The answer, BioWizard, is that there is a difference between the game world being discriminatory against individuals of a given species and the game rules being discriminatory against individuals of a given species.
I love playing tieflings. That species fascinates me endlessly, and I have no issue with DMs who tell me I'll have to overcome Tiffle Hate when I play them. In point of fact, there's been times I wished the DM for certain games would lean harder on the idea, but racism isn't generally a strong theme in our games so c'est la vie.
The issue is when the mechanical game rules themselves tell me that my tiefling is required to be a Fiend-pact warlock, because the bioessential statblocks for PC species in the game mandate that all tieflings be extremely charismatic, moderately intelligent, and absolute moose piss at any sort of physical action or being observant and resistant to mental compulsions. Exempting the legion of variant tiffles out there for now, if it isn't Charisma? Tieflings aren't supposed to be doing it or any good at it.
Yes yes yes yes, I know. "A fifteen is perfectly fine!" "Numbers don't matter, just ROLE PLAY!" "Not getting a bonus isn't the same as getting a penalty!" "You're ugly and I hate you, Yurei!" All the rest of the same stupid arguments that've been shot down a thousand times already. Here's the thing: why is it a requirement that the game mechanically enforce standardized species/class combinations by forcing numbers to align certain ways? Trust me, I'd rather have less dependence on the numbers myself. D&D's insistence on treating raw ability score as the near-sole determinant of a roll's success bothers me to no end, but since that is, in fact, what it does? We're all kind of obligated to work within that framework.
And that framework says my tiefling rogue is absolutely ******* terrible at his job next to the halfling or the high elf, and I should feel bad for making that character. Because the mechanical systems of D&D insist that tieflings be outgoing, cheerful people-persons despite how little ******* sense that makes for all the game worlds where they're ostracized for being fiends in everything but name.
And again that’s all horse poopy.
Just because Tieflings get a boost to Cha and Int doesn’t meant they are “moose piss at everything else.”
The game doesn’t force any such thing whatsoever, that is all just you ringing a bell that doesn’t exist so you can defend the world from the straw men again.
And there are the exaggerations again because the Elf Rogue has a potential +7 to Stealth and picking locks but the Tiefling only has a +6 for the first few levels, that means the Tiefling sucks at being a Rogue. 🙄
Please allow me to repeat myself: Horse shit. Get a better argument.
(And I never said you are ugly, I have no idea what you look like so I’ll again ask you to stop putting mother-effing words in my mother-effing mouth. Knock off your ridiculous exaggerations, you can do better.)
When they admit that it is just as unfair to tell us to “simply houserule it” as they claim it was unfair for us to say it before then I’ll gladly stop this line of argument. When they admit that it was just as fair to them to have had to houserule these things as they say it is for us to have to do it now then I will gladly stop this line of argument. But as long as they say they were too good to have had to houserule it in the past, but it should be good enough for us then I will continue to point out the hypocrisy. Folks on that side of this debate using the exact same argument that they found so offensive before is horse poopy every inch of the way and I’ll continue to point it out every inch of the way.
So what you're effectively saying is that perpetuating the unfairness of forcing DMs who want to build a more egalitarian world to create their own personal custom homebrew variant of every single species and subspecies in D&D to eliminate bioessential 'bonuses' is a better solution than telling DMs who want to perpetuate restrictive character creation and bioessentialism at their tables to spend fifteen seconds putting together a chart telling players where to put their points?
You're acting like the option to toggle Tasha's rules off don't exist. And as has been pointed out before - variant human already had completely free floating boosts it could assign as it pleased. Because, y'know, only humans are allowed to be diverse and different in D&D, every other species is required to be a monolithic monoculture full of carbon-copy clone people.
These new critters from the UA having floating scores makes sense. The critter wasn't born with an innate bioessential propensity for shit; the DM can tell them how to assign their shit by saying "what were you before you got Goth'd? Cool - use those points".
People aren't saying it's fair to 'force' someone to homebrew, or crowing about the shoe being on the other foot. They're saying it's far easier to add restrictions than to lift restrictions, and since that's the case it makes more sense from a game mechanics perspective to remove restrictions that don't need to be there whilst empowering restrictive DMs to re-impose those restrictions if that specific DM feels it makes for a better game. It has nothing to do with "fairness" and everything to do with pragmatism.
"So you said that you shouldn’t have to do it but I should be perfectly happy to live with the same circumstance that you have decided that you’re too good for. That’s the double standard to which I referred. Your double standard."
Let's break this down.
Person One: You can play it how you want, just homebrew it.
Person Two: Well that sucks. It’s not fair.
