn't raised in a 'traditional Faerunian dwarven environment' they would still have a natural knowledge of stonework allowing for Stonecunning. Again, that is world specific. If in my world dwarves are diplomatic traders that live in the desert then its a different story but it would be nearly impossible for WOTC to account for all possible player concepts for ever and have locked themselves into the current system.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't or cant be a change to the system but it seems short sighted on the side of WOTC to never create a 'old school' race again until they do a change to the system that rather drastically changes the standard character creation process and is considered to be an optional rule. That is really what gets me, a total design philosophy change for an optional rule. As far as I see it, until it is no longer an optional rule they have to account for the players that don't want to use that rule for character creation when they make new races otherwise they create a huge inconsistency. It's not like they can easily design for both, by just making the race literally say in it that you can assign the respective things with a set list of options that just so happens to be basically however you want.
Perhaps I'm thinking about it on a purely mechanical and game design level and not on a greater philosophical level about player creatively and agency.
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'm not terribly opposed, but I admit I don't think it's necessary for D&D pure as a thing. I wouldn't at all be opposed to say, specific setting rules, both in an official sense and in DMs setting their own.
For example if I were writing a book, and I wanted to go with the more traditional orc (as in strong, not as in minus attributes) I'd go something like. "Most associate traditional Orc society with a high emphasis on the values of strength and toughness." It gives the hint that most orcs would go something like +2 STR, +1 CON (or possibly vice versa) without needing it to be a "rule" that applies to Orcs by default.
It'd still give any DM like yourself who wants a justification for different stats a thing to point to and go "Hey, most Orcs value strength and toughness, why did yours value being able to talk to others (cha)?"
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.
Ok I did another reply to another post of yours so I'll try to keep my long winded self in check to do a short reply here.
I think we can agree there should definitely be more emphasis from all corners of D&D (and RPGs in general...and arguably just society in general) to try to talk things out and make the table a community thing. Though I'd also argue threads like this, and the 20something one earlier, can prove that, well, not everybody listens no matter how much everyone talks.
The thing I'd argue most is, I don't think you need there to be a rule that says "Orcs have +2 Str bonus" to achieve the same effect you're desiring.
Heck, I'd argue you can do it regardless of any stats discussions. "Hey, I want to have a good idea of your character and their history, give me at least 1 page backstory on who they are and how they got to this point in their life". You can do that for every player, and if they're wanting to play a charming bard Orc, odds are that backstory will give the information of why they should have the +2 to CHA instead of STR without ever having had to say "Justify the CHA bonus instead of the STR bonus"
Ok that's under 6 paragraphs so I'm gonna stop there. Wait, how many paragraphs is this. Well stopping here anyway ;)
I think D&D is an amazing tool for people to grow, and I am/was so excited about the growing popularity of it. The problem is *SIDE NOTE* that that growing popularity came with the rise of Social Media, which has some significant factors associated with it. But for me, the more people talk (face to face) the better everyone is.
I absolutely agree with you that there doesn't need to be a rule about Orcs strength, but then we get into tradition, and comfortability, and so on. Like my original post, if D&D 6E makes this change, as a whole, I actually support it. I am struggling right now because it's halfway (?) through it's lifecycle, and I think the reason for the change is not coming from the right place for the game. So, I am a fan of options, give the option for the floating points or assigned points, and allow the DM to navigate those bumper walls left and right. DM's need guidance too.
I think you and I have a bias though, being backstory creators. Many new players that join my group tend to struggle with the RP side of the house. The rules/boardgame aspect they are much more comfortable with. By having a reason for them to justify their request, it gets their juices flowing. I've had the ask for floating points often in 5e, and especially for new players, I use that ask as a teaching/development tool, rather than a simple "sure". Again though, thats my game, and some people really prefer the mechanics side of the house over the RP side of the house.
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.
