As a fellow forum user, may I kindly suggest that if you're using the quote button, you do not need to reply with the name of the person below the quote. It makes the thread unnecessarily longer.
(P.S. You can edit quotes to shorten them, which also helps save space. Earlier in the thread, I noticed you doing some huge quote chains, which is very annoying for your fellow forum users. I'm just making you aware so that you can do better in the future.)
As a fellow forum user, may I kindly suggest that if you're using the quote button, you do not need to reply with the name of the person below the quote. It makes the thread unnecessarily longer.
(P.S. You can edit quotes to shorten them, which also helps save space. Earlier in the thread, I noticed you doing some huge quote chains, which is very annoying for your fellow forum users. I'm just making you aware so that you can do better in the future.)
I am obviously not a forum regular :) Thank you for the suggestions! I tried to only quote certain subjects yesterday and the whole thing just fell apart.
It came up in the other thread, but I'll cover it - briefly - for you here as well, Aerchon.
Just because nobody complained about this stuff before doesn't mean nobody felt it before. "Aberrant" folks, the nontradational noncomforming people Wizards is trying to do better by with these rules, have usually had lots and lots and lots of practice in simply keeping quiet, pinning a smile on it, and keeping their nonconforming nature to themselves. Both to try and have fun with people, and to avoid the pain that usually accompanies being outed. Across all your hundreds of games and sessions you've only had one openly, antagonistically [X]-ist asshat, which is great. Can you say for certain that nobody else at your table wasn't quietly sitting on their pain simply for a chance to play, even if they had to deal with playing a character they weren't feeling or deal with "funny jokes" that sting their hearts every time?
Because I can tell you that if I were at your table out of chance, you wouldn't recognize "Yurei" at all. You'd see the White Boi meat mask, I'd sit down with a male character with absolutely no background weirdness whatsoever, no reassigned numbers, no funky class or subclass, none of my homebrew or any Tasha's content at all. I'd sit down, play, keep mostly quiet, and just tolerate all the "crazy womenfolk" jokes and the riffs on gender-nonconforming people. Because it's not worth the giant fight and the getting-booted-from-the-table that comes from telling someone their Funny Meme or their sexist in-joke is painful for me. Either it's pain I can tolerate and I'll just keep playing, or it's pain I can't and the first you'll know of it is when I tell you after a session not to expect me back at the next session.
Nor am I remotely the only person who's ever done that. We do it at work, we do it at other social events, we do it basically everywhere. Sit on the pain, keep quiet, and just bear it. Having to do so in our off-hours fun time too just really, really sucks.
It came up in the other thread, but I'll cover it - briefly - for you here as well, Aerchon.
Just because nobody complained about this stuff before doesn't mean nobody felt it before. "Aberrant" folks, the nontradational noncomforming people Wizards is trying to do better by with these rules, have usually had lots and lots and lots of practice in simply keeping quiet, pinning a smile on it, and keeping their nonconforming nature to themselves. Both to try and have fun with people, and to avoid the pain that usually accompanies being outed. Across all your hundreds of games and sessions you've only had one openly, antagonistically [X]-ist asshat, which is great. Can you say for certain that nobody else at your table wasn't quietly sitting on their pain simply for a chance to play, even if they had to deal with playing a character they weren't feeling or deal with "funny jokes" that sting their hearts every time?
Because I can tell you that if I were at your table out of chance, you wouldn't recognize "Yurei" at all. You'd see the White Boi meat mask, I'd sit down with a male character with absolutely no background weirdness whatsoever, no reassigned numbers, no funky class or subclass, none of my homebrew or any Tasha's content at all. I'd sit down, play, keep mostly quiet, and just tolerate all the "crazy womenfolk" jokes and the riffs on gender-nonconforming people. Because it's not worth the giant fight and the getting-booted-from-the-table that comes from telling someone their Funny Meme or their sexist in-joke is painful for me. Either it's pain I can tolerate and I'll just keep playing, or it's pain I can't and the first you'll know of it is when I tell you after a session not to expect me back at the next session.
Nor am I remotely the only person who's ever done that. We do it at work, we do it at other social events, we do it basically everywhere. Sit on the pain, keep quiet, and just bear it. Having to do so in our off-hours fun time too just really, really sucks.
This is a difficult topic, and incredibly more so with the sensitivity of everyone when discussing it. I'll very gently touch on this, and then I really really think we should move on because too often these tend to devolve quickly.
First, thank you for sharing this with me. I understand it is difficult to share vulnerability regardless of the medium, and take a deep strength to do so. I don't believe anyone that ever plays D&D should feel uncomfortable or that they are being attacked. If, as a DM you came to me and told me that you felt that way, then as a group we would sit down and discuss it. I've only had one extreme version (as previously mentioned) but ive had plenty of times where one or more people were saying or doing something that really was making someone upset. We sat down as a group, and 99% of the time the other players agreed not to bring up certain sensitive topics. I think communication is so critical, and again, only play Dungeons and Dragons with people you would trust with your computer password.
The other side of this, is that if an individual sits down with the group, feels unhappy with something at the table, but the rest of the group feels that that is not the game they want to play, in that case it would be that player that would need to leave. I will give one example: There was a gaming session I was running in Texas with some friends of mine who were severely wounded due to an IED in Iraq. The military mindset combined with trauma led to some very off-color and terrible jokes and direction that the game went. We had an individual who asked to play with us, and about halfway through the session stated that some of the comments about injuries were upsetting to him. We ended the game early and discussed it, and in this case explained to that player that maybe this group wasn't what he was looking for. Again, communication and honesty. Sometimes it is uncomfortable and difficult, and it can lead to hurt feelings. But hurt feelings through honesty is always better than hurt feelings that are shoved down inside.
I, personally, do not believe that the social rage about race/species and Dungeons and Dragons has to do with the game. I think it is a buy product of the seismic changes in how we view ourselves as individuals in society, as well as the responsibility of society as a whole towards individuals who feel disassociated from norms. I think Dungeons and Dragons is a great tool to find groups and enjoy that adventure together, but I really do believe its a collective activity and all people at the table need to be having fun. The same rules for DMing: If you are running a deeply serious campaign and all your Players create funny shtick characters, as a DM you need to change. I think the crux of this is I believe no single person at the table can or should dictate the way others play.
Again, thank you for your response, and I really do appreciate that openness.
I have to say, after reading these threads, I’ve realized that some people find the race system hurtful and it’s not just an argument on principle or “my special character must be good!” I did not realize this was a lived experience for some people, and now that I see that, I’d like to fix the problem. At this point, while I think Tasha’s handled the change very badly and opened the door for powergaming, I think it’s good to move past specific stats for races. In fact, I think we should just eliminate races as a mechanical component at all. (Honestly, my main reason for liking the old races was because they encouraged classic fantasy, but people will keep playing classic fantasy because it’s cool, so I’m not even sure my reason was valid.)
If I had to propose a “fix” for 5e to stay balanced without races, which I may start thinking about using in my games, it’d be giving every character either +1/+1/+2 or +1/+1/feat, along with one free skill and one free language.
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.
With all due respect... abnormal, by definition, is "deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying." Ask a random person on the street, and they'll tell you that being abnormal is pretty much a Bad Thing. Trying to play semantics over the word "abnormal" is kind of misleading and spin-doctor-y. Especially when I also used exotic - a word that generally describes deviancy from the norm in a positive way.
Regardless of whatever word you use... its pretty clear that the first post showed bias in favor of the old method over the new, and treating the new as a deviance of the way the game should be. And that's the problem. I don't actually care if you really treat "abnormal" as a good or bad thing. Its the fact that you're being told its not normal in the first place that's a bad thing. That starts off the entire conversation in an adversarial light. That was my entire point. You can't have a calm, civilized discussion if you don't accept that both view points are valid and normal. ESPECIALLY in a game based around group cooperation.