WotC: Rules are changing to X
Person One: That sucks.
Person Two: You can play it how you want, just homebrew it.
Person One: If it wasn’t fair for you to have to Homebrew it then why is it fair that I have to Homebrew it
Person Two: Because it works the way I want it to now
Person One: DoUbLe StAnDaRds MuCh!!!
Fixed it for you.
On a tangential note, I feel like using the quote feature and then changing what is written inside the quote box (even if acknowledged) is a poor way to respond in an online thread since most people who read the posts are going to assume the quote boxes from other comments contain part or the entirety of the original post that is being responded to. In this case it would have been better (IMO) to copy and past the original analogy and apply changes so that someone reading the response could compare and contrast your version with the original (in the quote box) to better see what point you are trying to make rather than have to try and search for the original, unedited quote
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 answer, BioWizard, is that there is a difference between the game world being discriminatory against individuals of a given species and the game rules being discriminatory against individuals of a given species.
I love playing tieflings. That species fascinates me endlessly, and I have no issue with DMs who tell me I'll have to overcome Tiffle Hate when I play them. In point of fact, there's been times I wished the DM for certain games would lean harder on the idea, but racism isn't generally a strong theme in our games so c'est la vie.
The issue is when the mechanical game rules themselves tell me that my tiefling is required to be a Fiend-pact warlock, because the bioessential statblocks for PC species in the game mandate that all tieflings be extremely charismatic, moderately intelligent, and absolute moose piss at any sort of physical action or being observant and resistant to mental compulsions. Exempting the legion of variant tiffles out there for now, if it isn't Charisma? Tieflings aren't supposed to be doing it or any good at it.
Yes yes yes yes, I know. "A fifteen is perfectly fine!" "Numbers don't matter, just ROLE PLAY!" "Not getting a bonus isn't the same as getting a penalty!" "You're ugly and I hate you, Yurei!" All the rest of the same stupid arguments that've been shot down a thousand times already. Here's the thing: why is it a requirement that the game mechanically enforce standardized species/class combinations by forcing numbers to align certain ways? Trust me, I'd rather have less dependence on the numbers myself. D&D's insistence on treating raw ability score as the near-sole determinant of a roll's success bothers me to no end, but since that is, in fact, what it does? We're all kind of obligated to work within that framework.
And that framework says my tiefling rogue is absolutely ****ing terrible at his job next to the halfling or the high elf, and I should feel bad for making that character. Because the mechanical systems of D&D insist that tieflings be outgoing, cheerful people-persons despite how little ****ing sense that makes for all the game worlds where they're ostracized for being fiends in everything but name.
By far my favorite argument is "A 15 is fine! The difference isn't that much!" if that was the case and the numbers didn't matter, then being able to swap around the +2 and +1 would also not matter. It really comes down to the fact that people don't like change and will fight tooth and nail to keep it from happening.
As for the hypocrisy argument, is that the double standard already existed. People have been screaming "you can homebrew it" for years. Now that they are on the other side of the fence they don't like it. Tough. ImaSposta is correct that no one should have to homebrew, but that doesn't change the fact that people have had to hear that same bull crap for soo long that it is nice to be able to throw it right back over the fence where it came from. Does that make it right? No, but it still feels good.
And there are the exaggerations again because the Elf Rogue has a potential +7 to Stealth and picking locks but the Tiefling only has a +6 for the first few levels, that means the Tiefling sucks at being a Rogue. 🙄
If it makes so little difference, then why is it so important to you that all races have static racial ASIs, and that they are defined and inviolable in the rules?
1) Someone who is feeling down that their character is considered to be racially inferior (in this case, uncharismatic) is unlikely to be buoyed by a suggestion that they are not inferior, but the whole world thinks that they are a monster because of their race. Surely, that would just be dumping them back into the middle of the discrimination which they found hurtful.
Here's what I don't get: Why is the person playing a half-orc if he/she does not want to play a character who will be looked down on, disliked, feared, or what have you? At least in the classical rules for D&D, it is clearly and openly stated up-front that this is the case, and no one is twisting your arm to play the downtrodden species. You chose that. Why did you choose it? You knew going in this was going to be a rough time for the PC, and there are umpteen other races (now) to choose from, many of which do not have this problem. Why didn't you paly an elf or halfling or human instead, if not being discriminated against is so important to you?
If every race were discriminated against in some way by all the other races and we all had to play characters who were the victims of racism, I'd maybe agree with you... Or if the DM kept how the world treats half-orcs a secret from you, and you didn't know until game-play, you'd have a strong point... Or if the DM assigned a player to the half-orc race and that player didn't want to RP the discrimination, again, I'd agree.