When the problem is caused by the contract between WotC and D&D Beyond, which specifies that they must code the books and their features exactly as printed, that is relevant to the discussion. If they were contractually obligated to not do my preferred playstyle, that is relevant to the discussion, because I literally could not do that in my campaigns unless I decided to remake every single race my players were playing with just a few small changes. (Which is even harder when I don't own the vast majority of the races on this site.)
Your playstyle was and still is officially supported by both WotC and D&D Beyond, but mine wasn't until just about 3 months ago.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
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.
When the problem is caused by the contract between WotC and D&D Beyond, which specifies that they must code the books and their features exactly as printed, that is relevant to the discussion. If they were contractually obligated to not do my preferred playstyle, that is relevant to the discussion, because I literally could not do that in my campaigns unless I decided to remake every single race my players were playing with just a few small changes. (Which is even harder when I don't own the vast majority of the races on this site.)
Your playstyle was and still is officially supported by both WotC and D&D Beyond, but mine wasn't until just about 3 months ago.
I mean, coding them exactly as printed except for "Supernatural Gifts", specifically (Blessing of the Morninglord. You gain 10 temporary hit points each day at dawn).
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.
Well, I had boycotted all WotC products from the announcement of 4e until about 2 years ago. I’ll do it again. I don’t need to keep up with the newer stuff. Like the man said, “No D&D is better then bad D&D.” And in my opinion Tasha’s Cauldron was the worst thing to ever happen to D&D. And that includes all of 4e.
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.
When the problem is caused by the contract between WotC and D&D Beyond, which specifies that they must code the books and their features exactly as printed, that is relevant to the discussion. If they were contractually obligated to not do my preferred playstyle, that is relevant to the discussion, because I literally could not do that in my campaigns unless I decided to remake every single race my players were playing with just a few small changes. (Which is even harder when I don't own the vast majority of the races on this site.)
Your playstyle was and still is officially supported by both WotC and D&D Beyond, but mine wasn't until just about 3 months ago.
Well, if DDB’s service is so ill suited to your needs as a consumer, then don’t use their completely unnecessary service. It still has no bearing on the actual RAW of D&D. And again, who needs “offially supported” anything?!? When did you join AL?!?
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?
To quote myself from the other thread:
FWIW, many people play D&D because it's the popular tabletop. I'm not sure of the numbers, but possibly something like 90% of the TTRPG market (and that's just 5e). And D&D has dndbeyond, with all the books and material coded right in. It handles most of the math, etc. That's better support than any other TTRPG has ever had. You want to take advantage of that, you play D&D 5e. A significant chunk of players play "D&D or bust" because anything else requires too much work, or they can't find players, or they can't find GMs, or no one is publishing adventures...
So it's not that surprising that people who have issues with the game want to change it --- or, more appropriately, celebrate when the game gets new officially supported options that fit their preferences.
WOTC wants more customers, including more young customers, so of course they're trying to be more inclusive.
Well, if DDB’s service is so ill suited to your needs as a consumer, then don’t use their completely unnecessary service. It still has no bearing on the actual RAW of D&D. And again, who needs “offially supported” anything?!? When did you join AL?!?
It's the only real option for me. I can't do in-person D&D (because of the pandemic) and I can't do it over Zoom or Roll20/Fantasy Grounds, because my players don't have the devices/space/time to use those. This is the next best thing. I need "official support" for the one place I can actually do D&D in order to have it working in the character builder.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Well, if DDB’s service is so ill suited to your needs as a consumer, then don’t use their completely unnecessary service. It still has no bearing on the actual RAW of D&D. And again, who needs “offially supported” anything?!? When did you join AL?!?
It's the only real option for me. I can't do in-person D&D (because of the pandemic) and I can't do it over Zoom or Roll20/Fantasy Grounds, because my players don't have the devices/space/time to use those. This is the next best thing. I need "official support" for the one place I can actually do D&D in order to have it working in the character builder.
