I’m not sure how to take that. Part of me wants to be offended, but the rest of me is willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren’t insulting me and that I may have just taken it the wrong way.
I'm for sure not trying to insult you, but nothing you had said in the thread before my comment seemed to be about swaying anyone. At least not to me. Is it insulting to say that I think you failed to do what you thought you were doing? I'm no longer contributing anything on topic to this thread so I'm probably going to stop responding.
Considering the poll at the top of the thread, I’d say at least a few people were persuaded.
Unfortunately, 78 people from a little used Forum is not really a quality measure of what the community as a whole thinks or why.
I voted yes because I like consistency of rules and think making a permanent change in the middle of an edition is a bad idea, but I do want changes like these and acknowledge that they are happening.
Considering that the folks in this thread are the ones reading these posts, those are the ones who might have been swayed by my arguments.
Look, to me this is very much dependent on what the question actually means.
If it is "Should WotC keep the races currently available which use the 'old system' in future?", the answer is most definitely "Yes". It would make no sense to remove existing content, and would pretty much constitute a new edition to me.
If, instead, it's supposed to be "Should WotC print all future content in line with the 'old system'?", I feel it makes more sense to just publish 'new style' content going forward. At most, I would add "suggested" conversions to the 'old style' ASIs (and anything else) in case anyone wants to use them, but probably just in a table in an appendix (or even just on the website). That would allow those who are dead set against the new system to use the new content, but send a strong message that this is the direction they are going.
UA is indeed playtest material (for those unaware, Wizards released the UA survey for this Gothic Lineage document hella early. Go fill it out, one way or another). The bit everybody is losing their minds over, though - the "Design Note: Changes to Racial Traits" sidebar - isn't so much 'Playtest' as it is a notice of a sea change in Wizards' treatment of race/species/culture/Associated Charged Topics in Dungeons and Dragons.
As you've seen, some people consider it absolutely essential to the Proper D&D Experience that a species be strongly tied to and associated with a single class. Elves are rangers; half-orcs are barbarians, gnomes are wizards, and That's Just The Way It Is. Breaking the class/species ties built into the game is supposed to come with harsh mechanical penalties and also significant in-game roleplaying penalties, namely ostracization from your own species as well as every other species and a great deal of hindrance in studying for/advancing in your off-species profession. The entire idea is that the game is none-too-subtly trying to crowbar you into playing the universal standardized Eurofantasy character tropes and if you don't, the game actively hinders your chances for success. Some folks love that, think it makes for better verisimilitude, and feel like a choice you don't suffer for making is a choice that wasn't worth making in the first place.
Others...don't.
People like Sposta hate Tasha's Cauldron and the revised species rules because they see it as a dilution of Racial Identity(TM) in D&D. Folks like me see it as the system switching to a more agnostic stance and getting out of the way of people trying to play their game their way. The traditional answer, given in a hundred threads before this, to the question of what to do if the character you want to make or the game you want to play doesn't fall neatly within the fifty year old Tolkienite Eurofantasy arena of Traditional D&D is "JUST. FREAKING. HOMEBREW!!!!!111!!". We've traditionally been told that homebrewing is free, it's the true core of D&D, and if we're not slaves to Adventurer's League it should be not only encouraged but celebrated when we have to spend six hours in DDB's nightmarish homebrew editor getting something to work. Heh...but when someone says "Isn't it easier for you guys to just assign floating points for your players and give their sheets a once-over to make sure they listened than it is for us to have to go in, unhook the fixed points and turn them into floating points, then tell our players top specifically use that homebrew custom species instead of the regular species? That's not even homebrew, that's just Session Zero busywork...", we're informed that the system is sacred and under no circumstances should someone have to change the system to play Traditional Proper D&D.
Elsewise we're supposed to just give up on 5e altogether and use the online tools for other games - which, by the way, largely don't exist - to play a different game. Because gatekeeping and exclusionism is a great look for game veterans, ne? Shooting down other people's games and telling them to piss off and play something else simply because they want to do something with D&D other than tell the story of a bunch of men (specifically men, can't have any adventuring women in our Eurofantasy) trekking across half a continent to throw a bit of jewelry into a volcano, again. Anything that broadens the game beyond its Eurofantasy roots is a No-No, and Tasha's Cauldron went quite some way towards getting the system out of people's way when creating nontypical D&D games and/or characters.
So yeah. You're correct in that UA is basically open beta testing for 5e, but the bit everybody's flipping schitts over is not playtest. Thus, many hundreds of pages of collective freak-out, across all the various threads on the subject. Hopefully that clears up some confusion?
Im sure Im late to the party here, and I have seen this idea posted about a dozen times before in some way/shape/or form on this forum and others, but isnt the easiest solution that would make everyone happy is to publish the new races (lineages) using this new decoupled format and to include a "Quick Build" section like they do for classes that would recommend where to assign your +2/+1 bonus and which languages to take to help new players and give a guide to what a generic member of that lineage would be like?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I will just say this one thing about this thread. The very title of this thread itself is decisive. It paints the old style of ASI as "normal", which implies the new style is "abnormal" or "exotic" etc. It immediately creates a certain attitude that people who prefer the new style are in the wrong.
Make that two things. In the end, I personally feel like the disagreements going on is nothing more than Traditional versus Contemporary. Its the same thing in our politics (conservative v. liberal), in our game (Lawful v. Chaotic), our lifestyle (Security v. Freedom), etc. Its a basic struggle that human society basically revisits in pretty much every field we have imaginable. Heck, we even have Grognard versus... ummm... whatever the opposite of grognard is? Its not new player, because plenty of old players like the new stuff.... whatever.