But there is nothing in the rules - zero, zilch, zip, nada -- that requires you to play as a given race. If you make the choice, you make it in full knowledge of what RPing that race will entail in this world. Nobody's forcing that person to play a half-orc and in fact there are any number of other races that may give similar or perhaps even better bonuses than a half-orc would for a variety of class selections.
There seems to be this myth among players, and more than a few DMs unfortunately, that a player should be allowed to make up whatever concept he/she wants, no matter what it is, and play it to the fullest of that player's vision, regardless of any other factors. And that is simply not true -- it's never been true, and it will never be true. Even within the rules, there are ways to make a character that will just break a campaign, and the player isn't free to do that just because it's his or her "vision for the character." I'm involved in a thread right now about someone playing a CE/insane goblin character in the middle of an otherwise bog-standard party and it's potentially screwing up the game. Just because that player has what he thinks is a "cool idea" for the psycho goblin doesn't mean he gets to play it in this particular campaign.
So just because you got what you think is this awesome idea for a beautiful and charismatic half-orc bard who is beloved by everyone and lives in a world of sunshine and unicorns where nobody ever discriminates against anyone else based on species, nationality, character class, alignment, etc, doesn't mean that's the campaign the DM wants to run, or the rest of the table wants to experience. And it definitely doesn't mean you get to automatically play that character because that one, and no other, is what you want to play.
I'm not saying DMs should stomp on player ideas... but character creation is not short story authorship. You don't get to just make up whatever you want and the DM has to pretzelize his or her world around your ideas. As a player, you are supposed to digest whatever the DM tells you about his or her world and then try as best you can to fit your character into that world. Not come up with Thor, God of Thunder from Marvel Comics and then demand that somehow, the DM fit your character into a world where there are no gods.
And not come up with Gorgeous George the Loving Half-Orc whose life is all sunshine and unicorns and demand to have that character realized exactly as you envisioned it in a grimdark post-apocalyptic world of chaos, disorder, and everyone hating/being suspicious of everyone else.
Bingo Bio.
In my campaign, there are only the PHB species available, with Tieflings considered incredibly rare and viewed with great suspicion, Dragonborn even more so since Dragons have been considered a myth for a thousand years, and Half-Orc's are KOS, given the never ending wars with the Orc's in the North. The other species now found in the other source books simply do not fit in the history and narrative of the continent I have created.
I had a guy in a separate channel call me racist over this. I explained the next time I am in my local pub, I will ask my Tiefling bartender if they consider this racist. Oh wait...they are not real, and it is impossible to be bigoted towards something that is not real, never was, and never will be.
I am not going to call you racist over this.
However, I do have a couple of points:
1) If "Half-Orc's are KOS", then surely they are pretty much banned from being PCs. Otherwise, a party with a Half Orc in it would never be able to go anywhere near civilisation, would be randomly attacked by anyone they passed etc. You have made Half Orcs unplayable as PCs.
2) As long as your table is OK with that setting, fair enough. However, I do not believe that you cannot see how this meshes with real world situations or how it could upset someone who comes from a race which is "rare and viewed with great suspicion" in certain areas in the real world. Denying that it has any parallels in the real world just by saying "but this race is made up" doesn't wash.
Let's say there was a setting such as yours, but the Tieflings were rounded up, put in camps, and herded into magical chambers which "transported them to another plane of existence". When somebody pointed out similarities to fairly recent atrocities, would you just tell them "No, Tieflings don't exist so it is nothing like that"?
Point 1: Yes, that is a fair assessment. No one wanted to play a Half-Orc, but if they did, I would have tried to work out an accommodation where they tended to look more like their human parent. But there would still be great risk. That being said, the players did run into a Half-Orc NPC.
Point 2: You are doing what so many others do. You are conflating reality with a pure fantasy game, that has nothing in common with the real world, or history. A standard group in D&D is a bunch of ultra-violent vigilantes who kill extra-judicially. So by that token, pretty much all players in D&D are breaking all kinds of social taboos. Don't go down that road of mixing reality and fantasy. I am sure anyone can list a dozen video and board games that would break all kinds of real life laws and social mores, and people love those games.
And there are the exaggerations again because the Elf Rogue has a potential +7 to Stealth and picking locks but the Tiefling only has a +6 for the first few levels, that means the Tiefling sucks at being a Rogue. 🙄
If it makes so little difference, then why is it so important to you that all races have static racial ASIs, and that they are defined and inviolable in the rules?