If you cannot see how being told that your view isn't normal in this particular conversation... well, there's nothing to really say, other than I would like to recommend you walking a mile in someone else's shoes.
EDIT - and that's before we get into people justifying hurtful behavior, and even some hate crimes, with the excuse of "that's not normal." I grew up with that shit. You cannot tell me that the OP meant "normal" in a positive-for-both-sides way.
Regardless of whatever word you use... its pretty clear that the first post showed bias in favor of the old method over the new, and treating the new as a deviance of the way the game should be. And that's the problem. I don't actually care if you really treat "abnormal" as a good or bad thing. Its the fact that you're being told its not normal in the first place that's a bad thing. That starts off the entire conversation in an adversarial light. That was my entire point. You can't have a calm, civilized discussion if you don't accept that both view points are valid and normal. ESPECIALLY in a game based around group cooperation.
If you cannot see how being told that your view isn't normal in this particular conversation... well, there's nothing to really say, other than I would like to recommend you walking a mile in someone else's shoes.
Why end your statement with a pejorative? No reason for it, but your statement implies that I don't understand other views and lack empathy. It's an attack, and the only purpose is to draw doubt on my ability to view other perspectives. I didn't state that you didn't understand, or that you were ignorant or other items. This is where civility ends, when you feel your point is only valued when you attack the person, not the message.
I'm not going to respond to the rest because that's the slippery slope that gets people all fired up.
Considering that this topic has devolved into "Your views are wrong. No your view is wrong." and is completely irrelevant since the changes are happening regardless of the side you are on, I think I am just going to exit the discussion at this point.
I don't think its devolved that far, and I personally believe civil discourse only advances causes. Also, I am fairly comfortable saying that WoTC has individuals who surf these forums as a method of gaining insight into the mindset of players, and the hope is that they will see there is a desire to retain the pre-assigned points in some manner.
I have to say, after reading these threads, I’ve realized that some people find the race system hurtful and it’s not just an argument on principle or “my special character must be good!” I did not realize this was a lived experience for some people, and now that I see that, I’d like to fix the problem. At this point, while I think Tasha’s handled the change very badly and opened the door for powergaming, I think it’s good to move past specific stats for races. In fact, I think we should just eliminate races as a mechanical component at all. (Honestly, my main reason for liking the old races was because they encouraged classic fantasy, but people will keep playing classic fantasy because it’s cool, so I’m not even sure my reason was valid.)
If I had to propose a “fix” for 5e to stay balanced without races, which I may start thinking about using in my games, it’d be giving every character either +1/+1/+2 or +1/+1/feat, along with one free skill and one free language.
"To be fair" to the writers of Tasha's, it's a stopgap solution. Any stopgap solution is going to have balance issues, but solving the problem more completely would require a massive reworking of the game (not to mention a bunch of soul-searching amongst the designers).
I think the Custom Lineage option is an OK start, btw. Imagine if they were to go through all/most of the various race features, break them down into a set of feats and half-feats, maybe remove race prerequisites from the Xanathar's race feats, etc... Then Custom Lineage could sub in for just about any race, yet without declaring races to have hard-coded features.
Or, as various people in this thread (including you) have suggested, expand it to allow some mix of ASIs, some of which can be replaced by feats. With feats and half-feats, you'd have quite alot of flexibility.
These topics are extremely hard to discuss in a good manner, it's just a very sensitive topic manner.
For one side it's about their personal identity and wanting to feel normal (since HB.rules by their nature are not a normal part of the game, even if they are a recommended part, and a variant rule would still impose onto them the idea that what they are doing is still not normal).
However for the other it's about giving them the choice to persevere their way of playing without needing to fall back to the same HB rules which the first side is complaining about (except it's harder to make racial ASIs than to destroy them).
It's probably best to discontinue these types of threads.
Edit: Also sorry if I mess up the arguments of one side or the other, these threads tend to devolve into shouting matches and it's hard to keep track over several 10+ page long threads.
I do like to shout out to the people here for still remaining mostly civil, which is surprising considering it's page 13, so I'm being fully serious when I applaud everybody for being mature and open to each others ideas. Especially on such a sensitive topic like this one.
I have to say, after reading these threads, I’ve realized that some people find the race system hurtful and it’s not just an argument on principle or “my special character must be good!” I did not realize this was a lived experience for some people, and now that I see that, I’d like to fix the problem.
Thank you, this gives me hope.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
It came up in the other thread, but I'll cover it - briefly - for you here as well, Aerchon.
Just because nobody complained about this stuff before doesn't mean nobody felt it before. "Aberrant" folks, the nontradational noncomforming people Wizards is trying to do better by with these rules, have usually had lots and lots and lots of practice in simply keeping quiet, pinning a smile on it, and keeping their nonconforming nature to themselves. Both to try and have fun with people, and to avoid the pain that usually accompanies being outed. Across all your hundreds of games and sessions you've only had one openly, antagonistically [X]-ist asshat, which is great. Can you say for certain that nobody else at your table wasn't quietly sitting on their pain simply for a chance to play, even if they had to deal with playing a character they weren't feeling or deal with "funny jokes" that sting their hearts every time?
Because I can tell you that if I were at your table out of chance, you wouldn't recognize "Yurei" at all. You'd see the White Boi meat mask, I'd sit down with a male character with absolutely no background weirdness whatsoever, no reassigned numbers, no funky class or subclass, none of my homebrew or any Tasha's content at all. I'd sit down, play, keep mostly quiet, and just tolerate all the "crazy womenfolk" jokes and the riffs on gender-nonconforming people. Because it's not worth the giant fight and the getting-booted-from-the-table that comes from telling someone their Funny Meme or their sexist in-joke is painful for me. Either it's pain I can tolerate and I'll just keep playing, or it's pain I can't and the first you'll know of it is when I tell you after a session not to expect me back at the next session.
Nor am I remotely the only person who's ever done that. We do it at work, we do it at other social events, we do it basically everywhere. Sit on the pain, keep quiet, and just bear it. Having to do so in our off-hours fun time too just really, really sucks.
This is a difficult topic, and incredibly more so with the sensitivity of everyone when discussing it. I'll very gently touch on this, and then I really really think we should move on because too often these tend to devolve quickly.
First, thank you for sharing this with me. I understand it is difficult to share vulnerability regardless of the medium, and take a deep strength to do so. I don't believe anyone that ever plays D&D should feel uncomfortable or that they are being attacked. If, as a DM you came to me and told me that you felt that way, then as a group we would sit down and discuss it. I've only had one extreme version (as previously mentioned) but ive had plenty of times where one or more people were saying or doing something that really was making someone upset. We sat down as a group, and 99% of the time the other players agreed not to bring up certain sensitive topics. I think communication is so critical, and again, only play Dungeons and Dragons with people you would trust with your computer password.
The other side of this, is that if an individual sits down with the group, feels unhappy with something at the table, but the rest of the group feels that that is not the game they want to play, in that case it would be that player that would need to leave. I will give one example: There was a gaming session I was running in Texas with some friends of mine who were severely wounded due to an IED in Iraq. The military mindset combined with trauma led to some very off-color and terrible jokes and direction that the game went. We had an individual who asked to play with us, and about halfway through the session stated that some of the comments about injuries were upsetting to him. We ended the game early and discussed it, and in this case explained to that player that maybe this group wasn't what he was looking for. Again, communication and honesty. Sometimes it is uncomfortable and difficult, and it can lead to hurt feelings. But hurt feelings through honesty is always better than hurt feelings that are shoved down inside.
I, personally, do not believe that the social rage about race/species and Dungeons and Dragons has to do with the game. I think it is a buy product of the seismic changes in how we view ourselves as individuals in society, as well as the responsibility of society as a whole towards individuals who feel disassociated from norms. I think Dungeons and Dragons is a great tool to find groups and enjoy that adventure together, but I really do believe its a collective activity and all people at the table need to be having fun. The same rules for DMing: If you are running a deeply serious campaign and all your Players create funny shtick characters, as a DM you need to change. I think the crux of this is I believe no single person at the table can or should dictate the way others play.