After observing all this, multiple times, I've come to the conclusion that most of these arguments is centered around CHANGE. Call it what you will - ruining a working formula, or welcome innovations. The game is changing, and for some, that's terrible.
Im sure Im late to the party here, and I have seen this idea posted about a dozen times before in some way/shape/or form on this forum and others, but isnt the easiest solution that would make everyone happy is to publish the new races (lineages) using this new decoupled format and to include a "Quick Build" section like they do for classes that would recommend where to assign your +2/+1 bonus and which languages to take to help new players and give a guide to what a generic member of that lineage would be like?
That's almost certainly what they will do (the UA box is just a quick heads-up about the concept, not an Official Rule with all the details sorted out). Because that's the simplest approach, and they haven't said anything about writing new "game pillars" to support more compicated things.
As you've seen, some people consider it absolutely essential to the Proper D&D Experience that a species be strongly tied to and associated with a single class. Elves are rangers; half-orcs are barbarians, gnomes are wizards, and That's Just The Way It Is. Breaking the class/species ties built into the game is supposed to come with harsh mechanical penalties and also significant in-game roleplaying penalties, namely ostracization from your own species as well as every other species and a great deal of hindrance in studying for/advancing in your off-species profession. The entire idea is that the game is none-too-subtly trying to crowbar you into playing the universal standardized Eurofantasy character tropes and if you don't, the game actively hinders your chances for success. Some folks love that, think it makes for better verisimilitude, and feel like a choice you don't suffer for making is a choice that wasn't worth making in the first place.
Horse shit.
Nobody here is saying any of that nonsense besides you. You have invented that ridiculousness in your mind and keep throwing crap that nobody here has said in our faces.
Knock off your strawman malarkey and be offended about things people have actually said if you want to, but stop this nonsense. “Lies do not become us.”
People like Sposta hate Tasha's Cauldron and the revised species rules because they see it as a dilution of Racial Identity(TM) in D&D. Folks like me see it as the system switching to a more agnostic stance and getting out of the way of people trying to play their game their way. The traditional answer, given in a hundred threads before this, to the question of what to do if the character you want to make or the game you want to play doesn't fall neatly within the fifty year old Tolkienite Eurofantasy arena of Traditional D&D is "JUST. FREAKING. HOMEBREW!!!!!111!!". We've traditionally been told that homebrewing is free, it's the true core of D&D, and if we're not slaves to Adventurer's League it should be not only encouraged but celebrated when we have to spend six hours in DDB's nightmarish homebrew editor getting something to work. Heh...but when someone says "Isn't it easier for you guys to just assign floating points for your players and give their sheets a once-over to make sure they listened than it is for us to have to go in, unhook the fixed points and turn them into floating points, then tell our players top specifically use that homebrew custom species instead of the regular species? That's not even homebrew, that's just Session Zero busywork...", we're informed that the system is sacred and under no circumstances should someone have to change the system to play Traditional Proper D&D.
Horse shit.
It really seems your problem is more to do with DDB than D&D. If you hate how restrictive DDB is, then don’t effing use their service. You obviously don’t value it, you find it too restrictive, so don’t use it.
If you want a D&D system with every rule written out and exact notes on what to roll if you want to both walk and chew gum simultaneously then go play 2e. The beauty of 5e is that they dropped all of that bloat.
And if you hate homebrewing so much, WHY THE HECK ARE YOU SO EXCITED ABOUT THE HOMEBREW CLUB?!? Teh fawk?!? If you find homebrew that repugnant then, then why do you seem to enjoy it so much?!?
Stop your straw man arguments, you’re better than that my friend.
Elsewise we're supposed to just give up on 5e altogether and use the online tools for other games - which, by the way, largely don't exist - to play a different game. Because gatekeeping and exclusionism is a great look for game veterans, ne? Shooting down other people's games and telling them to piss off and play something else simply because they want to do something with D&D other than tell the story of a bunch of men (specifically men, can't have any adventuring women in our Eurofantasy) trekking across half a continent to throw a bit of jewelry into a volcano, again. Anything that broadens the game beyond its Eurofantasy roots is a No-No, and Tasha's Cauldron went quite some way towards getting the system out of people's way when creating nontypical D&D games and/or characters.
Horse shit.
If you hate little tiny cars, and love a great big massive SUV then why the hell would you buy a little tiny car and then ***** and moan until the manufacturer changes it into a massive effing SUV?!? Just buy the gorram SUV and skip the subcompact.
Yurei, you obviously hate D&D. You have point blank openly admitted that you prefer Savage Worlds better. Why the **** should they change D&D to make it more like Savage Worlds to make you happy? What the **** is so offensive about someone saying “I’m sorry you don’t like this product, perhaps you would prefer this other product that already exists and already meets your preferences.” That’s not Gatekeeping, that’s logic.
Knock of the strawman nonsense, you can do better.
Legit mein freund. It really just seems like you would be happier playing a different game. Don’t complain that D&D isn’t like Savage Worlds enough for your enjoyment and insist that D&D be more like Savage Worlds. If you would rather just play Savage Worlds, then do.
Your entire line of argument is as ridiculous as if I went into a SW forum and started insisting that they change that game to play like D&D, and then yelling at people who recommend that I just play D&D instead.
If you enjoy doing Homebrew you are in luck. You get to Homebrew all future race related continent to make it fit into the game the way you like it. That is assuming that you don't like the changes the WotC is making of course. If you don't like Homebrew OR the changes, then I am sorry. I am sure you will have fun with all your previously released content or will find a game that is better suited to your playstyle.