I feel like when you boil it down, people are just going to say that they feel it is important that the different races have their differences hard coded mechanically into their attribute based capabilities. Which is the exact thing that we've been telling them is a real pain point for real people.
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!
The answer to the frustration of being told to “homebrew it” by others shouldn’t be to have the situation flipped and become the people screaming “no, how about you homebrew it” Homebrew is wonderful, but it shouldn’t be the answer to every solution that people, especially the creators of the game, use to dissuade other‘s issues with the current or future functionality of the game no matter the topic.
Honestly, I know it’s been mentioned a few times in this thread, but I feel that the best compromise that I think would work for many people (not all of course but you can’t win them all) would be to keep the lineages functioning how WotC plan going forward, how the UA has it set up. However, with each new lineage, have a column that describes how each new lineage would fit into the lore of the current pre-existing campaigns (FR, Eberron, Wildemount, etc) with static ASI suggestions and common cultural blurbs. We already get this with several current races explaining how they may function in settings like Greyhawk, Dragonlance and so on, so it’s not like it would be too different from what WotC already does.
And there are the exaggerations again because the Elf Rogue has a potential +7 to Stealth and picking locks but the Tiefling only has a +6 for the first few levels, that means the Tiefling sucks at being a Rogue. 🙄
If it makes so little difference, then why is it so important to you that all races have static racial ASIs, and that they are defined and inviolable in the rules?
I feel like when you boil it down, people are just going to say that they feel it is important that the different races have their differences hard coded mechanically into their attribute based capabilities. Which is the exact thing that we've been telling them is a real pain point for real people.
Then again I ask, if you dislike the way the game is designed, why play it instead of a game that has been designed differently? Why force this game to change when there are already other existing games that don’t do that? It’s baffling. So all games need to work the way you want them to but none of them can work the way we want them to? How is that fair?
And there are the exaggerations again because the Elf Rogue has a potential +7 to Stealth and picking locks but the Tiefling only has a +6 for the first few levels, that means the Tiefling sucks at being a Rogue. 🙄
If it makes so little difference, then why is it so important to you that all races have static racial ASIs, and that they are defined and inviolable in the rules?
Specifically to make the different races feel different during character creation.
You are doing what so many others do. You are conflating reality with a pure fantasy game, that has nothing in common with the real world, or history. A standard group in D&D is a bunch of ultra-violent vigilantes who kill extra-judicially. So by that token, pretty much all players in D&D are breaking all kinds of social taboos. Don't go down that road of mixing reality and fantasy. I am sure anyone can list a dozen video and board games that would break all kinds of real life laws and social mores, and people love those games.
That is the point: I'm not "conflating reality with a pure fantasy game", I am listening to people who in real life have found the content of the "pure fantasy game" to mirror highly-upsetting situations they have had to deal with. I am empathising with these people who have struggled, instead of dismissing their concerns and telling them that they have no right to be upset because it's "a pure fantasy game".
I will not tell you not to play the game the way you want to play it. However, to deny the parallels with reality and shout "it's just a game" is pretty ridiculous.
"So you said that you shouldn’t have to do it but I should be perfectly happy to live with the same circumstance that you have decided that you’re too good for. That’s the double standard to which I referred. Your double standard."
Let's break this down.
Person One: You can play it how you want, just homebrew it.
Person Two: Well that sucks. It’s not fair.
WotC: Rules are changing to X
Person One: That sucks.
Person Two: You can play it how you want, just homebrew it.
Person One: If it wasn’t fair for you to have to Homebrew it then why is it fair that I have to Homebrew it
Person Two: Because it works the way I want it to now
Person One: DoUbLe StAnDaRds MuCh!!!
Fixed it for you.
On a tangential note, I feel like using the quote feature and then changing what is written inside the quote box (even if acknowledged) is a poor way to respond in an online thread since most people who read the posts are going to assume the quote boxes from other comments contain part or the entirety of the original post that is being responded to. In this case it would have been better (IMO) to copy and past the original analogy and apply changes so that someone reading the response could compare and contrast your version with the original (in the quote box) to better see what point you are trying to make rather than have to try and search for the original, unedited quote
No need to search, simply click the black box with the white arrow in it next to the poster’s name and it will instantly redirect you to their original post so you can read it for yourself.
And there are the exaggerations again because the Elf Rogue has a potential +7 to Stealth and picking locks but the Tiefling only has a +6 for the first few levels, that means the Tiefling sucks at being a Rogue. 🙄
And better initiative. And better AC. And better to-hit/damage. And better pick-pocketing. And better acrobatics. And saves (*cough*Evasion*cough*). And that's just counting the DEX bonus, and none of the other abilities or skills.