Again, thank you for your response, and I really do appreciate that openness.
Since we're doing the open thing, I'm going to mention the story I mentioned in the other thread.
My first encounter with D&D and how it ran me off before I even got to the table.
I was already into RPGs but hadn't ever given D&D a try, I decided to buy the players handbook, this was around 3e or 3.5e I think. Back then the player races included -stats.
I am a multiracial person, and so the idea of the 'half' races I'd heard of leapt out at me as a way to play a bit of my "of two worlds" experience.
So my choices were Half-Elves, who were the pretty people (something I definitely didn't view myself as) and really seemed to give off an everyone loves them vibe. Or Half Orcs, who gave a +2 STR, -2INT, -2CHA stat thing. So, if I wanted to be the half-race that felt closer to me, not a pretty person, not someone everyone loved, I had to play an idiot that everyone hated. "You're not fully like us, so you're less than us" a mentality that I actually encountered often in the really real world.
I'm not saying the designers intended for the book to go "Screw you in particular Samedi of Orleans" but it honestly felt that way at the time.
I never gave D&D another look, until in late 2017 the Outside Xbox channel on youtube I followed did their own DND game, and one of them actually played a half-orc bard. The idea Half-Orcs were now NOT screwed for any Charisma thing was what got me to give D&D a look again.
and now I own like 99% of the players bundle on here.
I'm sure many felt that removing those negatives from half-orcs and all were a bad thing. Probably using 90% of the same arguments those who hate this change are making today. But I can say for certain that change is what opened the game up for me, what made me want to engage with it and make characters within it.
Yeah, people may not have run into many who complained before, but at least part of that is because we left before we were ever at your table.
This huge influx of newbies isn't just people who never heard of D&D before. It's also people who felt D&D used to tell them "go away" from the core books themselves.
And while I came back with just "Okay, we're not removing from your stats" I'm sure some folks will need the "Yeah, put your stats wherever you want" to draw them back.
I don't see the "These races have definitive stats" as a big enough bonus in any way, to combat the drawbacks they can/do cause.
@Naivara When 5e was first released, it was built primarily to try and draw back in the crowd that had left because of 4e, with the hope that the oversimplified rules would also work to attract newcomers to the game. But first and foremost it was a "back to the roots" game for veterans of 3.5e who'd jumped ship to Pathfinder.
Fast forward six years, add in a heaping dose of Critical Role, and now D&D has more-or-less exploded. More new people are playing than ever before, a very significant number of them coming from Critical Role and Matthew Mercer's explicitly, almost aggressively egalitarian and inclusionary world...and those people are finding "the roots of D&D" to be less helpful than they might like. It's not that Wizards is bad (they are actually, but not because of this issue) or D&D is intended to be [X]ist, but the bare truth is that "the roots of D&D" were more or less solidified twenty-plus years ago during the 3.5 days when nobody cared about these issues and bringing them up was a great way to get called all kinds of awful names and then ostracized from your gaming group.
When Wizards dropped 5e, people didn't even really know words like bioessentialism, and the people who did sure as shit didn't play D&D. But time marches ever forward, and the single biggest driver of new players to the hobby makes an explicit point of being inclusive, showcasing peoples of all walks and styles and colors of life, and specifically inviting folks to use this excellent hobby as a means of both expressing and discovering oneself.
It doesn't really surprise me at all that Wizards is having trouble keeping up. They're a notoriously slow and obnoxious company and one that, historically, hasn't given a single fat frog shit what the user base for their games thinks. Their big cash cow is Magic: the Gathering, and all the inclusivity problems in Magic are at the FLGS level. They just doctor up the art on a few cards here and there, maybe tell an author to include a Diversity Checklist character in a side novel somewhere, tell FLGS's that they lose their benefits if they let [X]ism take over their stores, and they're set. But now they're in the limelight, and D&D needs to be inclusive at the game development level, not just the FLGS level. Never once in their entire lives has Wizards ever had to worry about this stuff, and I can very much imagine it's a huge blast of ice water to the face.
Are their attempts so far clumsy? Sure. It's going to be until Wizards gets the hang of at least pretending to not be awful people, but taking steps is still better than not taking steps. I'd prefer to encourage the steps they do take, rather than condemn them for not making the leap all at once. Perfect is the enemy of good.
@Naivara When 5e was first released, it was built primarily to try and draw back in the crowd that had left because of 4e, with the hope that the oversimplified rules would also work to attract newcomers to the game. But first and foremost it was a "back to the roots" game for veterans of 3.5e who'd jumped ship to Pathfinder.
Fast forward six years, add in a heaping dose of Critical Role, and now D&D has more-or-less exploded. More new people are playing than ever before, a very significant number of them coming from Critical Role and Matthew Mercer's explicitly, almost aggressively egalitarian and inclusionary world...and those people are finding "the roots of D&D" to be less helpful than they might like. It's not that Wizards is bad (they are actually, but not because of this issue) or D&D is intended to be [X]ist, but the bare truth is that "the roots of D&D" were more or less solidified twenty-plus years ago during the 3.5 days when nobody cared about these issues and bringing them up was a great way to get called all kinds of awful names and then ostracized from your gaming group.
When Wizards dropped 5e, people didn't even really know words like bioessentialism, and the people who did sure as shit didn't play D&D. But time marches ever forward, and the single biggest driver of new players to the hobby makes an explicit point of being inclusive, showcasing peoples of all walks and styles and colors of life, and specifically inviting folks to use this excellent hobby as a means of both expressing and discovering oneself.
It doesn't really surprise me at all that Wizards is having trouble keeping up. They're a notoriously slow and obnoxious company and one that, historically, hasn't given a single fat frog shit what the user base for their games thinks. Their big cash cow is Magic: the Gathering, and all the inclusivity problems in Magic are at the FLGS level. They just doctor up the art on a few cards here and there, maybe tell an author to include a Diversity Checklist character in a side novel somewhere, tell FLGS's that they lose their benefits if they let [X]ism take over their stores, and they're set. But now they're in the limelight, and D&D needs to be inclusive at the game development level, not just the FLGS level. Never once in their entire lives has Wizards ever had to worry about this stuff, and I can very much imagine it's a huge blast of ice water to the face.
Are their attempts so far clumsy? Sure. It's going to be until Wizards gets the hang of at least pretending to not be awful people, but taking steps is still better than not taking steps. I'd prefer to encourage the steps they do take, rather than condemn them for not making the leap all at once. Perfect is the enemy of good.
This is an incredibly well stated summary and argument. Obviously there are few differences in terms of where I believe the responsibility for inclusiveness lies, but I think this should be pinned to the top of this discussion.
Okay, this is going to be a long one, so stay with me please. I'm going to break down some recurring arguments and state why they're incorrect/flawed/hurtful.
Let's start with, "I feel like I've been scammed".
No you don't. You seriously don't. You were scammed if they caused you to buy this future book, telling you that it would have something in it, and then they lied about it. They never did such a thing. This is no more of a "scam" than errata is. We all get the purpose of errata. WotC messes up when designing/writing rules sometimes, and so they fix it with errata. This is basically the same thing, except they're being kind enough to alert you and the rest of the community beforehand. You are more than free to not buy this book and any future book that has lineages in it. If you feel scammed, you have either never been truly scammed before, or you have a poor definition for the word. Furthermore, if you do buy these books and intend to use these lineages, but prefer the old way, just take 2 seconds per lineage to assign the ASIs to any place you want. It's not that hard. I can do it for you. (Dhampir get +2 CON and +1 DEX/CHA, Hexblood get +2 CHA and +1 CON, Reborn get +2 CON and +1 to any ability score. It's that simple.)