The very title of this thread itself is decisive. It paints the old style of ASI as "normal", which implies the new style is "abnormal" or "exotic" etc. It immediately creates a certain attitude that people who prefer the new style are in the wrong.
This.
It is part of the very thing we need to get rid of. Orcs are strong, gnomes are clever, elves are nimble, and any which are different to these traits are "abnormal". This is no different to saying: Men are strong and like football*, women are nimble and like ballet. If you are a nimble man who likes ballet, you are abnormal, the same with a strong woman who likes football.
By removing the fixed ASIs, you remove the stereotype and the abnormality. This is why I wouldn't even print "Quick Builds" with the new "races", because even that lends weight to the premise that there is a normal and an abnormal version of the "race". If your character is a dexterous and/or intelligent Orc, it is a weirdo. It's just the wrong attitude to have in a game which is supposed to be fun for anyone who wants to play. Of course, there is nothing wrong with choosing to play someone who is a "weirdo", or playing a game where other people consider the character strange, if that's what you want to do, but you shouldn't be made to feel that your character is abnormal because he doesn't comply with some arbitrary stereotype.
* This works for pretty much any type of football: American, Association, Aussie rules etc.
I'm in the "wait and see camp." I like what I see so far, but this is still UA and could get better or worse.
Same, races could still have their original themes and cultures and Tasha's just remains as a way to "customize"
Or, of course, the ASI and languages could just change to a numeric value and the Alignment trait could just disappear.
What I want? Honestly I wouldn't care whatever happens, I don't care about those dull numbers, ASIs change wouldn't bother me one bit. Languages are also not very useful, anything besides Common is not *needed*. What I care about is the flavor, I don't care whether elves are dexterous or not. I just focus on the fact that their long rest is only 4 hours long.
WotC is right about one thing and that's Alignment. The first thing is I don't even choose an alignment unless DM tells me to, and I don't encourage my players either. Of course, sometimes alignment affect mechanical things but that's rare and I just write alignment as a placeholder. The first thing is races shouldn't be tied to specific personalities at all, and the second thing is personaltiies shouldn't be put under categories of "good and evil, chaotic and lawful" anyway.
I also don't understand why there are 20+ threads discussing this and it's the same argument over again which is Tasha's lineage is ok VS Tasha's lineage ruins the old D&D system. However much you express your opinions it won't change anything much, what I suggest is do what I do for now: wait and see. This is only a playtest version, and there is obviously going to be a survey soon. Give your direct personal feedback there, and even if it has nothing to do with the gothic lineages, WotC probably knows they have created a large ripple in the D&D community by writing that little text box in the UA. If the race/class "normal" matchup disappears completely and you don't like that just don't use those rules and homebrew it. Or move to another system
I'm not trying to pick a fight or add to the fight but it sounds a bit like this:
A) I want to play checkers.
B) I want to play checkers too, but I want the pieces to move forward and sideways.
A) That's a big change.
B) I know, but I want it.
B) See how great it is, the pieces move diagonal, forward, and sideways!
A) But it is no longer checkers. Maybe play chess?
B) No, change checkers to my way.
A) I just want to play checkers.
With all due respect, I think that this analogy puts much more weight into the effect the floating ASIs have on the game than it actually does. Sure, being able to put +2 in whichever starting stat you want does make certain race/class combinations more powerful, there is no doubt about that; however, the allocation of +2/+1 in the beginning of the game is still dwarfed (no pun intended) by the combination of other influences on how the character turns out (choice of class/subclass, choice of future ASIs and feats, race-specific powers like darkvision or stonecunning, etc).
Will it affect the game? Yes, IMO the change isn't at all "game breaking".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
The very title of this thread itself is decisive. It paints the old style of ASI as "normal", which implies the new style is "abnormal" or "exotic" etc. It immediately creates a certain attitude that people who prefer the new style are in the wrong.
This.
It is part of the very thing we need to get rid of. Orcs are strong, gnomes are clever, elves are nimble, and any which are different to these traits are "abnormal". This is no different to saying: Men are strong and like football*, women are nimble and like ballet. If you are a nimble man who likes ballet, you are abnormal, the same with a strong woman who likes football.
By removing the fixed ASIs, you remove the stereotype and the abnormality. This is why I wouldn't even print "Quick Builds" with the new "races", because even that lends weight to the premise that there is a normal and an abnormal version of the "race". If your character is a dexterous and/or intelligent Orc, it is a weirdo. It's just the wrong attitude to have in a game which is supposed to be fun for anyone who wants to play. Of course, there is nothing wrong with choosing to play someone who is a "weirdo", or playing a game where other people consider the character strange, if that's what you want to do, but you shouldn't be made to feel that your character is abnormal because he doesn't comply with some arbitrary stereotype.
* This works for pretty much any type of football: American, Association, Aussie rules etc.
Urth and Mephista, I have to disagree with you on several fundemental points.
1. While I understand the perspective of "normal and abnormal" you are linking those terms with right and wrong. Sturm Brightblade was an "abnormal" knight, the story shows he was not wrong. If in your game, you have a DM or other players who are saying your character is "Weird" in a negative connotation, or that he is "wrong" in some way, then the issue lies with the personalities at the table. No amount of rules development or shifting is going to change those root concepts. There is a belief among some in the community that assigned points correlate with real life racial/social issues. I don't believe that is true, if others do that's fine, but there is enough room in the game for all of us.
I have said this 1000 times before in private conversations: D&D has become so popular that people, in a desire to play, are playing the game with people they don't know well, or at all. I would never, ever go to a strangers house and play board game night without knowing those people. And if I did go, and I didn't like the game or how it was played, then I would say that. And if the rest of the people there want to play it a certain way, and I don't, then I would leave and not come back, or find a different group to play with, or create my own group. Stranger Danger folks - only go into make believe worlds with people you know and trust.