So your response is that they need to change the rules so you can do what you want. The world needs to change to suit your needs. How remarkable egalitarian of you. I can’t tell you how many BBEs I have written over the decades that though the exact same way.
Yurei, I apologize for making you feel like you couldn't make a response. My intention was to comment on the general direction these sorts of threads tend to take, especially after yours unfortunately became flooded with absolute garbage. If ever I make you feel like you're not allowed to respond to something, that is not my intention and you are allowed to call me out on that. The same goes for any other member of the Forum Loudmouth Club. You are all my friends.
I will also add that I don't understand how, when certain individuals who shall remain unnamed flooded your thread with blatant harassment, flat-out racism, and astoundingly insulting discourse, why that shit is still sticking around. I've reported it, but so far the people who pulled that shit don't seem to have any action taken against them, and the posts they made pulling that shit are still up. I just...I don't understand it.
EDIT: Also, oof. DDB's quote system strikes again...
Well, if DDB’s service is so ill suited to your needs as a consumer, then don’t use their completely unnecessary service. It still has no bearing on the actual RAW of D&D. And again, who needs “offially supported” anything?!? When did you join AL?!?
It's the only real option for me. I can't do in-person D&D (because of the pandemic) and I can't do it over Zoom or Roll20/Fantasy Grounds, because my players don't have the devices/space/time to use those. This is the next best thing. I need "official support" for the one place I can actually do D&D in order to have it working in the character builder.
So your response is that they need to change the rules so you can do what you want. The world needs to change to suit your needs. How remarkable egalitarian of you.
I never asked WotC to make this the base and stop doing the old way. It doesn't hurt me if they make my preferred way the base, and it's a mild annoyance to the people who want to return to the old way. You just have to tell your players "hey, when making your character on this site, do this instead of choosing any".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I never asked WotC to make this the base and stop doing the old way. It doesn't hurt me if they make my preferred way the base, and it's a mild annoyance to the people who want to return to the old way. You just have to tell your players "hey, when making your character on this site, do this instead of choosing any".
I know that, actually I just tell them to not toggle the lineage switch and I will likely not be giving WotC any more of my money so I won’t have to worry about the future crapola they try to pan on me. (Snap, if it can be built on DDB I can build it so I’ll do it all however I want and to heck with them.) What I am really trying to do is sway enough opinion that D&D stays D&D as long as possible because if they move too much further the direction it’s going it won’t be anymore. It’ll be INO like 4e was and look how well that turned out. This all very much reminds me of when 3e became 3.5 and then before the ink was dry they announced 4e and the world bailed on D&D until 5th edition. If they didn’t learn their lesson from that debacle then forget them. I have enough 5e I don’t need to buy the new stuff. I have pretty much every sourcebook for 3/3.5 and almost all of them for 2e. I don’t need “the future of D&D” personally. And I don’t have kids and likely never will so I don’t have to worry about the D&D they inherit. And the world is trying to purge itself of the viral infection that is humanity it seems so wtf. Whatever I don’t spend on D&D can go to liquor, ammo, and non-irradiated water for the apocalypse. (Good thing I have a bottle cap collection. 😂😂)
Yurei, I apologize for making you feel like you couldn't make a response. My intention was to comment on the general direction these sorts of threads tend to take, especially after yours unfortunately became flooded with absolute garbage. If ever I make you feel like you're not allowed to respond to something, that is not my intention and you are allowed to call me out on that. The same goes for any other member of the Forum Loudmouth Club. You are all my friends.
I will also add that I don't understand why general loudmouthery (such as yours and the other Forum Loudmouths) gets people in trouble, yet when individuals who shall remain unnamed flood your thread with blatant harassment, flat-out racism, and astoundingly insulting discourse, nothing seems to happen. I've reported it, but so far the people who pulled that shit don't seem to have any action taken against them or the posts they made pulling that shit. I just...I don't understand it.
EDIT: Also, oof. DDB's quote system strikes again...