Have I sufficiently covered that now? Can we stop acting like WotC has stolen money from you or murdered your puppy now?
Next, "This makes D&D not be D&D anymore" (or any other of the vast variety of statements basically saying this, like the checker analogy)
Again, this is false. You are either being overdramatic, or your delusioned enough to believe that the core of D&D rests upon the shoulders of races/lineages having predetermined, hard-defined, set-in-stone racial ASIs. That is not the core of D&D. If it is for you, I am sorry to tell you that your definition of D&D is very narrow and unimaginative. D&D is not the rules, it's not the settings, it's not the genre, and it's not even the brand. Eberron can be used in other TTRPGs, Keith Baker (the original creator of Eberron) even encourages it. Critical Role started out in Pathfinder before transitioning to D&D 5e. Many Pathfinder players that I know consider Pathfinder (and even Starfinder) to be D&D. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. The same thing applies to D&D. Pathfinder looks like D&D, it works like (as in similarly to) D&D, and it quacks (feels) enough like D&D to be considered D&D. However, WotC doesn't produce Pathfinder, Paizo does. That doesn't matter. Critical Role was D&D before Wildemount became an official 5e setting through Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. If people played/play in Magic: the Gathering settings before they were officially published in D&D 5e, that was D&D. If someone creates a 3rd party D&D 5e document about playing the game in outer space with laser swords and a homebrew Jedi class, that's D&D. It's just a different flavor and playstyle. That doesn't make it wrong, and that doesn't make it bad. It's just different. And different is okay.
If you feel like you get to decide what D&D is, that's gatekeeping. That's not your job. I'm 99.9999% certain that Wizards of the Coast did not hire you to draw the line between "D&D" and "not D&D". That's not your job. Until Wizards of the Coast personally sends me a letter telling me that my games do not count as D&D (which this UA suggests they are doing the exact opposite of, making the game more open to different themes and genres than before), I will keep playing 5e and participating in the community, trying to spread the word that classic/old-style D&D does not have to be the only D&D. Dark Sun is D&D, Eberron is D&D, Wildemount is D&D, and my homebrew settings are D&D. Even if its eyes may be purple, a duck that looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck is still probably a duck.
If me getting to play D&D in a more unique and personalized way makes the game not feel like D&D anymore, I don't know what you think D&D is, but I'm sure I don't want to play it.
Now, "Double-Standard much?" (Or any similar phrase)
I get it. I honestly, sincerely get why you're upset. To an extent, I do agree with you and see your point here. Wizards of the Coast put out the Customize your Origin feature in Tasha's calling it an "optional" feature. You feel burned when they put out a UA saying that this is going to be the new normal for the rest of 5e. I honestly get that, and I can see why you are upset. I do think that Wizards of the Coast would not get any complaints from both sides if they did both versions in the books having these lineages. That would seem fair. I just don't think it's necessary. Though this does require you to "homebrew", it barely counts as homebrew. It's just as easy to say as determining which of the many races in 5e will be in your homebrew setting. If your setting doesn't have Tortles, just tell your players that Tortle characters won't be allowed. The same thing applies here. If you want Dhampir to have predetermined racial ASIs, just tell your players what ones they have (I did the work for you above and will gladly do it for all future lineages that come out in this form). It's not hard. It may be annoying and it may be frustrating that D&D appears to be headed in a direction that you don't like, but now you know how I, and others with similar experiences, feel/felt.
I'm frustrated anytime I see the mention of "Order of the Scribes" anywhere, including in my copy of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. I'm frustrated that my favorite Artificer subclass was taken away and handed off to the Wizard class, which both doesn't work well with the idea/function of the Archivist and doesn't need the subclass. I'm frustrated that now I'm forced to homebrew an Archivist subclass for the Artificer in my games because of what feels like a mistake on WotC's part became official. I'm annoyed that Wizards of the Coast is so adamant about not creating new classes, even for niches/archetypes that need a full new class (Psion, Swordmage/Duskblade, Warlord, Occultist, etc), and instead just relegate them to subclasses that don't work well at fulfilling that character concept (Aberrant Mind, Eldritch Knight/Bladesinger, Purple Dragon Knight/Battlemaster, Hexblade). I'm annoyed when Wizards of the Coast chooses to release Magic: the Gathering setting books instead of a setting that I would actually like (Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer). Being frustrated by the things that the people in charge do is a part of life and a part of being a member of this community. Complaining about it online in hope of convincing a handful of people will likely not do anything for you. It's wasting time and energy.
No one is being excluded from D&D because of this (in fact, it's just the opposite), and no one has to use these rules if you don't want to. Sure, it takes a bit more work to be non-inclusive with racial ASIs than it is to have floating ones. That's fine by me, but may be annoying for you. I'm sorry. I know the feeling and can empathize with you. Life isn't always fair and you don't always get what you want. Better luck next time, and I hope this doesn't break the game for you.
Next, "This was made to help minmaxers!" (or a similar statement)
No, it wasn't. Minmaxers/powergamers/munchkins/whatever-you-call-them already have what they want. Pre-Tasha's, they had Yuan-Ti Pureblood Hexadins with magic resistance, poison and disease immunity, spellcasting, pact magic, divine/eldritch smite, and polearm master. Post-Tasha's, they have Mountain Dwarf Wizards that start the game with medium armor and a +2 to CON and INT. Post this UA, they have Dhampir Monks that can heal a bit better than the average Dhampir by using their martial arts die for their bite. If powergamers were going to destroy D&D by instantly killing any monster and eating the souls of the grognards, they would have done it by now. If every player set out to have the most powerful character possible, completely ignore roleplaying, and ruin the DMs campaigns, everyone would choose an Aarakocra, Satyr, or Yuan-Ti Pureblood and play a Wizard or Paladin and be done with it. That hasn't happened yet, so I'm willing to bet that it's never going to happen.
Doomsday-preachers haven't been right yet, so why would they be right now? There's no difference between this and Tasha's rules. We've had TCoE for just about 3 months, and the game hasn't been overrun by powergamers, so it's not going to happen. Powergamers have what they want, so it's best to leave them out of this. Find a different scapegoat.
Finally, "People (or the "Twitter mob") are just overreacting/too-sensitive-nowadays/Races have no bearing on the real world"
Let's tackle the first half before the second one. People are not "too sensitive". Humans evolved senses for a reason. It's important to our existence. If we didn't have empathy or emotional senses, we wouldn't be "human". It's better to understand why someone else may be offended by something and trying to fix that thing than just blow them off and pretend like they're overreacting. Just because something doesn't hurt you doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt someone else. It's a good thing that people are more vocal about what causes them emotional pain/discomfort nowadays. That means that we're progressing as a people and a community. Being more aware/in touch with both our own emotions and the feelings of others will make the world a better place. Society teaches us that the emotions of males are wrong and "manly" people toughen up and aren't supposed to cry. Society teaches us that women are too emotional and thus can't handle serious jobs, such as ones in the government and so on. These teachings are sexist and detrimental to our society. It's better to have and acknowledge our emotions than it is to pretend like they don't exist and shut ourselves off from the outside world.
Furthermore, D&D races are based off of the real world, whether it's directly or indirectly. We, and the people who created settings like Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, and Mystara, are only human and thus biased due to the world around us. Whether or not Orcs were intended to offend people of color is irrelevant. I unintentionally offend people all the time, as does everyone else. It's bound to happen, as we are only human and thus are imperfect. The text in D&D used to describe Orcs mirrors the language used to derogate people of color for centuries (probably even for millennia). For as long as humans have had different societies/cultures, we've been using rational to put down/dehumanize others. Here are just a few examples:
"They're primitive"
"They're ugly"
"They breed like rabbits"
"They are inherently evil"
"They are inherently stupid"
"They can't control their emotions"
"They're genetically inferior"
"They were cursed by God and/or worship evil gods/idols"
All of those are used to describe orcs in D&D, and they've also been used to disparage people of color and other marginalized groups for an uncountable amount of years.