2. Coming back to the core issue, I see much of the discussion regards around those individuals who want to retain the option of assigned scores for future product are being told to homebrew it, and that historically those people that are against retaining assigned scores say "but we've had to homebrew it in the past, now its our turn to be the new norm, and you have to homebrew it! Why is that a problem?!"
I think that is disengenous to your fellow players. If you didn't like having to homebrew certain options, and are happy you no longer have to do that, why are you now wanting another person to go through the same discomfort/unhappiness that you went through?
This is a really easy fix for WoTC moving forward, at least in my head. When a new lineage/race is introduced just have a small info box:
Variant Rule - Assigned Points//This (lineage/race) thrives on strength and hardiness. Assign +2 to STR and +1 Con.
There you go. The continued existence of assigned points is now a Variant Rule , and as such is not the "normal". I don't care what you call it, it preserves something I enjoy in the game while costing those individuals who have been wanting to have more flexibility absolutely nothing. WoTC is moving in that direction, many of us are just asking them to keep us in mind as well. Inclusivity and all that.
If you want your player character to rise above the norm of his or her race or culture, there HAS TO BE A NORM in the first place.
I can't really see how WotC would solve this Gordian Knot of Uncertain Character Identity. You would need a system that lets you choose where to put your stat points into, to represent what you focused on during your life and training. Maybe have your Background give you some additional skills, depending on what you did before you started going out and re-murdered innocent zombies. They could also introduce a Class system, something that further streamlines and represents what you decided to train in and study to overcome the dangers of the world around you!
If only WotC would print such a book for us poor poor people.
....
....
....
What's that? "Player's Handbook"? Nah, never heard of it.
Like it or not Sposta, for many players DDB is D&D. You are extremely fortunate in that you have a physical, IRL group of people who like and prefer paper sheets on which you can write anything you like (once, anyways - once it's on paper it never comes off). Many, even most of us during the pandemic, do not. My D&D group is spread across the entire country, with a couple of spectators from around the globe. Paper sheets are not an option, and frankly even if they were I wouldn't care for wasting the paper when the contents of any given character change change a hundred times a session. The digital tool is the only reason I get to play at all. I've told you that before, more than once.
There are things worth homebrewing, and there are things I should not have to homebrew. I like making new things; I am significantly less fond of un******* old things that are not usable until un****ed. The system being as game and setting-agnostic as possible is a benefit to everyone. It's been said a hundred thousand times, it'll be said a hundred thousand more - you can still play the old way. You can still decide your players' numbers for them. You can do that here in DDB - the place we're all posting and the tool we're all talking about, no matter how "irrelevant" you claim it to be - a whole lot easier than I can create a homebrew custom species with floating modifiers instead of Faerun Universal Standard numbers.
Do I know how to do the latter? Yes - with the exception that homebrew cannot enforce the "pick two different stats" thing and a DM has to count on their player following instructions. or at least they did before the Tasha's updates. Can I do the latter in maybe five minutes per species without too much of a protest from the stupid homebrew system? Yes. Can you decide your players' numbers for them with a single sentence and a chart you drew up in fifteen seconds during Session Zero, far more easily than I can go in and unhook pregenerated stats from species? Also yes.
Heh, and frankly? You're more active in the homebrew thread than I am, and better with the homebrew editor than I am. How is it a hardship for you to go back into the system and dupliclone a species to get rid of the Tasha's floating modifiers? It's easier for you to do that than it is for me to Tashafy a hard-locked species.
As for "stop playing D&D and go play something else"...come on, Sposta. Really? You're going to stand at the gate and turn people away? Tell people that unless they consent to play Faerunian Standard Eurofantasy they can take their ball and go home? Just go play another game without any online support and to hell with the investment I've made here? Is that really the message you want to give folks?
Species being hard-coded pregens is not "the core of D&D" to me, or to most folks new to this edition. Elves being good at Dex stuff but bad at everything else is not critical to the game feeling like D&D to me. That, frankly, just gets in the way. Telling me to go away, leave D&D alone, and just play Savage Worlds by myself in a corner is not cool, nor is it necessary. Yes, I happen to think Savage Worlds is on to something. It handles one-shots and short games much better than D&D does, and it does a better job with character creation. What Savage Worlds doesn't do is handle magic well in the slightest, or deal anymuch better with character progression. Both of which are things I value highly in D&D. I can complain on the DDB forums about D&D being bad at character creation, and if there was a SWADE equivalent of DDB I could complain over there about Savage Worlds being kinda rotten at handling the supernatural or 'ultratech' and having a serious issue with meaningful character advancement over the course of a long-runner campaign. Doesn't mean I'm trying to invalidate either game. Just means there's shit in both of them that could be better, and I'd like to talk about how 'Being Better' could happen sometimes.
Variant Rule - Assigned Points//This (lineage/race) thrives on strength and hardiness. Assign +2 to STR and +1 Con.
There you go. The continued existence of assigned points is now a Variant Rule , and as such is not the "normal". I don't care what you call it, it preserves something I enjoy in the game while costing those individuals who have been wanting to have more flexibility. WoTC is moving in that direction, many of us are just asking them to keep us in mind as well. Inclusivity and all that.
Really not an option. The real reason WotC made these changes is not flexibility, it's because some people found the original versions offensive. Moving (as opposed to deleting) the offensive content doesn't gain them anything.
Variant Rule - Assigned Points//This (lineage/race) thrives on strength and hardiness. Assign +2 to STR and +1 Con.