You're my friend to. Discussing the moderator action taken upon the loudmouth club in threads is against site rules, so we should probably move that topic to PMs if we want the discussion to continue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think D&D is an amazing tool for people to grow, and I am/was so excited about the growing popularity of it. The problem is *SIDE NOTE* that that growing popularity came with the rise of Social Media, which has some significant factors associated with it. But for me, the more people talk (face to face) the better everyone is.
I absolutely agree with you that there doesn't need to be a rule about Orcs strength, but then we get into tradition, and comfortability, and so on. Like my original post, if D&D 6E makes this change, as a whole, I actually support it. I am struggling right now because it's halfway (?) through it's lifecycle, and I think the reason for the change is not coming from the right place for the game. So, I am a fan of options, give the option for the floating points or assigned points, and allow the DM to navigate those bumper walls left and right. DM's need guidance too.
I think you and I have a bias though, being backstory creators. Many new players that join my group tend to struggle with the RP side of the house. The rules/boardgame aspect they are much more comfortable with. By having a reason for them to justify their request, it gets their juices flowing. I've had the ask for floating points often in 5e, and especially for new players, I use that ask as a teaching/development tool, rather than a simple "sure". Again though, thats my game, and some people really prefer the mechanics side of the house over the RP side of the house.
Cutting back the wall of text of old replies some.
I think like you said, some of it is about tradition. I've always been, in many aspects of life, an anti-traditionalist. To me, tradition isn't a reason to keep or do anything, all traditions should be examined and if not the best way to do a thing, pretty much thrown out. Admittedly being raised in a family that definitely broke from tradition in a few ways probably adds to that.
That being said, I do think our convo does prove folks can actually talk about these things in a civil manner, which provides a nice contrast to the "I"ve literally written villains in my games with your motivation" level talk some folks are having.
I will still say, I think you can still have that character development tool of "why is your character like this" without the stats block going "+ to X". I'd honestly recommend every player give a little backstory on their character for why they're that way anyway, even if they're going with the 'traditional' stats. Even the most basic "My orc is strong because he wanted to be in front in battles and needed strength to crush his enemies" still gives such a better idea to the character than "Yeah you've got +2 to STR because you're an orc"
Ok I did another reply to another post of yours so I'll try to keep my long winded self in check to do a short reply here.
I think we can agree there should definitely be more emphasis from all corners of D&D (and RPGs in general...and arguably just society in general) to try to talk things out and make the table a community thing.
Though I'd also argue threads like this, and the 20something one earlier, can prove that, well, not everybody listens no matter how much everyone talks.
The thing I'd argue most is, I don't think you need there to be a rule that says "Orcs have +2 Str bonus" to achieve the same effect you're desiring.
Heck, I'd argue you can do it regardless of any stats discussions. "Hey, I want to have a good idea of your character and their history, give me at least 1 page backstory on who they are and how they got to this point in their life".
You can do that for every player, and if they're wanting to play a charming bard Orc, odds are that backstory will give the information of why they should have the +2 to CHA instead of STR without ever having had to say "Justify the CHA bonus instead of the STR bonus"
Ok that's under 6 paragraphs so I'm gonna stop there.
Wait, how many paragraphs is this.
Well stopping here anyway ;)
To quote myself from the other thread:
WOTC wants more customers, including more young customers, so of course they're trying to be more inclusive.
I've gotten to the point where I'm wondering if the issue is with the forced perception of what a race "should be" and how players want to play them.