It does not matter whether or not Orcs, Drow, and other fantasy were intended to represent real life peoples and cultures. They mirror the language, and thus are a sensitive topic that can/do make them feel uncomfortable/unsafe in our hobby. If D&D is meant to be anything, it's meant to be inclusive. How many of this have used this hobby to indirectly deal with other problems that have been happening in our lives? D&D is the escape for many of us. We should let it be an escape for anyone that wants to play it. We know what this hobby can do and should share it with others.
Okay. I think that's the main ones. As a summary, this is not a scam, this is not a double-standard, this isn't to help minmaxers, and there are real reasons behind these changes.
Since we're doing the open thing, I'm going to mention the story I mentioned in the other thread.
My first encounter with D&D and how it ran me off before I even got to the table.
I was already into RPGs but hadn't ever given D&D a try, I decided to buy the players handbook, this was around 3e or 3.5e I think. Back then the player races included -stats.
I am a multiracial person, and so the idea of the 'half' races I'd heard of leapt out at me as a way to play a bit of my "of two worlds" experience.
So my choices were Half-Elves, who were the pretty people (something I definitely didn't view myself as) and really seemed to give off an everyone loves them vibe. Or Half Orcs, who gave a +2 STR, -2INT, -2CHA stat thing. So, if I wanted to be the half-race that felt closer to me, not a pretty person, not someone everyone loved, I had to play an idiot that everyone hated. "You're not fully like us, so you're less than us" a mentality that I actually encountered often in the really real world.
I'm not saying the designers intended for the book to go "Screw you in particular Samedi of Orleans" but it honestly felt that way at the time.
I never gave D&D another look, until in late 2017 the Outside Xbox channel on youtube I followed did their own DND game, and one of them actually played a half-orc bard. The idea Half-Orcs were now NOT screwed for any Charisma thing was what got me to give D&D a look again.
and now I own like 99% of the players bundle on here.
I'm sure many felt that removing those negatives from half-orcs and all were a bad thing. Probably using 90% of the same arguments those who hate this change are making today. But I can say for certain that change is what opened the game up for me, what made me want to engage with it and make characters within it.
Yeah, people may not have run into many who complained before, but at least part of that is because we left before we were ever at your table.
This huge influx of newbies isn't just people who never heard of D&D before. It's also people who felt D&D used to tell them "go away" from the core books themselves.
And while I came back with just "Okay, we're not removing from your stats" I'm sure some folks will need the "Yeah, put your stats wherever you want" to draw them back.
I don't see the "These races have definitive stats" as a big enough bonus in any way, to combat the drawbacks they can/do cause.
Like I said with during the prior post, thank you very much for this openness.
I wish you had come to my table, and I would have said: "The -2 to Cha? That's not because your not charismatic, its because the "civilized" races see a monster when they see you. You have to overcome that. In your tribe/group/society you are basically the Wayne Brady of the land." What I hear too though is that you wanted to play a half-Orc bard, and you never got to the point where you gave a DM an opportunity to modify those rules. I'm not blaming you by any measure, i'm just saying my job as a DM is to make sure you are having fun! But if you had said: "Man, it really impacts my gameplay to have that negative impact the mechanics of the game" then I would have happily (after I make you write a good backstory) had you skip the -2. I would have needed to figure out how to make it equivalent for the rest of the players as well, but we would have done it.
I will stand up on the box and say this again: I believe the decision to include the option to have floating points is great, and we can even make that the new norm (and the assigned points the "variant rules"), and much like was mentioned early I think redesigning the lineage system from the ground up with 6E would be a great idea. I just don't want WoTC to remove an option, because I do use that option in a variety of ways, and specifically involving DDB (which is what the ultimate issue is).
I think ultimately, as a greater community, we need to discuss who we play D&D with, and what our players and DMs should expect from each other. I think having that civil, open argument benefits everyone. Even if I don't get my way, i'm not going to rage quit, burn my books and utilize the covers to make a voodoos' doll of Jerermy Crawford. Of course not. But like those individuals who are unhappy about assigned skill points and want it changed, I would like the assigned skill points to stay as a variant rule.
I would like to point out that D&D is the only game I see, even D&D clones, that have exclusively racial-based stats. Most games seem to have gone the route of either discluding extra stat bonuses /penalties entirely, or spreading them out across several parts, including on the classes.
Imagine it. A gnomish, an elvish, a dwarven and an orcish wizard would never need to worry about their race giving them an INT bump or drop... because the Wizard class is the one granting the INT bump.
As far as I'm aware, D&D is pretty much the only major fantasy game with race having such a huge impact on your stats. Pretty much everyone else has been moving away from that format.
People like to say that D&D is doing it just because of inclusiveness (which is great), but honestly, I suspect that they're really just catching up with modern game design that doesn't really favor such weight on races.
I mean, lets be fair here - there's still very much class-based weight on races. Even the new UA ones. The hexblood are very much biased towards spellcaster types, for instance. The dhampir are the opposite, favoring classes that want to get in close and bite - its a little better using CON.
I would like to point out that D&D is the only game I see, even D&D clones, that have exclusively racial-based stats. Most games seem to have gone the route of either discluding extra stat bonuses /penalties entirely, or spreading them out across several parts, including on the classes.
Imagine it. A gnomish, an elvish, a dwarven and an orcish wizard would never need to worry about their race giving them an INT bump or drop... because the Wizard class is the one granting the INT bump.
As far as I'm aware, D&D is pretty much the only major fantasy game with race having such a huge impact on your stats. Pretty much everyone else has been moving away from that format.
People like to say that D&D is doing it just because of inclusiveness (which is great), but honestly, I suspect that they're really just catching up with modern game design that doesn't really favor such weight on races.
I mean, lets be fair here - there's still very much class-based weight on races. Even the new UA ones. The hexblood are very much biased towards spellcaster types, for instance. The dhampir are the opposite, favoring classes that want to get in close and bite - its a little better using CON.
I like the idea of class being the thing that makes more difference here and then it portrays the situation well when you think about it as your training.
If you consider the Ability Bonuses a racial trait which can - but doesn't have to - mean bioessentialism (again, a +2 Int bonus may very well mean that a species has better neuroconnectivity and it's as much of a physical/genetic trait as wings even if not visible from the outside) then I am proponent of suggested bonuses based on a setting.
So, keep it floating, why not, but a setting book would have something like:
Orc
xxxxxxxx (here comes the description)
Favored abilities: Str, Con - most orcs in this setting live in the wilderness and have exceptional physical attributes, favoring athleticism over mental growth.
It won't make you give those bonuses to Str or Con but will inform you of how in general orcs work in a particular setting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Aerchon,
As a fellow forum user, may I kindly suggest that if you're using the quote button, you do not need to reply with the name of the person below the quote. It makes the thread unnecessarily longer.
(P.S. You can edit quotes to shorten them, which also helps save space. Earlier in the thread, I noticed you doing some huge quote chains, which is very annoying for your fellow forum users. I'm just making you aware so that you can do better in the future.)
Sincerely,
Third_Sundering
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I am obviously not a forum regular :) Thank you for the suggestions! I tried to only quote certain subjects yesterday and the whole thing just fell apart.
It came up in the other thread, but I'll cover it - briefly - for you here as well, Aerchon.
Just because nobody complained about this stuff before doesn't mean nobody felt it before. "Aberrant" folks, the nontradational noncomforming people Wizards is trying to do better by with these rules, have usually had lots and lots and lots of practice in simply keeping quiet, pinning a smile on it, and keeping their nonconforming nature to themselves. Both to try and have fun with people, and to avoid the pain that usually accompanies being outed. Across all your hundreds of games and sessions you've only had one openly, antagonistically [X]-ist asshat, which is great. Can you say for certain that nobody else at your table wasn't quietly sitting on their pain simply for a chance to play, even if they had to deal with playing a character they weren't feeling or deal with "funny jokes" that sting their hearts every time?