I get what you're trying to do, but lets at least aim for some accuracy.
You are doing what so many others do. You are conflating reality with a pure fantasy game, that has nothing in common with the real world, or history.
So when The Phantom Menace came out and the Nemoidians were such an obvious Asian stereotype, it was people who were used to being the default that couldn't see how painful those portrayals were. The defense was that they're aliens, not meant to taken for real people. That was a thin and shoddy defense then, and it is now as well. This kind of defense usually comes from people who have never been subject to the experience of having a crowd of people laughing at something on screen while sitting there and shriveling in your seat because that's me they're laughing at. It's so hard to explain to people how fictional portrayals can echo pervasive and repeated minor discrimination that adds up over time when they have never experienced that kind of thing. How small things that can be brushed off once, twice, even a dozen times can be harder to brush off the hundredth time. What a nice privilege to have, to not have experienced something like that.
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!
And there are the exaggerations again because the Elf Rogue has a potential +7 to Stealth and picking locks but the Tiefling only has a +6 for the first few levels, that means the Tiefling sucks at being a Rogue. 🙄
If it makes so little difference, then why is it so important to you that all races have static racial ASIs, and that they are defined and inviolable in the rules?
I feel like when you boil it down, people are just going to say that they feel it is important that the different races have their differences hard coded mechanically into their attribute based capabilities. Which is the exact thing that we've been telling them is a real pain point for real people.
Then again I ask, if you dislike the way the game is designed, why play it instead of a game that has been designed differently? Why force this game to change when there are already other existing games that don’t do that? It’s baffling. So all games need to work the way you want them to but none of them can work the way we want them to? How is that fair?
This the wrong question. WotC made the changes based off of the market. They didn't do it to be altruistic. The data has shown them a trend and they followed it to make as much money as they can. The question should be "Why should WotC keep the same rule set to make you happy at the expense of their bottom line?" None of us as individuals have any sway over WotC and the rules they make. It just turns out that enough people wanted the changes that it affected WotC's profit margins.
And there are the exaggerations again because the Elf Rogue has a potential +7 to Stealth and picking locks but the Tiefling only has a +6 for the first few levels, that means the Tiefling sucks at being a Rogue. 🙄
If it makes so little difference, then why is it so important to you that all races have static racial ASIs, and that they are defined and inviolable in the rules?
Specifically to make the different races feel different during character creation.
ASI points are not the only defining features during character creation. If I gave an elf and a goliath the same +2/+1 I would still be able to recognize they are different characters. Every race has other benefits outside of their ASIs (like innate spellcasting abilities, powerful build, darkvision, fey ancestry, etc).
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!
And there are the exaggerations again because the Elf Rogue has a potential +7 to Stealth and picking locks but the Tiefling only has a +6 for the first few levels, that means the Tiefling sucks at being a Rogue. 🙄
If it makes so little difference, then why is it so important to you that all races have static racial ASIs, and that they are defined and inviolable in the rules?
I feel like when you boil it down, people are just going to say that they feel it is important that the different races have their differences hard coded mechanically into their attribute based capabilities. Which is the exact thing that we've been telling them is a real pain point for real people.
Then again I ask, if you dislike the way the game is designed, why play it instead of a game that has been designed differently? Why force this game to change when there are already other existing games that don’t do that? It’s baffling. So all games need to work the way you want them to but none of them can work the way we want them to? How is that fair?
This the wrong question. WotC made the changes based off of the market. They didn't do it to be altruistic. The data has shown them a trend and they followed it to make as much money as they can. The question should be "Why should WotC keep the same rule set to make you happy at the expense of their bottom line?" None of us as individuals have any sway over WotC and the rules they make. It just turns out that enough people wanted the changes that it affected WotC's profit margins.
You know, I am sure that the Coca-Cola company had what is now a bunch of ex-employees make the statement when it was decided to change the formula of Coke, to New Coke. Are you in the WOTC board room? How do you know what basis they used to make this decision?
When they admit that it is just as unfair to tell us to “simply houserule it” as they claim it was unfair for us to say it before then I’ll gladly stop this line of argument. When they admit that it was just as fair to them to have had to houserule these things as they say it is for us to have to do it now then I will gladly stop this line of argument. But as long as they say they were too good to have had to houserule it in the past, but it should be good enough for us then I will continue to point out the hypocrisy. Folks on that side of this debate using the exact same argument that they found so offensive before is horse poopy every inch of the way and I’ll continue to point it out every inch of the way.