It feels like the conversation has transitioned from mechanical implementation and into a debate of nature v nurture and how that effects an individual as well as if knowledge can be passed via genetics (both things are heavily debated by people much more qualified than a TTRPG forum). I think it is important to remember that the races as they are currently are bound to specific world settings so much so that we now have 3 of the exact same orc as 3 different races between 3 books. It makes sense to me that even if a dwarf isn't raised in a 'traditional Faerunian dwarven environment' they would still have a natural knowledge of stonework allowing for Stonecunning. Again, that is world specific. If in my world dwarves are diplomatic traders that live in the desert then its a different story but it would be nearly impossible for WOTC to account for all possible player concepts for ever and have locked themselves into the current system.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't or cant be a change to the system but it seems short sighted on the side of WOTC to never create a 'old school' race again until they do a change to the system that rather drastically changes the standard character creation process and is considered to be an optional rule. That is really what gets me, a total design philosophy change for an optional rule. As far as I see it, until it is no longer an optional rule they have to account for the players that don't want to use that rule for character creation when they make new races otherwise they create a huge inconsistency. It's not like they can easily design for both, by just making the race literally say in it that you can assign the respective things with a set list of options that just so happens to be basically however you want.
Perhaps I'm thinking about it on a purely mechanical and game design level and not on a greater philosophical level about player creatively and agency.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
I'm not terribly opposed, but I admit I don't think it's necessary for D&D pure as a thing.
I wouldn't at all be opposed to say, specific setting rules, both in an official sense and in DMs setting their own.
For example if I were writing a book, and I wanted to go with the more traditional orc (as in strong, not as in minus attributes) I'd go something like.
"Most associate traditional Orc society with a high emphasis on the values of strength and toughness." It gives the hint that most orcs would go something like +2 STR, +1 CON (or possibly vice versa) without needing it to be a "rule" that applies to Orcs by default.
It'd still give any DM like yourself who wants a justification for different stats a thing to point to and go "Hey, most Orcs value strength and toughness, why did yours value being able to talk to others (cha)?"
I think D&D is an amazing tool for people to grow, and I am/was so excited about the growing popularity of it. The problem is *SIDE NOTE* that that growing popularity came with the rise of Social Media, which has some significant factors associated with it. But for me, the more people talk (face to face) the better everyone is.
I absolutely agree with you that there doesn't need to be a rule about Orcs strength, but then we get into tradition, and comfortability, and so on. Like my original post, if D&D 6E makes this change, as a whole, I actually support it. I am struggling right now because it's halfway (?) through it's lifecycle, and I think the reason for the change is not coming from the right place for the game. So, I am a fan of options, give the option for the floating points or assigned points, and allow the DM to navigate those bumper walls left and right. DM's need guidance too.
I think you and I have a bias though, being backstory creators. Many new players that join my group tend to struggle with the RP side of the house. The rules/boardgame aspect they are much more comfortable with. By having a reason for them to justify their request, it gets their juices flowing. I've had the ask for floating points often in 5e, and especially for new players, I use that ask as a teaching/development tool, rather than a simple "sure". Again though, thats my game, and some people really prefer the mechanics side of the house over the RP side of the house.
When the problem is caused by the contract between WotC and D&D Beyond, which specifies that they must code the books and their features exactly as printed, that is relevant to the discussion. If they were contractually obligated to not do my preferred playstyle, that is relevant to the discussion, because I literally could not do that in my campaigns unless I decided to remake every single race my players were playing with just a few small changes. (Which is even harder when I don't own the vast majority of the races on this site.)
Your playstyle was and still is officially supported by both WotC and D&D Beyond, but mine wasn't until just about 3 months ago.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I mean, coding them exactly as printed except for "Supernatural Gifts", specifically (Blessing of the Morninglord. You gain 10 temporary hit points each day at dawn).
Too soon?