Because I can tell you that if I were at your table out of chance, you wouldn't recognize "Yurei" at all. You'd see the White Boi meat mask, I'd sit down with a male character with absolutely no background weirdness whatsoever, no reassigned numbers, no funky class or subclass, none of my homebrew or any Tasha's content at all. I'd sit down, play, keep mostly quiet, and just tolerate all the "crazy womenfolk" jokes and the riffs on gender-nonconforming people. Because it's not worth the giant fight and the getting-booted-from-the-table that comes from telling someone their Funny Meme or their sexist in-joke is painful for me. Either it's pain I can tolerate and I'll just keep playing, or it's pain I can't and the first you'll know of it is when I tell you after a session not to expect me back at the next session.
Nor am I remotely the only person who's ever done that. We do it at work, we do it at other social events, we do it basically everywhere. Sit on the pain, keep quiet, and just bear it. Having to do so in our off-hours fun time too just really, really sucks.
Please do not contact or message me.
This is a difficult topic, and incredibly more so with the sensitivity of everyone when discussing it. I'll very gently touch on this, and then I really really think we should move on because too often these tend to devolve quickly.
First, thank you for sharing this with me. I understand it is difficult to share vulnerability regardless of the medium, and take a deep strength to do so. I don't believe anyone that ever plays D&D should feel uncomfortable or that they are being attacked. If, as a DM you came to me and told me that you felt that way, then as a group we would sit down and discuss it. I've only had one extreme version (as previously mentioned) but ive had plenty of times where one or more people were saying or doing something that really was making someone upset. We sat down as a group, and 99% of the time the other players agreed not to bring up certain sensitive topics. I think communication is so critical, and again, only play Dungeons and Dragons with people you would trust with your computer password.
The other side of this, is that if an individual sits down with the group, feels unhappy with something at the table, but the rest of the group feels that that is not the game they want to play, in that case it would be that player that would need to leave. I will give one example: There was a gaming session I was running in Texas with some friends of mine who were severely wounded due to an IED in Iraq. The military mindset combined with trauma led to some very off-color and terrible jokes and direction that the game went. We had an individual who asked to play with us, and about halfway through the session stated that some of the comments about injuries were upsetting to him. We ended the game early and discussed it, and in this case explained to that player that maybe this group wasn't what he was looking for. Again, communication and honesty. Sometimes it is uncomfortable and difficult, and it can lead to hurt feelings. But hurt feelings through honesty is always better than hurt feelings that are shoved down inside.
I, personally, do not believe that the social rage about race/species and Dungeons and Dragons has to do with the game. I think it is a buy product of the seismic changes in how we view ourselves as individuals in society, as well as the responsibility of society as a whole towards individuals who feel disassociated from norms. I think Dungeons and Dragons is a great tool to find groups and enjoy that adventure together, but I really do believe its a collective activity and all people at the table need to be having fun. The same rules for DMing: If you are running a deeply serious campaign and all your Players create funny shtick characters, as a DM you need to change. I think the crux of this is I believe no single person at the table can or should dictate the way others play.
Again, thank you for your response, and I really do appreciate that openness.
I have to say, after reading these threads, I’ve realized that some people find the race system hurtful and it’s not just an argument on principle or “my special character must be good!” I did not realize this was a lived experience for some people, and now that I see that, I’d like to fix the problem. At this point, while I think Tasha’s handled the change very badly and opened the door for powergaming, I think it’s good to move past specific stats for races. In fact, I think we should just eliminate races as a mechanical component at all. (Honestly, my main reason for liking the old races was because they encouraged classic fantasy, but people will keep playing classic fantasy because it’s cool, so I’m not even sure my reason was valid.)
If I had to propose a “fix” for 5e to stay balanced without races, which I may start thinking about using in my games, it’d be giving every character either +1/+1/+2 or +1/+1/feat, along with one free skill and one free language.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
With all due respect... abnormal, by definition, is "deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying." Ask a random person on the street, and they'll tell you that being abnormal is pretty much a Bad Thing. Trying to play semantics over the word "abnormal" is kind of misleading and spin-doctor-y. Especially when I also used exotic - a word that generally describes deviancy from the norm in a positive way.
Why end your statement with a pejorative? No reason for it, but your statement implies that I don't understand other views and lack empathy. It's an attack, and the only purpose is to draw doubt on my ability to view other perspectives. I didn't state that you didn't understand, or that you were ignorant or other items. This is where civility ends, when you feel your point is only valued when you attack the person, not the message.
I'm not going to respond to the rest because that's the slippery slope that gets people all fired up.
We could easily solve all these problems if we would only play "Base" PHB Human.
#OpenDnD
Considering that this topic has devolved into "Your views are wrong. No your view is wrong." and is completely irrelevant since the changes are happening regardless of the side you are on, I think I am just going to exit the discussion at this point.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I don't think its devolved that far, and I personally believe civil discourse only advances causes. Also, I am fairly comfortable saying that WoTC has individuals who surf these forums as a method of gaining insight into the mindset of players, and the hope is that they will see there is a desire to retain the pre-assigned points in some manner.
Also, you have really good points! Don't leave!
"To be fair" to the writers of Tasha's, it's a stopgap solution. Any stopgap solution is going to have balance issues, but solving the problem more completely would require a massive reworking of the game (not to mention a bunch of soul-searching amongst the designers).
I think the Custom Lineage option is an OK start, btw. Imagine if they were to go through all/most of the various race features, break them down into a set of feats and half-feats, maybe remove race prerequisites from the Xanathar's race feats, etc... Then Custom Lineage could sub in for just about any race, yet without declaring races to have hard-coded features.
Or, as various people in this thread (including you) have suggested, expand it to allow some mix of ASIs, some of which can be replaced by feats. With feats and half-feats, you'd have quite alot of flexibility.
These topics are extremely hard to discuss in a good manner, it's just a very sensitive topic manner.
For one side it's about their personal identity and wanting to feel normal (since HB.rules by their nature are not a normal part of the game, even if they are a recommended part, and a variant rule would still impose onto them the idea that what they are doing is still not normal).
However for the other it's about giving them the choice to persevere their way of playing without needing to fall back to the same HB rules which the first side is complaining about (except it's harder to make racial ASIs than to destroy them).
It's probably best to discontinue these types of threads.
Edit: Also sorry if I mess up the arguments of one side or the other, these threads tend to devolve into shouting matches and it's hard to keep track over several 10+ page long threads.
I do like to shout out to the people here for still remaining mostly civil, which is surprising considering it's page 13, so I'm being fully serious when I applaud everybody for being mature and open to each others ideas. Especially on such a sensitive topic like this one.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Thank you, this gives me hope.
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!
Since we're doing the open thing, I'm going to mention the story I mentioned in the other thread.
My first encounter with D&D and how it ran me off before I even got to the table.
I was already into RPGs but hadn't ever given D&D a try, I decided to buy the players handbook, this was around 3e or 3.5e I think.
Back then the player races included -stats.
I am a multiracial person, and so the idea of the 'half' races I'd heard of leapt out at me as a way to play a bit of my "of two worlds" experience.
So my choices were
Half-Elves, who were the pretty people (something I definitely didn't view myself as) and really seemed to give off an everyone loves them vibe.
Or
Half Orcs, who gave a +2 STR, -2INT, -2CHA stat thing.
So, if I wanted to be the half-race that felt closer to me, not a pretty person, not someone everyone loved, I had to play an idiot that everyone hated.
"You're not fully like us, so you're less than us" a mentality that I actually encountered often in the really real world.
I'm not saying the designers intended for the book to go "Screw you in particular Samedi of Orleans" but it honestly felt that way at the time.