There you go. The continued existence of assigned points is now a Variant Rule , and as such is not the "normal". I don't care what you call it, it preserves something I enjoy in the game while costing those individuals who have been wanting to have more flexibility. WoTC is moving in that direction, many of us are just asking them to keep us in mind as well. Inclusivity and all that.
Really not an option. The real reason WotC made these changes is not flexibility, it's because some people found the original versions offensive. Moving (as opposed to deleting) the offensive content doesn't gain them anything.
I agree, that is the real reason. I believe the issue has been over-emphasized through Social Media and (at least in my anecdotal experience) represents a very very small part of the actual players and DM's. In 20 plus years, and hundreds of games and sessions (#humblebrag) there was only one time that I had an overtly sexist and racist player at the table, during Adventures League. I gave him one warning, then removed him from the table. This topic though is radioactive, and really not something that can be discussed with civility in forums or over the internet.
I think that people are attempting to validate this reason through other logical arguments, and they just don't hold weight (again, in my opinion). If WoTC is about inclusivity, that applies to all styles, and while it gains them nothing to include that blurb, it also costs them nothing.
If you want your player character to rise above the norm of his or her race or culture, there HAS TO BE A NORM in the first place.
I can't really see how WotC would solve this Gordian Knot of Uncertain Character Identity. You would need a system that lets you choose where to put your stat points into, to represent what you focused on during your life and training. Maybe have your Background give you some additional skills, depending on what you did before you started going out and re-murdered innocent zombies. They could also introduce a Class system, something that further streamlines and represents what you decided to train in and study to overcome the dangers of the world around you!
If only WotC would print such a book for us poor poor people.
....
....
....
What's that? "Player's Handbook"? Nah, never heard of it.
So it looks like you are covered. You have the PHB right?
The rest of us will just move on forward with the changes that are coming.
Variant Rule - Assigned Points//This (lineage/race) thrives on strength and hardiness. Assign +2 to STR and +1 Con.
There you go. The continued existence of assigned points is now a Variant Rule , and as such is not the "normal". I don't care what you call it, it preserves something I enjoy in the game while costing those individuals who have been wanting to have more flexibility. WoTC is moving in that direction, many of us are just asking them to keep us in mind as well. Inclusivity and all that.
Really not an option. The real reason WotC made these changes is not flexibility, it's because some people found the original versions offensive. Moving (as opposed to deleting) the offensive content doesn't gain them anything.
I agree, that is the real reason. I believe the issue has been over-emphasized through Social Media and (at least in my anecdotal experience) represents a very very small part of the actual players and DM's. In 20 plus years, and hundreds of games and sessions (#humblebrag) there was only one time that I had an overtly sexist and racist player at the table, during Adventures League. I gave him one warning, then removed him from the table. This topic though is radioactive, and really not something that can be discussed with civility in forums or over the internet.
I think that people are attempting to validate this reason through other logical arguments, and they just don't hold weight (again, in my opinion). If WoTC is about inclusivity, that applies to all styles, and while it gains them nothing to include that blurb, it also costs them nothing.
It's not about inclusivity of gaming styles, it's about inclusivity of people. And insulting possible customers absolutely costs them something: it costs them customers.
Variant Rule - Assigned Points//This (lineage/race) thrives on strength and hardiness. Assign +2 to STR and +1 Con.
There you go. The continued existence of assigned points is now a Variant Rule , and as such is not the "normal". I don't care what you call it, it preserves something I enjoy in the game while costing those individuals who have been wanting to have more flexibility. WoTC is moving in that direction, many of us are just asking them to keep us in mind as well. Inclusivity and all that.
Really not an option. The real reason WotC made these changes is not flexibility, it's because some people found the original versions offensive. Moving (as opposed to deleting) the offensive content doesn't gain them anything.
I agree, that is the real reason. I believe the issue has been over-emphasized through Social Media and (at least in my anecdotal experience) represents a very very small part of the actual players and DM's. In 20 plus years, and hundreds of games and sessions (#humblebrag) there was only one time that I had an overtly sexist and racist player at the table, during Adventures League. I gave him one warning, then removed him from the table. This topic though is radioactive, and really not something that can be discussed with civility in forums or over the internet.
I think that people are attempting to validate this reason through other logical arguments, and they just don't hold weight (again, in my opinion). If WoTC is about inclusivity, that applies to all styles, and while it gains them nothing to include that blurb, it also costs them nothing.
It's not about inclusivity of gaming styles, it's about inclusivity of people. And insulting possible customers absolutely costs them something: it costs them customers.
Considering that the folks in this thread are the ones reading these posts, those are the ones who might have been swayed by my arguments.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Look, to me this is very much dependent on what the question actually means.
If it is "Should WotC keep the races currently available which use the 'old system' in future?", the answer is most definitely "Yes". It would make no sense to remove existing content, and would pretty much constitute a new edition to me.
If, instead, it's supposed to be "Should WotC print all future content in line with the 'old system'?", I feel it makes more sense to just publish 'new style' content going forward. At most, I would add "suggested" conversions to the 'old style' ASIs (and anything else) in case anyone wants to use them, but probably just in a table in an appendix (or even just on the website). That would allow those who are dead set against the new system to use the new content, but send a strong message that this is the direction they are going.
UA is indeed playtest material (for those unaware, Wizards released the UA survey for this Gothic Lineage document hella early. Go fill it out, one way or another). The bit everybody is losing their minds over, though - the "Design Note: Changes to Racial Traits" sidebar - isn't so much 'Playtest' as it is a notice of a sea change in Wizards' treatment of race/species/culture/Associated Charged Topics in Dungeons and Dragons.