So what you're effectively saying is that perpetuating the unfairness of forcing DMs who want to build a more egalitarian world to create their own personal custom homebrew variant of every single species and subspecies in D&D to eliminate bioessential 'bonuses' is a better solution than telling DMs who want to perpetuate restrictive character creation and bioessentialism at their tables to spend fifteen seconds putting together a chart telling players where to put their points?
You're acting like the option to toggle Tasha's rules off don't exist. And as has been pointed out before - variant human already had completely free floating boosts it could assign as it pleased. Because, y'know, only humans are allowed to be diverse and different in D&D, every other species is required to be a monolithic monoculture full of carbon-copy clone people.
These new critters from the UA having floating scores makes sense. The critter wasn't born with an innate bioessential propensity for shit; the DM can tell them how to assign their shit by saying "what were you before you got Goth'd? Cool - use those points".
People aren't saying it's fair to 'force' someone to homebrew, or crowing about the shoe being on the other foot. They're saying it's far easier to add restrictions than to lift restrictions, and since that's the case it makes more sense from a game mechanics perspective to remove restrictions that don't need to be there whilst empowering restrictive DMs to re-impose those restrictions if that specific DM feels it makes for a better game. It has nothing to do with "fairness" and everything to do with pragmatism.
No.
What I’m saying is that everyone is already expected to change whatever the heck they want to suite their table-specific version of whatever campaign setting they choose to run.
What I am saying is that it will take more than 15 seconds to make that chart and that a new chart will have to be made for every future publication which compounds the workload but it takes 2 seconds once total to say “put those bonuses wherever you want, I don’t care.” It took less time/work/effort to houserule it your way before than it takes to houserule it my way now. But that two seconds of statement was too much work for a “classy” lady like yourself to have to houserule, but it should be fine for a big strong neanderthal cisgender fellow like myself to have to do it over, and over, and over.... So no, it was easier to houserule it your way before, even on DDB because each Player can simply adjust AbilX down by 2 and AbilY up by two directly on the character sheet, no “homebrewing” required.
Nobody has ever said that all of [race/species/whatever X] has a “monoculture full of carbon-copy clones” except for you friend. You are quite literally the only person I have ever conversed with in 27ish years of D&D that has ever spouted that nonsense. If you can’t imagine an Elf putting their 8 in Dex and their 15 in Str and running around like Connan then that’s all on you for interpreting things so narrowly.
And as you pointed out, this has nothing to do with these new “lineages” (stupid name), and everything to do with the sidebar about the future of D&D so those are irrelevant to this discussion.
Lifting restrictions is far, far easier for a DM, they simply need to say the words “ignore that.”
Then again I ask, if you dislike the way the game is designed, why play it instead of a game that has been designed differently? Why force this game to change when there are already other existing games that don’t do that? It’s baffling. So all games need to work the way you want them to but none of them can work the way we want them to? How is that fair?
This is so tiring, you know? You're asking me this as if I've somehow done something to make Wizards take your favorite toy away from you. I did nothing of the sort.
I made no petition, phone calls, or letters. This is something Wizards is doing and I am supporting it. For you to portray it as some sort of offensive action on my, or others, part is starting to feel very attacking, like if this happens I will somehow be at fault or to blame for it.
Yurei explained it before, it is A pain point, not something overwhelming. And as a person of color, small pain points have become the norm. Like I said before, I swim in a sea of racism everyday. At school, at work, grocery shopping, dealing with the government, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc ..... if I let one, two, or sometimes even a dozen pain points turn me away from something I would probably be a hermit in a floating tent in international waters. Forgive me if I grasp at any sign of relief from the death by a hundred million papercuts.
Also, making a neighborhood, hobby, profession, etc hostile to people but not outright banning them from it is a time honored way to drive those people out. I can dig up historical documents about this if you want.
And there are the exaggerations again because the Elf Rogue has a potential +7 to Stealth and picking locks but the Tiefling only has a +6 for the first few levels, that means the Tiefling sucks at being a Rogue. 🙄
If it makes so little difference, then why is it so important to you that all races have static racial ASIs, and that they are defined and inviolable in the rules?
Specifically to make the different races feel different during character creation.
ASI points are not the only defining features during character creation. If I gave an elf and a goliath the same +2/+1 I would still be able to recognize they are different characters. Every race has other benefits outside of their ASIs (like innate spellcasting abilities, powerful build, darkvision, fey ancestry, etc).
And most of those traits (like powerful build) are generally pretty useless and more than 3/4 of the races have Darkvision. But the Elf’s +2 Dex and the Goliath’s +2 Str actually let them feel different, at least until 4th level and the leveled ASIs start happening. But by then the Players have gotten to know their characters better so the feel different as individuals by them.