I never gave D&D another look, until in late 2017 the Outside Xbox channel on youtube I followed did their own DND game, and one of them actually played a half-orc bard. The idea Half-Orcs were now NOT screwed for any Charisma thing was what got me to give D&D a look again.
and now I own like 99% of the players bundle on here.
I'm sure many felt that removing those negatives from half-orcs and all were a bad thing. Probably using 90% of the same arguments those who hate this change are making today.
But I can say for certain that change is what opened the game up for me, what made me want to engage with it and make characters within it.
Yeah, people may not have run into many who complained before, but at least part of that is because we left before we were ever at your table.
This huge influx of newbies isn't just people who never heard of D&D before.
It's also people who felt D&D used to tell them "go away" from the core books themselves.
And while I came back with just "Okay, we're not removing from your stats" I'm sure some folks will need the "Yeah, put your stats wherever you want" to draw them back.
I don't see the "These races have definitive stats" as a big enough bonus in any way, to combat the drawbacks they can/do cause.
@Naivara
When 5e was first released, it was built primarily to try and draw back in the crowd that had left because of 4e, with the hope that the oversimplified rules would also work to attract newcomers to the game. But first and foremost it was a "back to the roots" game for veterans of 3.5e who'd jumped ship to Pathfinder.
Fast forward six years, add in a heaping dose of Critical Role, and now D&D has more-or-less exploded. More new people are playing than ever before, a very significant number of them coming from Critical Role and Matthew Mercer's explicitly, almost aggressively egalitarian and inclusionary world...and those people are finding "the roots of D&D" to be less helpful than they might like. It's not that Wizards is bad (they are actually, but not because of this issue) or D&D is intended to be [X]ist, but the bare truth is that "the roots of D&D" were more or less solidified twenty-plus years ago during the 3.5 days when nobody cared about these issues and bringing them up was a great way to get called all kinds of awful names and then ostracized from your gaming group.
When Wizards dropped 5e, people didn't even really know words like bioessentialism, and the people who did sure as shit didn't play D&D. But time marches ever forward, and the single biggest driver of new players to the hobby makes an explicit point of being inclusive, showcasing peoples of all walks and styles and colors of life, and specifically inviting folks to use this excellent hobby as a means of both expressing and discovering oneself.
It doesn't really surprise me at all that Wizards is having trouble keeping up. They're a notoriously slow and obnoxious company and one that, historically, hasn't given a single fat frog shit what the user base for their games thinks. Their big cash cow is Magic: the Gathering, and all the inclusivity problems in Magic are at the FLGS level. They just doctor up the art on a few cards here and there, maybe tell an author to include a Diversity Checklist character in a side novel somewhere, tell FLGS's that they lose their benefits if they let [X]ism take over their stores, and they're set. But now they're in the limelight, and D&D needs to be inclusive at the game development level, not just the FLGS level. Never once in their entire lives has Wizards ever had to worry about this stuff, and I can very much imagine it's a huge blast of ice water to the face.
Are their attempts so far clumsy? Sure. It's going to be until Wizards gets the hang of at least pretending to not be awful people, but taking steps is still better than not taking steps. I'd prefer to encourage the steps they do take, rather than condemn them for not making the leap all at once. Perfect is the enemy of good.
Please do not contact or message me.
This is an incredibly well stated summary and argument. Obviously there are few differences in terms of where I believe the responsibility for inclusiveness lies, but I think this should be pinned to the top of this discussion.
Okay, this is going to be a long one, so stay with me please. I'm going to break down some recurring arguments and state why they're incorrect/flawed/hurtful.
Let's start with, "I feel like I've been scammed".
No you don't. You seriously don't. You were scammed if they caused you to buy this future book, telling you that it would have something in it, and then they lied about it. They never did such a thing. This is no more of a "scam" than errata is. We all get the purpose of errata. WotC messes up when designing/writing rules sometimes, and so they fix it with errata. This is basically the same thing, except they're being kind enough to alert you and the rest of the community beforehand. You are more than free to not buy this book and any future book that has lineages in it. If you feel scammed, you have either never been truly scammed before, or you have a poor definition for the word. Furthermore, if you do buy these books and intend to use these lineages, but prefer the old way, just take 2 seconds per lineage to assign the ASIs to any place you want. It's not that hard. I can do it for you. (Dhampir get +2 CON and +1 DEX/CHA, Hexblood get +2 CHA and +1 CON, Reborn get +2 CON and +1 to any ability score. It's that simple.)
Have I sufficiently covered that now? Can we stop acting like WotC has stolen money from you or murdered your puppy now?
Next, "This makes D&D not be D&D anymore" (or any other of the vast variety of statements basically saying this, like the checker analogy)
Again, this is false. You are either being overdramatic, or your delusioned enough to believe that the core of D&D rests upon the shoulders of races/lineages having predetermined, hard-defined, set-in-stone racial ASIs. That is not the core of D&D. If it is for you, I am sorry to tell you that your definition of D&D is very narrow and unimaginative. D&D is not the rules, it's not the settings, it's not the genre, and it's not even the brand. Eberron can be used in other TTRPGs, Keith Baker (the original creator of Eberron) even encourages it. Critical Role started out in Pathfinder before transitioning to D&D 5e. Many Pathfinder players that I know consider Pathfinder (and even Starfinder) to be D&D. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. The same thing applies to D&D. Pathfinder looks like D&D, it works like (as in similarly to) D&D, and it quacks (feels) enough like D&D to be considered D&D. However, WotC doesn't produce Pathfinder, Paizo does. That doesn't matter. Critical Role was D&D before Wildemount became an official 5e setting through Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. If people played/play in Magic: the Gathering settings before they were officially published in D&D 5e, that was D&D. If someone creates a 3rd party D&D 5e document about playing the game in outer space with laser swords and a homebrew Jedi class, that's D&D. It's just a different flavor and playstyle. That doesn't make it wrong, and that doesn't make it bad. It's just different. And different is okay.
If you feel like you get to decide what D&D is, that's gatekeeping. That's not your job. I'm 99.9999% certain that Wizards of the Coast did not hire you to draw the line between "D&D" and "not D&D". That's not your job. Until Wizards of the Coast personally sends me a letter telling me that my games do not count as D&D (which this UA suggests they are doing the exact opposite of, making the game more open to different themes and genres than before), I will keep playing 5e and participating in the community, trying to spread the word that classic/old-style D&D does not have to be the only D&D. Dark Sun is D&D, Eberron is D&D, Wildemount is D&D, and my homebrew settings are D&D. Even if its eyes may be purple, a duck that looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck is still probably a duck.
If me getting to play D&D in a more unique and personalized way makes the game not feel like D&D anymore, I don't know what you think D&D is, but I'm sure I don't want to play it.
Now, "Double-Standard much?" (Or any similar phrase)
I get it. I honestly, sincerely get why you're upset. To an extent, I do agree with you and see your point here. Wizards of the Coast put out the Customize your Origin feature in Tasha's calling it an "optional" feature. You feel burned when they put out a UA saying that this is going to be the new normal for the rest of 5e. I honestly get that, and I can see why you are upset. I do think that Wizards of the Coast would not get any complaints from both sides if they did both versions in the books having these lineages. That would seem fair. I just don't think it's necessary. Though this does require you to "homebrew", it barely counts as homebrew. It's just as easy to say as determining which of the many races in 5e will be in your homebrew setting. If your setting doesn't have Tortles, just tell your players that Tortle characters won't be allowed. The same thing applies here. If you want Dhampir to have predetermined racial ASIs, just tell your players what ones they have (I did the work for you above and will gladly do it for all future lineages that come out in this form). It's not hard. It may be annoying and it may be frustrating that D&D appears to be headed in a direction that you don't like, but now you know how I, and others with similar experiences, feel/felt.
I'm frustrated anytime I see the mention of "Order of the Scribes" anywhere, including in my copy of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. I'm frustrated that my favorite Artificer subclass was taken away and handed off to the Wizard class, which both doesn't work well with the idea/function of the Archivist and doesn't need the subclass. I'm frustrated that now I'm forced to homebrew an Archivist subclass for the Artificer in my games because of what feels like a mistake on WotC's part became official. I'm annoyed that Wizards of the Coast is so adamant about not creating new classes, even for niches/archetypes that need a full new class (Psion, Swordmage/Duskblade, Warlord, Occultist, etc), and instead just relegate them to subclasses that don't work well at fulfilling that character concept (Aberrant Mind, Eldritch Knight/Bladesinger, Purple Dragon Knight/Battlemaster, Hexblade). I'm annoyed when Wizards of the Coast chooses to release Magic: the Gathering setting books instead of a setting that I would actually like (Dark Sun, Planescape, Spelljammer). Being frustrated by the things that the people in charge do is a part of life and a part of being a member of this community. Complaining about it online in hope of convincing a handful of people will likely not do anything for you. It's wasting time and energy.
No one is being excluded from D&D because of this (in fact, it's just the opposite), and no one has to use these rules if you don't want to. Sure, it takes a bit more work to be non-inclusive with racial ASIs than it is to have floating ones. That's fine by me, but may be annoying for you. I'm sorry. I know the feeling and can empathize with you. Life isn't always fair and you don't always get what you want. Better luck next time, and I hope this doesn't break the game for you.
Next, "This was made to help minmaxers!" (or a similar statement)
No, it wasn't. Minmaxers/powergamers/munchkins/whatever-you-call-them already have what they want. Pre-Tasha's, they had Yuan-Ti Pureblood Hexadins with magic resistance, poison and disease immunity, spellcasting, pact magic, divine/eldritch smite, and polearm master. Post-Tasha's, they have Mountain Dwarf Wizards that start the game with medium armor and a +2 to CON and INT. Post this UA, they have Dhampir Monks that can heal a bit better than the average Dhampir by using their martial arts die for their bite. If powergamers were going to destroy D&D by instantly killing any monster and eating the souls of the grognards, they would have done it by now. If every player set out to have the most powerful character possible, completely ignore roleplaying, and ruin the DMs campaigns, everyone would choose an Aarakocra, Satyr, or Yuan-Ti Pureblood and play a Wizard or Paladin and be done with it. That hasn't happened yet, so I'm willing to bet that it's never going to happen.
Doomsday-preachers haven't been right yet, so why would they be right now? There's no difference between this and Tasha's rules. We've had TCoE for just about 3 months, and the game hasn't been overrun by powergamers, so it's not going to happen. Powergamers have what they want, so it's best to leave them out of this. Find a different scapegoat.
Finally, "People (or the "Twitter mob") are just overreacting/too-sensitive-nowadays/Races have no bearing on the real world"
Let's tackle the first half before the second one. People are not "too sensitive". Humans evolved senses for a reason. It's important to our existence. If we didn't have empathy or emotional senses, we wouldn't be "human". It's better to understand why someone else may be offended by something and trying to fix that thing than just blow them off and pretend like they're overreacting. Just because something doesn't hurt you doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt someone else. It's a good thing that people are more vocal about what causes them emotional pain/discomfort nowadays. That means that we're progressing as a people and a community. Being more aware/in touch with both our own emotions and the feelings of others will make the world a better place. Society teaches us that the emotions of males are wrong and "manly" people toughen up and aren't supposed to cry. Society teaches us that women are too emotional and thus can't handle serious jobs, such as ones in the government and so on. These teachings are sexist and detrimental to our society. It's better to have and acknowledge our emotions than it is to pretend like they don't exist and shut ourselves off from the outside world.
Furthermore, D&D races are based off of the real world, whether it's directly or indirectly. We, and the people who created settings like Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, and Mystara, are only human and thus biased due to the world around us. Whether or not Orcs were intended to offend people of color is irrelevant. I unintentionally offend people all the time, as does everyone else. It's bound to happen, as we are only human and thus are imperfect. The text in D&D used to describe Orcs mirrors the language used to derogate people of color for centuries (probably even for millennia). For as long as humans have had different societies/cultures, we've been using rational to put down/dehumanize others. Here are just a few examples:
All of those are used to describe orcs in D&D, and they've also been used to disparage people of color and other marginalized groups for an uncountable amount of years.
It does not matter whether or not Orcs, Drow, and other fantasy were intended to represent real life peoples and cultures. They mirror the language, and thus are a sensitive topic that can/do make them feel uncomfortable/unsafe in our hobby. If D&D is meant to be anything, it's meant to be inclusive. How many of this have used this hobby to indirectly deal with other problems that have been happening in our lives? D&D is the escape for many of us. We should let it be an escape for anyone that wants to play it. We know what this hobby can do and should share it with others.
Okay. I think that's the main ones. As a summary, this is not a scam, this is not a double-standard, this isn't to help minmaxers, and there are real reasons behind these changes.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Like I said with during the prior post, thank you very much for this openness.
I wish you had come to my table, and I would have said: "The -2 to Cha? That's not because your not charismatic, its because the "civilized" races see a monster when they see you. You have to overcome that. In your tribe/group/society you are basically the Wayne Brady of the land." What I hear too though is that you wanted to play a half-Orc bard, and you never got to the point where you gave a DM an opportunity to modify those rules. I'm not blaming you by any measure, i'm just saying my job as a DM is to make sure you are having fun! But if you had said: "Man, it really impacts my gameplay to have that negative impact the mechanics of the game" then I would have happily (after I make you write a good backstory) had you skip the -2. I would have needed to figure out how to make it equivalent for the rest of the players as well, but we would have done it.
I will stand up on the box and say this again: I believe the decision to include the option to have floating points is great, and we can even make that the new norm (and the assigned points the "variant rules"), and much like was mentioned early I think redesigning the lineage system from the ground up with 6E would be a great idea. I just don't want WoTC to remove an option, because I do use that option in a variety of ways, and specifically involving DDB (which is what the ultimate issue is).
I think ultimately, as a greater community, we need to discuss who we play D&D with, and what our players and DMs should expect from each other. I think having that civil, open argument benefits everyone. Even if I don't get my way, i'm not going to rage quit, burn my books and utilize the covers to make a voodoos' doll of Jerermy Crawford. Of course not. But like those individuals who are unhappy about assigned skill points and want it changed, I would like the assigned skill points to stay as a variant rule.
I would like to point out that D&D is the only game I see, even D&D clones, that have exclusively racial-based stats. Most games seem to have gone the route of either discluding extra stat bonuses /penalties entirely, or spreading them out across several parts, including on the classes.
Imagine it. A gnomish, an elvish, a dwarven and an orcish wizard would never need to worry about their race giving them an INT bump or drop... because the Wizard class is the one granting the INT bump.
As far as I'm aware, D&D is pretty much the only major fantasy game with race having such a huge impact on your stats. Pretty much everyone else has been moving away from that format.
People like to say that D&D is doing it just because of inclusiveness (which is great), but honestly, I suspect that they're really just catching up with modern game design that doesn't really favor such weight on races.
I mean, lets be fair here - there's still very much class-based weight on races. Even the new UA ones. The hexblood are very much biased towards spellcaster types, for instance. The dhampir are the opposite, favoring classes that want to get in close and bite - its a little better using CON.
I like the idea of class being the thing that makes more difference here and then it portrays the situation well when you think about it as your training.
If you consider the Ability Bonuses a racial trait which can - but doesn't have to - mean bioessentialism (again, a +2 Int bonus may very well mean that a species has better neuroconnectivity and it's as much of a physical/genetic trait as wings even if not visible from the outside) then I am proponent of suggested bonuses based on a setting.
So, keep it floating, why not, but a setting book would have something like:
It won't make you give those bonuses to Str or Con but will inform you of how in general orcs work in a particular setting.