As you've seen, some people consider it absolutely essential to the Proper D&D Experience that a species be strongly tied to and associated with a single class. Elves are rangers; half-orcs are barbarians, gnomes are wizards, and That's Just The Way It Is. Breaking the class/species ties built into the game is supposed to come with harsh mechanical penalties and also significant in-game roleplaying penalties, namely ostracization from your own species as well as every other species and a great deal of hindrance in studying for/advancing in your off-species profession. The entire idea is that the game is none-too-subtly trying to crowbar you into playing the universal standardized Eurofantasy character tropes and if you don't, the game actively hinders your chances for success. Some folks love that, think it makes for better verisimilitude, and feel like a choice you don't suffer for making is a choice that wasn't worth making in the first place.
Others...don't.
People like Sposta hate Tasha's Cauldron and the revised species rules because they see it as a dilution of Racial Identity(TM) in D&D. Folks like me see it as the system switching to a more agnostic stance and getting out of the way of people trying to play their game their way. The traditional answer, given in a hundred threads before this, to the question of what to do if the character you want to make or the game you want to play doesn't fall neatly within the fifty year old Tolkienite Eurofantasy arena of Traditional D&D is "JUST. FREAKING. HOMEBREW!!!!!111!! ". We've traditionally been told that homebrewing is free, it's the true core of D&D, and if we're not slaves to Adventurer's League it should be not only encouraged but celebrated when we have to spend six hours in DDB's nightmarish homebrew editor getting something to work. Heh...but when someone says "Isn't it easier for you guys to just assign floating points for your players and give their sheets a once-over to make sure they listened than it is for us to have to go in, unhook the fixed points and turn them into floating points, then tell our players top specifically use that homebrew custom species instead of the regular species? That's not even homebrew, that's just Session Zero busywork...", we're informed that the system is sacred and under no circumstances should someone have to change the system to play Traditional Proper D&D.
Elsewise we're supposed to just give up on 5e altogether and use the online tools for other games - which, by the way, largely don't exist - to play a different game. Because gatekeeping and exclusionism is a great look for game veterans, ne? Shooting down other people's games and telling them to piss off and play something else simply because they want to do something with D&D other than tell the story of a bunch of men (specifically men, can't have any adventuring women in our Eurofantasy) trekking across half a continent to throw a bit of jewelry into a volcano, again. Anything that broadens the game beyond its Eurofantasy roots is a No-No, and Tasha's Cauldron went quite some way towards getting the system out of people's way when creating nontypical D&D games and/or characters.
So yeah. You're correct in that UA is basically open beta testing for 5e, but the bit everybody's flipping schitts over is not playtest. Thus, many hundreds of pages of collective freak-out, across all the various threads on the subject. Hopefully that clears up some confusion?
Please do not contact or message me.
Im sure Im late to the party here, and I have seen this idea posted about a dozen times before in some way/shape/or form on this forum and others, but isnt the easiest solution that would make everyone happy is to publish the new races (lineages) using this new decoupled format and to include a "Quick Build" section like they do for classes that would recommend where to assign your +2/+1 bonus and which languages to take to help new players and give a guide to what a generic member of that lineage would be like?
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
*peeks inside* Hmm...
I will just say this one thing about this thread. The very title of this thread itself is decisive. It paints the old style of ASI as "normal", which implies the new style is "abnormal" or "exotic" etc. It immediately creates a certain attitude that people who prefer the new style are in the wrong.
Make that two things. In the end, I personally feel like the disagreements going on is nothing more than Traditional versus Contemporary. Its the same thing in our politics (conservative v. liberal), in our game (Lawful v. Chaotic), our lifestyle (Security v. Freedom), etc. Its a basic struggle that human society basically revisits in pretty much every field we have imaginable. Heck, we even have Grognard versus... ummm... whatever the opposite of grognard is? Its not new player, because plenty of old players like the new stuff.... whatever.
After observing all this, multiple times, I've come to the conclusion that most of these arguments is centered around CHANGE. Call it what you will - ruining a working formula, or welcome innovations. The game is changing, and for some, that's terrible.
That's almost certainly what they will do (the UA box is just a quick heads-up about the concept, not an Official Rule with all the details sorted out). Because that's the simplest approach, and they haven't said anything about writing new "game pillars" to support more compicated things.
Horse shit.
Nobody here is saying any of that nonsense besides you. You have invented that ridiculousness in your mind and keep throwing crap that nobody here has said in our faces.
Knock off your strawman malarkey and be offended about things people have actually said if you want to, but stop this nonsense. “Lies do not become us.”
Horse shit.
It really seems your problem is more to do with DDB than D&D. If you hate how restrictive DDB is, then don’t effing use their service. You obviously don’t value it, you find it too restrictive, so don’t use it.
If you want a D&D system with every rule written out and exact notes on what to roll if you want to both walk and chew gum simultaneously then go play 2e. The beauty of 5e is that they dropped all of that bloat.
And if you hate homebrewing so much, WHY THE HECK ARE YOU SO EXCITED ABOUT THE HOMEBREW CLUB?!? Teh fawk?!? If you find homebrew that repugnant then, then why do you seem to enjoy it so much?!?
Stop your straw man arguments, you’re better than that my friend.
Horse shit.
If you hate little tiny cars, and love a great big massive SUV then why the hell would you buy a little tiny car and then ***** and moan until the manufacturer changes it into a massive effing SUV?!? Just buy the gorram SUV and skip the subcompact.
Yurei, you obviously hate D&D. You have point blank openly admitted that you prefer Savage Worlds better. Why the **** should they change D&D to make it more like Savage Worlds to make you happy? What the **** is so offensive about someone saying “I’m sorry you don’t like this product, perhaps you would prefer this other product that already exists and already meets your preferences.” That’s not Gatekeeping, that’s logic.