And again that’s all horse poopy.
Just because Tieflings get a boost to Cha and Int doesn’t meant they are “moose piss at everything else.”
The game doesn’t force any such thing whatsoever, that is all just you ringing a bell that doesn’t exist so you can defend the world from the straw men again.
And there are the exaggerations again because the Elf Rogue has a potential +7 to Stealth and picking locks but the Tiefling only has a +6 for the first few levels, that means the Tiefling sucks at being a Rogue. 🙄
Please allow me to repeat myself: Horse shit. Get a better argument.
(And I never said you are ugly, I have no idea what you look like so I’ll again ask you to stop putting mother-effing words in my mother-effing mouth. Knock off your ridiculous exaggerations, you can do better.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So what you're effectively saying is that perpetuating the unfairness of forcing DMs who want to build a more egalitarian world to create their own personal custom homebrew variant of every single species and subspecies in D&D to eliminate bioessential 'bonuses' is a better solution than telling DMs who want to perpetuate restrictive character creation and bioessentialism at their tables to spend fifteen seconds putting together a chart telling players where to put their points?
You're acting like the option to toggle Tasha's rules off don't exist. And as has been pointed out before - variant human already had completely free floating boosts it could assign as it pleased. Because, y'know, only humans are allowed to be diverse and different in D&D, every other species is required to be a monolithic monoculture full of carbon-copy clone people.
These new critters from the UA having floating scores makes sense. The critter wasn't born with an innate bioessential propensity for shit; the DM can tell them how to assign their shit by saying "what were you before you got Goth'd? Cool - use those points".
People aren't saying it's fair to 'force' someone to homebrew, or crowing about the shoe being on the other foot. They're saying it's far easier to add restrictions than to lift restrictions, and since that's the case it makes more sense from a game mechanics perspective to remove restrictions that don't need to be there whilst empowering restrictive DMs to re-impose those restrictions if that specific DM feels it makes for a better game. It has nothing to do with "fairness" and everything to do with pragmatism.
Please do not contact or message me.
On a tangential note, I feel like using the quote feature and then changing what is written inside the quote box (even if acknowledged) is a poor way to respond in an online thread since most people who read the posts are going to assume the quote boxes from other comments contain part or the entirety of the original post that is being responded to. In this case it would have been better (IMO) to copy and past the original analogy and apply changes so that someone reading the response could compare and contrast your version with the original (in the quote box) to better see what point you are trying to make rather than have to try and search for the original, unedited quote
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
By far my favorite argument is "A 15 is fine! The difference isn't that much!" if that was the case and the numbers didn't matter, then being able to swap around the +2 and +1 would also not matter. It really comes down to the fact that people don't like change and will fight tooth and nail to keep it from happening.
As for the hypocrisy argument, is that the double standard already existed. People have been screaming "you can homebrew it" for years. Now that they are on the other side of the fence they don't like it. Tough. ImaSposta is correct that no one should have to homebrew, but that doesn't change the fact that people have had to hear that same bull crap for soo long that it is nice to be able to throw it right back over the fence where it came from. Does that make it right? No, but it still feels good.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
If it makes so little difference, then why is it so important to you that all races have static racial ASIs, and that they are defined and inviolable in the rules?
Point 1: Yes, that is a fair assessment. No one wanted to play a Half-Orc, but if they did, I would have tried to work out an accommodation where they tended to look more like their human parent. But there would still be great risk. That being said, the players did run into a Half-Orc NPC.
Point 2: You are doing what so many others do. You are conflating reality with a pure fantasy game, that has nothing in common with the real world, or history. A standard group in D&D is a bunch of ultra-violent vigilantes who kill extra-judicially. So by that token, pretty much all players in D&D are breaking all kinds of social taboos. Don't go down that road of mixing reality and fantasy. I am sure anyone can list a dozen video and board games that would break all kinds of real life laws and social mores, and people love those games.
I feel like when you boil it down, people are just going to say that they feel it is important that the different races have their differences hard coded mechanically into their attribute based capabilities. Which is the exact thing that we've been telling them is a real pain point for real people.
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!