Well, I had boycotted all WotC products from the announcement of 4e until about 2 years ago. I’ll do it again. I don’t need to keep up with the newer stuff. Like the man said, “No D&D is better then bad D&D.” And in my opinion Tasha’s Cauldron was the worst thing to ever happen to D&D. And that includes all of 4e.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well, if DDB’s service is so ill suited to your needs as a consumer, then don’t use their completely unnecessary service. It still has no bearing on the actual RAW of D&D. And again, who needs “offially supported” anything?!? When did you join AL?!?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
And what it is leading to is a **** of the brand.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's the only real option for me. I can't do in-person D&D (because of the pandemic) and I can't do it over Zoom or Roll20/Fantasy Grounds, because my players don't have the devices/space/time to use those. This is the next best thing. I need "official support" for the one place I can actually do D&D in order to have it working in the character builder.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
So your response is that they need to change the rules so you can do what you want. The world needs to change to suit your needs. How remarkable egalitarian of you. I can’t tell you how many BBEs I have written over the decades that though the exact same way.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Just quickly,
Yurei, I apologize for making you feel like you couldn't make a response. My intention was to comment on the general direction these sorts of threads tend to take, especially after yours unfortunately became flooded with absolute garbage. If ever I make you feel like you're not allowed to respond to something, that is not my intention and you are allowed to call me out on that. The same goes for any other member of the Forum Loudmouth Club. You are all my friends.
I will also add that I don't understand how, when certain individuals who shall remain unnamed flooded your thread with blatant harassment, flat-out racism, and astoundingly insulting discourse, why that shit is still sticking around. I've reported it, but so far the people who pulled that shit don't seem to have any action taken against them, and the posts they made pulling that shit are still up. I just...I don't understand it.
EDIT: Also, oof. DDB's quote system strikes again...
I never asked WotC to make this the base and stop doing the old way. It doesn't hurt me if they make my preferred way the base, and it's a mild annoyance to the people who want to return to the old way. You just have to tell your players "hey, when making your character on this site, do this instead of choosing any".
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I know that, actually I just tell them to not toggle the lineage switch and I will likely not be giving WotC any more of my money so I won’t have to worry about the future crapola they try to pan on me. (Snap, if it can be built on DDB I can build it so I’ll do it all however I want and to heck with them.) What I am really trying to do is sway enough opinion that D&D stays D&D as long as possible because if they move too much further the direction it’s going it won’t be anymore. It’ll be INO like 4e was and look how well that turned out. This all very much reminds me of when 3e became 3.5 and then before the ink was dry they announced 4e and the world bailed on D&D until 5th edition. If they didn’t learn their lesson from that debacle then forget them. I have enough 5e I don’t need to buy the new stuff. I have pretty much every sourcebook for 3/3.5 and almost all of them for 2e. I don’t need “the future of D&D” personally. And I don’t have kids and likely never will so I don’t have to worry about the D&D they inherit. And the world is trying to purge itself of the viral infection that is humanity it seems so wtf. Whatever I don’t spend on D&D can go to liquor, ammo, and non-irradiated water for the apocalypse. (Good thing I have a bottle cap collection. 😂😂)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
And you are my friend too. (I’ll not presume to speak for the others.)
(OMG doesn’t it always!)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My apologies, I’ll not refer to you as “dude” again in future. No offense intended.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You're my friend to. Discussing the moderator action taken upon the loudmouth club in threads is against site rules, so we should probably move that topic to PMs if we want the discussion to continue.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Cutting back the wall of text of old replies some.
I think like you said, some of it is about tradition.
I've always been, in many aspects of life, an anti-traditionalist. To me, tradition isn't a reason to keep or do anything, all traditions should be examined and if not the best way to do a thing, pretty much thrown out.
Admittedly being raised in a family that definitely broke from tradition in a few ways probably adds to that.
That being said, I do think our convo does prove folks can actually talk about these things in a civil manner, which provides a nice contrast to the "I"ve literally written villains in my games with your motivation" level talk some folks are having.
I will still say, I think you can still have that character development tool of "why is your character like this" without the stats block going "+ to X".
I'd honestly recommend every player give a little backstory on their character for why they're that way anyway, even if they're going with the 'traditional' stats.
Even the most basic "My orc is strong because he wanted to be in front in battles and needed strength to crush his enemies" still gives such a better idea to the character than "Yeah you've got +2 to STR because you're an orc"
... this is you trying to sway people's opinions?
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!