Knock of the strawman nonsense, you can do better.
Legit mein freund. It really just seems like you would be happier playing a different game. Don’t complain that D&D isn’t like Savage Worlds enough for your enjoyment and insist that D&D be more like Savage Worlds. If you would rather just play Savage Worlds, then do.
Your entire line of argument is as ridiculous as if I went into a SW forum and started insisting that they change that game to play like D&D, and then yelling at people who recommend that I just play D&D instead.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If you enjoy doing Homebrew you are in luck. You get to Homebrew all future race related continent to make it fit into the game the way you like it. That is assuming that you don't like the changes the WotC is making of course. If you don't like Homebrew OR the changes, then I am sorry. I am sure you will have fun with all your previously released content or will find a game that is better suited to your playstyle.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
This.
It is part of the very thing we need to get rid of. Orcs are strong, gnomes are clever, elves are nimble, and any which are different to these traits are "abnormal". This is no different to saying: Men are strong and like football*, women are nimble and like ballet. If you are a nimble man who likes ballet, you are abnormal, the same with a strong woman who likes football.
By removing the fixed ASIs, you remove the stereotype and the abnormality. This is why I wouldn't even print "Quick Builds" with the new "races", because even that lends weight to the premise that there is a normal and an abnormal version of the "race". If your character is a dexterous and/or intelligent Orc, it is a weirdo. It's just the wrong attitude to have in a game which is supposed to be fun for anyone who wants to play. Of course, there is nothing wrong with choosing to play someone who is a "weirdo", or playing a game where other people consider the character strange, if that's what you want to do, but you shouldn't be made to feel that your character is abnormal because he doesn't comply with some arbitrary stereotype.
* This works for pretty much any type of football: American, Association, Aussie rules etc.
Same, races could still have their original themes and cultures and Tasha's just remains as a way to "customize"
Or, of course, the ASI and languages could just change to a numeric value and the Alignment trait could just disappear.
What I want? Honestly I wouldn't care whatever happens, I don't care about those dull numbers, ASIs change wouldn't bother me one bit. Languages are also not very useful, anything besides Common is not *needed*. What I care about is the flavor, I don't care whether elves are dexterous or not. I just focus on the fact that their long rest is only 4 hours long.
WotC is right about one thing and that's Alignment. The first thing is I don't even choose an alignment unless DM tells me to, and I don't encourage my players either. Of course, sometimes alignment affect mechanical things but that's rare and I just write alignment as a placeholder. The first thing is races shouldn't be tied to specific personalities at all, and the second thing is personaltiies shouldn't be put under categories of "good and evil, chaotic and lawful" anyway.
I also don't understand why there are 20+ threads discussing this and it's the same argument over again which is Tasha's lineage is ok VS Tasha's lineage ruins the old D&D system. However much you express your opinions it won't change anything much, what I suggest is do what I do for now: wait and see. This is only a playtest version, and there is obviously going to be a survey soon. Give your direct personal feedback there, and even if it has nothing to do with the gothic lineages, WotC probably knows they have created a large ripple in the D&D community by writing that little text box in the UA. If the race/class "normal" matchup disappears completely and you don't like that just don't use those rules and homebrew it. Or move to another system
I'm not trying to pick a fight or add to the fight but it sounds a bit like this:
A) I want to play checkers.
B) I want to play checkers too, but I want the pieces to move forward and sideways.
A) That's a big change.
B) I know, but I want it.
B) See how great it is, the pieces move diagonal, forward, and sideways!
A) But it is no longer checkers. Maybe play chess?
B) No, change checkers to my way.
A) I just want to play checkers.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
With all due respect, I think that this analogy puts much more weight into the effect the floating ASIs have on the game than it actually does. Sure, being able to put +2 in whichever starting stat you want does make certain race/class combinations more powerful, there is no doubt about that; however, the allocation of +2/+1 in the beginning of the game is still dwarfed (no pun intended) by the combination of other influences on how the character turns out (choice of class/subclass, choice of future ASIs and feats, race-specific powers like darkvision or stonecunning, etc).
Will it affect the game? Yes, IMO the change isn't at all "game breaking".
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Urth and Mephista, I have to disagree with you on several fundemental points.
1. While I understand the perspective of "normal and abnormal" you are linking those terms with right and wrong. Sturm Brightblade was an "abnormal" knight, the story shows he was not wrong. If in your game, you have a DM or other players who are saying your character is "Weird" in a negative connotation, or that he is "wrong" in some way, then the issue lies with the personalities at the table. No amount of rules development or shifting is going to change those root concepts. There is a belief among some in the community that assigned points correlate with real life racial/social issues. I don't believe that is true, if others do that's fine, but there is enough room in the game for all of us.
I have said this 1000 times before in private conversations: D&D has become so popular that people, in a desire to play, are playing the game with people they don't know well, or at all. I would never, ever go to a strangers house and play board game night without knowing those people. And if I did go, and I didn't like the game or how it was played, then I would say that. And if the rest of the people there want to play it a certain way, and I don't, then I would leave and not come back, or find a different group to play with, or create my own group. Stranger Danger folks - only go into make believe worlds with people you know and trust.
2. Coming back to the core issue, I see much of the discussion regards around those individuals who want to retain the option of assigned scores for future product are being told to homebrew it, and that historically those people that are against retaining assigned scores say "but we've had to homebrew it in the past, now its our turn to be the new norm, and you have to homebrew it! Why is that a problem?!"
I think that is disengenous to your fellow players. If you didn't like having to homebrew certain options, and are happy you no longer have to do that, why are you now wanting another person to go through the same discomfort/unhappiness that you went through?
This is a really easy fix for WoTC moving forward, at least in my head. When a new lineage/race is introduced just have a small info box:
Variant Rule - Assigned Points//This (lineage/race) thrives on strength and hardiness. Assign +2 to STR and +1 Con.
There you go. The continued existence of assigned points is now a Variant Rule , and as such is not the "normal". I don't care what you call it, it preserves something I enjoy in the game while costing those individuals who have been wanting to have more flexibility absolutely nothing. WoTC is moving in that direction, many of us are just asking them to keep us in mind as well. Inclusivity and all that.
If you want your player character to rise above the norm of his or her race or culture, there HAS TO BE A NORM in the first place.
I can't really see how WotC would solve this Gordian Knot of Uncertain Character Identity. You would need a system that lets you choose where to put your stat points into, to represent what you focused on during your life and training. Maybe have your Background give you some additional skills, depending on what you did before you started going out and re-murdered innocent zombies. They could also introduce a Class system, something that further streamlines and represents what you decided to train in and study to overcome the dangers of the world around you!
If only WotC would print such a book for us poor poor people.
....
....
....
What's that? "Player's Handbook"? Nah, never heard of it.
#OpenDnD
Sigh.
Like it or not Sposta, for many players DDB is D&D. You are extremely fortunate in that you have a physical, IRL group of people who like and prefer paper sheets on which you can write anything you like (once, anyways - once it's on paper it never comes off). Many, even most of us during the pandemic, do not. My D&D group is spread across the entire country, with a couple of spectators from around the globe. Paper sheets are not an option, and frankly even if they were I wouldn't care for wasting the paper when the contents of any given character change change a hundred times a session. The digital tool is the only reason I get to play at all. I've told you that before, more than once.
There are things worth homebrewing, and there are things I should not have to homebrew. I like making new things; I am significantly less fond of un******* old things that are not usable until un****ed. The system being as game and setting-agnostic as possible is a benefit to everyone. It's been said a hundred thousand times, it'll be said a hundred thousand more - you can still play the old way. You can still decide your players' numbers for them. You can do that here in DDB - the place we're all posting and the tool we're all talking about, no matter how "irrelevant" you claim it to be - a whole lot easier than I can create a homebrew custom species with floating modifiers instead of Faerun Universal Standard numbers.
Do I know how to do the latter? Yes - with the exception that homebrew cannot enforce the "pick two different stats" thing and a DM has to count on their player following instructions. or at least they did before the Tasha's updates. Can I do the latter in maybe five minutes per species without too much of a protest from the stupid homebrew system? Yes. Can you decide your players' numbers for them with a single sentence and a chart you drew up in fifteen seconds during Session Zero, far more easily than I can go in and unhook pregenerated stats from species? Also yes.
Heh, and frankly? You're more active in the homebrew thread than I am, and better with the homebrew editor than I am. How is it a hardship for you to go back into the system and dupliclone a species to get rid of the Tasha's floating modifiers? It's easier for you to do that than it is for me to Tashafy a hard-locked species.
As for "stop playing D&D and go play something else"...come on, Sposta. Really? You're going to stand at the gate and turn people away? Tell people that unless they consent to play Faerunian Standard Eurofantasy they can take their ball and go home? Just go play another game without any online support and to hell with the investment I've made here? Is that really the message you want to give folks?
Species being hard-coded pregens is not "the core of D&D" to me, or to most folks new to this edition. Elves being good at Dex stuff but bad at everything else is not critical to the game feeling like D&D to me. That, frankly, just gets in the way. Telling me to go away, leave D&D alone, and just play Savage Worlds by myself in a corner is not cool, nor is it necessary. Yes, I happen to think Savage Worlds is on to something. It handles one-shots and short games much better than D&D does, and it does a better job with character creation. What Savage Worlds doesn't do is handle magic well in the slightest, or deal anymuch better with character progression. Both of which are things I value highly in D&D. I can complain on the DDB forums about D&D being bad at character creation, and if there was a SWADE equivalent of DDB I could complain over there about Savage Worlds being kinda rotten at handling the supernatural or 'ultratech' and having a serious issue with meaningful character advancement over the course of a long-runner campaign. Doesn't mean I'm trying to invalidate either game. Just means there's shit in both of them that could be better, and I'd like to talk about how 'Being Better' could happen sometimes.
So settle down some, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
Really not an option. The real reason WotC made these changes is not flexibility, it's because some people found the original versions offensive. Moving (as opposed to deleting) the offensive content doesn't gain them anything.
Pantagruel666:
I agree, that is the real reason. I believe the issue has been over-emphasized through Social Media and (at least in my anecdotal experience) represents a very very small part of the actual players and DM's. In 20 plus years, and hundreds of games and sessions (#humblebrag) there was only one time that I had an overtly sexist and racist player at the table, during Adventures League. I gave him one warning, then removed him from the table. This topic though is radioactive, and really not something that can be discussed with civility in forums or over the internet.
I think that people are attempting to validate this reason through other logical arguments, and they just don't hold weight (again, in my opinion). If WoTC is about inclusivity, that applies to all styles, and while it gains them nothing to include that blurb, it also costs them nothing.
So it looks like you are covered. You have the PHB right?
The rest of us will just move on forward with the changes that are coming.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It's not about inclusivity of gaming styles, it's about inclusivity of people. And insulting possible customers absolutely costs them something: it costs them customers.
Pantagruel666:
Again, radioactive topic. You and I will just be on opposite sides of this discussion. I do appreciate your viewpoint though!