Honestly, I know it’s been mentioned a few times in this thread, but I feel that the best compromise that I think would work for many people (not all of course but you can’t win them all) would be to keep the lineages functioning how WotC plan going forward, how the UA has it set up. However, with each new lineage, have a column that describes how each new lineage would fit into the lore of the current pre-existing campaigns (FR, Eberron, Wildemount, etc) with static ASI suggestions and common cultural blurbs. We already get this with several current races explaining how they may function in settings like Greyhawk, Dragonlance and so on, so it’s not like it would be too different from what WotC already does.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Then again I ask, if you dislike the way the game is designed, why play it instead of a game that has been designed differently? Why force this game to change when there are already other existing games that don’t do that? It’s baffling. So all games need to work the way you want them to but none of them can work the way we want them to? How is that fair?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Specifically to make the different races feel different during character creation.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That is the point: I'm not "conflating reality with a pure fantasy game", I am listening to people who in real life have found the content of the "pure fantasy game" to mirror highly-upsetting situations they have had to deal with. I am empathising with these people who have struggled, instead of dismissing their concerns and telling them that they have no right to be upset because it's "a pure fantasy game".
I will not tell you not to play the game the way you want to play it. However, to deny the parallels with reality and shout "it's just a game" is pretty ridiculous.
No need to search, simply click the black box with the white arrow in it next to the poster’s name and it will instantly redirect you to their original post so you can read it for yourself.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
And better initiative. And better AC. And better to-hit/damage. And better pick-pocketing. And better acrobatics. And saves (*cough*Evasion*cough*). And that's just counting the DEX bonus, and none of the other abilities or skills.
I get what you're trying to do, but lets at least aim for some accuracy.
So when The Phantom Menace came out and the Nemoidians were such an obvious Asian stereotype, it was people who were used to being the default that couldn't see how painful those portrayals were. The defense was that they're aliens, not meant to taken for real people. That was a thin and shoddy defense then, and it is now as well. This kind of defense usually comes from people who have never been subject to the experience of having a crowd of people laughing at something on screen while sitting there and shriveling in your seat because that's me they're laughing at. It's so hard to explain to people how fictional portrayals can echo pervasive and repeated minor discrimination that adds up over time when they have never experienced that kind of thing. How small things that can be brushed off once, twice, even a dozen times can be harder to brush off the hundredth time. What a nice privilege to have, to not have experienced something like that.
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!
This the wrong question. WotC made the changes based off of the market. They didn't do it to be altruistic. The data has shown them a trend and they followed it to make as much money as they can. The question should be "Why should WotC keep the same rule set to make you happy at the expense of their bottom line?" None of us as individuals have any sway over WotC and the rules they make. It just turns out that enough people wanted the changes that it affected WotC's profit margins.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
ASI points are not the only defining features during character creation. If I gave an elf and a goliath the same +2/+1 I would still be able to recognize they are different characters. Every race has other benefits outside of their ASIs (like innate spellcasting abilities, powerful build, darkvision, fey ancestry, etc).
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
You know, I am sure that the Coca-Cola company had what is now a bunch of ex-employees make the statement when it was decided to change the formula of Coke, to New Coke. Are you in the WOTC board room? How do you know what basis they used to make this decision?
No.
What I’m saying is that everyone is already expected to change whatever the heck they want to suite their table-specific version of whatever campaign setting they choose to run.
What I am saying is that it will take more than 15 seconds to make that chart and that a new chart will have to be made for every future publication which compounds the workload but it takes 2 seconds once total to say “put those bonuses wherever you want, I don’t care.” It took less time/work/effort to houserule it your way before than it takes to houserule it my way now. But that two seconds of statement was too much work for a “classy” lady like yourself to have to houserule, but it should be fine for a big strong neanderthal cisgender fellow like myself to have to do it over, and over, and over.... So no, it was easier to houserule it your way before, even on DDB because each Player can simply adjust AbilX down by 2 and AbilY up by two directly on the character sheet, no “homebrewing” required.
Nobody has ever said that all of [race/species/whatever X] has a “monoculture full of carbon-copy clones” except for you friend. You are quite literally the only person I have ever conversed with in 27ish years of D&D that has ever spouted that nonsense. If you can’t imagine an Elf putting their 8 in Dex and their 15 in Str and running around like Connan then that’s all on you for interpreting things so narrowly.
And as you pointed out, this has nothing to do with these new “lineages” (stupid name), and everything to do with the sidebar about the future of D&D so those are irrelevant to this discussion.
Lifting restrictions is far, far easier for a DM, they simply need to say the words “ignore that.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is so tiring, you know? You're asking me this as if I've somehow done something to make Wizards take your favorite toy away from you. I did nothing of the sort.
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!
And most of those traits (like powerful build) are generally pretty useless and more than 3/4 of the races have Darkvision. But the Elf’s +2 Dex and the Goliath’s +2 Str actually let them feel different, at least until 4th level and the leveled ASIs start happening. But by then the Players have gotten to know their characters better so the feel different as individuals by them.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting