That's the point! They're removing from the DM the ability to allow flexibility or not. With players that have races with settled ability bonuses and races where players can optimize their build.
They are not removing any of the GM's ability though. RAW, GMs' ruling already supersedes RAW. GMs do not have to follow RAW if they do not want to.
They are adding more work to the DM who wants to keep races as they were presented in the PHB.
Am I the only one who find absurd that a DM has to homebrew a race presented in a new supplment to make it similar to how races are built according to the official rules???
GMs on the other side of the fence have to homebrew floating ASIs into their games for the last six years, and homebrewing more restrictions is far easier than homebrewing more freedom.
Alternatively, if you want a lore reason to explain the floating ASIs, new races are simply more genetically diverse than traditional races.
They are adding more work to the DM who wants to keep races as they were presented in the PHB.
Am I the only one who find absurd that a DM has to homebrew a race presented in a new supplment to make it similar to how races are built according to the official rules???
The 'official rules' include all published rules, so that statement is categorically false; if it's in an official supplement, by definition it's built according to the official rules. In any case, if you're playing a traditionalist campaign, why are you using any races not in the PHB anyway?
That's the point! They're removing from the DM the ability to allow flexibility or not. With players that have races with settled ability bonuses and races where players can optimize their build.
They are not removing any of the GM's ability though. RAW, GMs' ruling already supersedes RAW. GMs do not have to follow RAW if they do not want to.
They are adding more work to the DM who wants to keep races as they were presented in the PHB.
Am I the only one who find absurd that a DM has to homebrew a race presented in a new supplment to make it similar to how races are built according to the official rules???
GMs on the other side of the fence have to homebrew floating ASIs into their games for the last six years, and homebrewing more restrictions is far easier than homebrewing more freedom.
Alternatively, if you want a lore reason to explain the floating ASIs, new races are simply more genetically diverse than traditional races.
The point is that with Tasha's rules they already got an optional system to make flexible character, why we can't have new races built with the official system anymore?
if all the future races are built using Tasha's rules only we don't have a real choice anymore.
You kinda do. If you don't want TCoE-style races in your game, you don't have to include the new races. Just disallow them, and only allow the pre-TCoE races.
So the "options" from Tasha's are no longer an option now? I think it's a sneaky and cowardly behaviour from WOTC to label something as an option only to explain later it will be the only way races will be built in future products. I personally feel scammed as customer. I don't get why WOTC wants to antagonize a branch of the fandom while they could simply put racial bonuses and languages for every new race and also explain how to change them following Tasha's rules.
If they really want to build races using only the Tasha's way those groups who are not interested in Tasha's racial rules will find themselves with some races built the classic way and some races built in another way, making the game a huge mess.
This has nothing to do with traditions or previows editions, it's entirely about 5E, about the rules that WOTC created and sold to us in PHB, Volo and Mordenkainen, this is about giving a choice to customers. Tasha gave that choice presenting a variant race building system but the announcement in the last UA removed this choice from us. We paid for the rules in the PHB and, let me remind you, they're still official, it's not fair that players who stll want to use them instead than Tasha's option must be forced to homebrew future official races to make them work according to the official rules provided by WOTC itself.
Again, as customer I feel scammed.
Making it clear to their customers that if they want to play the races in the new supplements they will have to use a variant they may not be interested in instead of the official rules that were sold to them in the PHB or not buy them seems to me a very little inclusive attitude from a company that is making of inclusivity its pride.
I think "scammed" is a bit much. You can still play the game with the sourcebooks you have, and I don't see lineages really affecting the way adventures are designed. No one has cheated you of anything you already have. The PHB is not an entitlement to a perpetual subscription of new content, and like many in the middle of the road on this, the new content doesn't erase your current game in any way.
But more to the basis of this thread's iteration of the topic. Where exactly should the +2 and +1 be "officially assigned" with any of the gothic lineages? There's nothing about the Hexborn, Dhamphyr, or Reborn that seems to say which of the six stats "essentially" needs to be risen. So given that flexibility, why bind the +2 and +1 to specific abilities? It would be completely arbitrary with nothing to reinforce the why.
Scammed it is the perfect word and yes, before buying the 5th Edition I took a look at the rules and I liked them, so I bought it and I expect all the future content from the same publisher to be consistent with the same ruleset presented in the core books until they release an entirely new edition. While the future books are still part of the 5th Edition, yes, I'm entitled to having them work with the ruleset I found in the PHB, races included.
It's not my job nor yours to decide where those +2/+1 should go if we don't follow Tasha's rules, it's WOTC's job to present us races compatible with the original ruleset AND Tasha's option.
The publisher who put out three(?) prior editions to the game? After the core books were published, where were you promised that ruleset would be supported and built upon forever? Being disappointed because you wanted one way over the other way is one thing. Claiming some sort of malfeasance is IMHO a bit much.
Are variant humans as presented in the PHB in your game legal? This isn't that radical a departure from that, and a lot of Tasha's readers recognized that. Nothing is stopping a DM from saying "At my table, ASIs for these lineages work thus ..." and locking it up like that, if you feel you really need to. Ideally you'd probably want to have some in game narrative rationale as to why Reborn get +2 CON +1 CHR if that's how you lock it, and that situation is far from an injury warranting the allegation "scam".
WOTC's job is to sell game materials. I think they do a decent job at it. If you feel differently, we live in a market system that gives you an option to express you opinion. Maybe some will disagree with you, but I feel these moves are based on market research of what players want more than don't want in the game. I'd like to see "quick builds" available too for players who don't want to think through lineage construction. But if I don't see it, I"m not going to rhetorically criminalize that lack.
You don't understand my words or you just pretend no to.
Let me be very clear:
Previows editions with their rulesets are dead, no longer supported, replaced by this current edition. Until this current edition is not replaced with a new edition I expect that the new supplements for this current edition stay faithful to the same ruleset they sold us in the Core Books, including how races are built, with preselected bonus abilities and languages.
If they don't do that, they're scamming their customers.
Variant Human is the perfect example, I'm all for variants, I'm glad people who want more flexibility can use Tasha's rules at their table, but to have variants we must have more than one choice, anf if all the future races are built using Tasha's rules only we don't have a real choice anymore.
A reiteration isn't exactly clarity, it's a reflection and only substantial if it makes you look at it differently.
As to substance of your grievance, you should be happy with Chapter 9 of the DMG then that allows a DM to impose limits/strictures etc in their world which would allow you to lock races to certain ASIs. Personally I'd also like to see WotC provide quick start builds of lineage options in the format of races, and advocated they do so via the feedback survey to the UA. But if they don't, I have not been injured in the borderline criminal fashion you insinuate by calling it "scamming." Disappointment is one thing. Violation/injury is something completely different. You apparently don't see the difference. To touch on my initially points over your outrage, I'll say your upset is even more free floating that the unbound ASIs since in the case under discussion you can't fathom any reason that the new lineages ASIs should be bound to any particular stat, like the Variant Human. Instead you doubled down on outrage defining what WOTC's job is.
You're sore and I'm sorry about that. I think people on a TTRPG board should be enjoying their discussions. Having said that, if you're not willing to grow with the game on this course, you aren't hamstrung. Far from it.
When I drive a Tesla, the model out of the factory handles acceleration in a certain way. Let's say I bought* the Tesla because I thought the way it handled speed was safe and to my liking. Down the line, Tesla makes it possible to patch the way my car accelerates via a function called "ludicrous speed." The Tesla always had the capacity to in its machinery to go there, but the coding largely prevented it (I suppose if I was a master automotive operating system hacker I could have tweaked the coding myself, though would probably void the warrantee). The fact that my Tesla, which I planned to have for several years, over the course of those years gives me the option of owning ludicrous speed is not a scam. Neither is this.
*I don't actually own a Tesla, though have driven a few but actually don't care for any of their models over other EVs. All that said, ludicrous speed is actually pretty cool, but I can see why some wouldn't want it.
The point is that with Tasha's rules they already got an optional system to make flexible character, why we can't have new races built with the official system anymore?
You seem confused about the term 'official'. The official system is whatever system WotC requires its writers to use. Which is, apparently, the version in the current UA.
The point is that with Tasha's rules they already got an optional system to make flexible character, why we can't have new races built with the official system anymore?
You seem confused about the term 'official'. The official system is whatever system WotC requires its writers to use. Which is, apparently, the version in the current UA.
You seem very unexperienced regarding RPG, the official rules are always those presented in the core books.
Plus:
Design Note: Changes to Racial Traits In 2020, the book Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything introduced the option to customize several of your character’s racial traits, specifically the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, and traits that give skill, armor, weapon, or tool proficiencies
Wotc itself calls Tasha's rules as optionals, meaning the old ones are the official ones.
The point is that with Tasha's rules they already got an optional system to make flexible character, why we can't have new races built with the official system anymore?
You seem confused about the term 'official'. The official system is whatever system WotC requires its writers to use. Which is, apparently, the version in the current UA.
You seem very unexperienced regarding RPG, the official rules are always those presented in the core books.
Plus:
Design Note: Changes to Racial Traits In 2020, the book Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything introduced the option to customize several of your character’s racial traits, specifically the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, and traits that give skill, armor, weapon, or tool proficiencies
Wotc itself calls Tasha's rules as optionals, meaning the old ones are the official ones.
I'll weigh Pantagruel's postings on this board against your 8 posts that are only on this one topic today and it's pretty clear who looks more experienced with games.
TTRPGs often produce rules supplements that depart or offer alternatives to the core rules. That's just a fact. People can still play those rules out of the core books and aren't being scammed by publications offering alternatives.
The UA says future publications will present lineage options as that UA outlines instead of the way race is presented in the core rules. I think they could and should do a "both/and" instead. However, while it is a departure from the core rules, and DMs can take it or leave it for their games, it will be the way player options that used to be handled by race will be offered in the future it seems. Again, I'd prefer a balance of old and new just because I know a lot of my players would rather slap a race/class/background on quick and roll so they can role. But if I don't get that, the way the core rules presents those features, I'm pretty confident in my ability to give players an option like that via the lineages. And my game goes on.
I'm actually wondering how set in stone those sidebars are given the quick turnaround on the survey. I wonder if they knew it was coming out a bit of a mess so are pretty much doing a quick poll before going back to the drawing board before determining whether this is in fact the way they want to go forward.
I've mentioned "leaked" Draconians in this or another thread. Anyone know if they were fashioned like this, in line with the traditional core, or was the leak just the insinuation that Draconians are being worked on?
This topic should be discussed, unfortunately the social bullying has enough solidarity to harass innocent parties. The different races of forgotten realms are not just species and cultures, they are magically underpinned by magic and gods. A genocidal culture like the Drow doesn't leave a lot of room for individuality. And yet even with the Drow, there are exceptions like Drizzt.
There's enough magical exceptions as well, that the flexibility of Tasha's is a perfectly acceptable cannon, as even if a culture is indicative of certain qualities, there's more than enough possibilities that a player could create outside those boundaries. I have more problem with them stripping away more unique qualities like flight, or equine build from unique creatures rather than making standard Humanoids a little more flexible. The rules have long excluded more dramatic qualities from being used for symmetry, but the fantasy clearly acknowledges that tons of non humanoid creatures are sapient and sentient.
In the future they should offer more ethnic variety among PC races and clarify that there is a lot of ethnicities that have no impact on capability, and redefine race as species with different biological heritage. They can also establish culture more distinctly and clarify the unique qualities common among a culture based on their upbringing rather than specifically because of their race. A trade nation where most ppl speak 3 languages based on region rather than ethnicity or species is a natural outcome.
Race and racism being improperly targeted at a fantasy is a problem with our culture and our sensitivity, not our games. The whole concept of real race is artificial since we are genetically interchangeable in real life, while the reality of discrimination is authentic, and a necessary part of fantasy immersion. Whether its legitimate, like Chromatic dragons feeling superior, or manufactured, like wood elves preferring isolation. There's very natural and practical reasons why sapient creatures discriminate, and pretending that our fantasies are above immersive discrimination out of misplaced indignation is immature. D&D is primarily for adults, society can practice their safe spaces however they like, as long as they don't try to imprison everyone in it with them.
WotC needs to be wiser about how they respond to indignant solidarity, because those witch hunters can't replace the greater number of consumers they drive away with their hysteria.
if all the future races are built using Tasha's rules only we don't have a real choice anymore.
You kinda do. If you don't want TCoE-style races in your game, you don't have to include the new races. Just disallow them, and only allow the pre-TCoE races.
There, fixed it for you with zero extra work.
how do you know it's zero extra work? it totally depends on how it's implemented on this website.
if all the future races are built using Tasha's rules only we don't have a real choice anymore.
You kinda do. If you don't want TCoE-style races in your game, you don't have to include the new races. Just disallow them, and only allow the pre-TCoE races.
There, fixed it for you with zero extra work.
how do you know it's zero extra work? it totally depends on how it's implemented on this website.
It's silly to nitpick hyperbole, it's a trivial amount of work, you just tell your players what features and settings you allow. Even adventures league limits players to two sources for simplification.
The point is that with Tasha's rules they already got an optional system to make flexible character, why we can't have new races built with the official system anymore?
You seem confused about the term 'official'. The official system is whatever system WotC requires its writers to use. Which is, apparently, the version in the current UA.
You seem very unexperienced regarding RPG, the official rules are always those presented in the core books.
Plus:
Design Note: Changes to Racial Traits In 2020, the book Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything introduced the option to customize several of your character’s racial traits, specifically the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, and traits that give skill, armor, weapon, or tool proficiencies
Wotc itself calls Tasha's rules as optionals, meaning the old ones are the official ones.
TTRPGs often produce rules supplements that depart or offer alternatives to the core rules. That's just a fact. People can still play those rules out of the core books and aren't being scammed by publications offering alternatives.
well this only applies with physical books and supplements. but in an increasingly digital world...a lot of us rely on websites like this to run our games.to me it seems this is the root of the problem....because if what is on this website is official then if we want to play an older edition...its impossible. it might seem forced on DM's rather than a choice. but again that was another convo which dndbeyond can't provide an answer to. so if all the character building changed...we'd have to do extra work to homebrew races like they used to be...whereas in the past i just wouldn't buy that new book. that seems like it's what grimorio is saying.
if all the future races are built using Tasha's rules only we don't have a real choice anymore.
You kinda do. If you don't want TCoE-style races in your game, you don't have to include the new races. Just disallow them, and only allow the pre-TCoE races.
There, fixed it for you with zero extra work.
how do you know it's zero extra work? it totally depends on how it's implemented on this website.
1) I seriously doubt that any of the existing races will be forced onto the TCoE system on this site. Unless WoTC bring out errata specifically making the new rules mandatory and changing all of the existing races to the new system (which is doubtful without them releasing a new edition), D&D Beyond are highly likely to continue support for existing races.
2) I thought we were discussing the new D&D race/lineage system by WotC, not the D&D Beyond toolset. They are 2 completely separate things.
if all the future races are built using Tasha's rules only we don't have a real choice anymore.
You kinda do. If you don't want TCoE-style races in your game, you don't have to include the new races. Just disallow them, and only allow the pre-TCoE races.
There, fixed it for you with zero extra work.
how do you know it's zero extra work? it totally depends on how it's implemented on this website.
1) I seriously doubt that any of the existing races will be forced onto the TCoE system on this site. Unless WoTC bring out errata specifically making the new rules mandatory and changing all of the existing races to the new system (which is doubtful without them releasing a new edition), they are highly likely to continue support for existing races.
2) I thought we were discussing the new D&D race/lineage system by WotC, not the D&D Beyond toolset. They are 2 completely separate things.
nope totally get they are separate things.
but
1. we are on dndbeyond right now
2. they have not implemented it yet on this website, and if WOTC is creating UA on a new race/lineage system....what makes you think they won't make that official in 5th edition?
2. they have not implemented it yet on this website, and if WOTC is creating UA on a new race/lineage system....what makes you think they won't make that official in 5th edition?
All other optional and additional content is toggleable. I know of nothing which has been officially released (except errata) which has overridden previously released content. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that they would behave completely differently with this than they have with everything else they've ever done.
2. they have not implemented it yet on this website, and if WOTC is creating UA on a new race/lineage system....what makes you think they won't make that official in 5th edition?
All other optional and additional content is toggleable. I know of nothing which has been officially released (except errata) which has overridden previously released content. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that they would behave completely differently with this than they have with everything else they've ever done.
if they ever were to go so far as to errata that much of the core books, then I would guess the logical (and marketable) option would be to just release it as 5.5e.
So.. Long time D&D player here who is not so skilled at any of the online stuff. (I started playing in the late ‘70s & mostly use DDB for NPC creation and the encounter builder.)
Honest Query. (Not trying to sound snarky, I’m just a little ignorant about some of this online stuff.)
UA means it is play test material, correct? That it is in fact -not- official rules as yet, but something that is being tossed out to test the waters so to speak and see how it is received.. ??
It seems, after reading this and the 22 page thread that proceeded this one, that a lot of folks are assuming that the UA publication is what will be going forward verbatim, and I guess I am just not entirely sure that’s a given. It seems to me that many things often change between UA publication and “official implementation.”
Is it unreasonable to think that what was stated in the current UA may be modified before implementing it into official material?
Personally I really don’t have a problem with the ideas presented other than I myself am not real interested in utilizing the gothic lineages as they don’t really fit the campaign setting I am currently running,. (This does not mean I think they are bad or wrong, only that they may not be a good fit for the current table narrative.)
I also don’t see how moving forward with this racial system removes anyone’s ability to use the old system if that is what they are comfortable with, like many have said.. it seems more of a case of just making sure you have the correct toggles set for your preference when designing characters.
I admit I am a fan of variety, and personally see no reason that everyone should be limited to specific ‘racial traits,” if such do not fit their playstyle or the narrative being built at their table. The game has always changed and adapted to the times. (Gnomes are no longer limited to Illusionists as arcane spell casters, and they can progress higher than sixth level as fighters. Isn’t that nice!?! I think so, and I am not a fan of Gnomes.) That said, it is up to the folks at each table to decide what they want, together, when they sit down to play.. (That session zero part of Tasha’s.)
I’m not trying to tell anyone how to play. I am saying I personally don’t have a problem with the ideas presented and am curious to see how they will be officially implemented once they move beyond UA playtesting. (Again.. if I am understanding that correctly.) I do encourage folks to (politely and respectfully) share their points of view however.. because I’d bet that how these ideas are received will have a lot to do with how they are adopted & adapted officially.
Hope that all makes sense and isn’t just me rambling..
I’m not sure how to take that. Part of me wants to be offended, but the rest of me is willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren’t insulting me and that I may have just taken it the wrong way.
I'm for sure not trying to insult you, but nothing you had said in the thread before my comment seemed to be about swaying anyone. At least not to me. Is it insulting to say that I think you failed to do what you thought you were doing? I'm no longer contributing anything on topic to this thread so I'm probably going to stop responding.
Considering the poll at the top of the thread, I’d say at least a few people were persuaded.
I’m not sure how to take that. Part of me wants to be offended, but the rest of me is willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren’t insulting me and that I may have just taken it the wrong way.
I'm for sure not trying to insult you, but nothing you had said in the thread before my comment seemed to be about swaying anyone. At least not to me. Is it insulting to say that I think you failed to do what you thought you were doing? I'm no longer contributing anything on topic to this thread so I'm probably going to stop responding.
Considering the poll at the top of the thread, I’d say at least a few people were persuaded.
Unfortunately, 78 people from a little used Forum is not really a quality measure of what the community as a whole thinks or why.
I voted yes because I like consistency of rules and think making a permanent change in the middle of an edition is a bad idea, but I do want changes like these and acknowledge that they are happening.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
GMs on the other side of the fence have to homebrew floating ASIs into their games for the last six years, and homebrewing more restrictions is far easier than homebrewing more freedom.
Alternatively, if you want a lore reason to explain the floating ASIs, new races are simply more genetically diverse than traditional races.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
The 'official rules' include all published rules, so that statement is categorically false; if it's in an official supplement, by definition it's built according to the official rules. In any case, if you're playing a traditionalist campaign, why are you using any races not in the PHB anyway?
The point is that with Tasha's rules they already got an optional system to make flexible character, why we can't have new races built with the official system anymore?
You kinda do. If you don't want TCoE-style races in your game, you don't have to include the new races. Just disallow them, and only allow the pre-TCoE races.
There, fixed it for you with zero extra work.
A reiteration isn't exactly clarity, it's a reflection and only substantial if it makes you look at it differently.
As to substance of your grievance, you should be happy with Chapter 9 of the DMG then that allows a DM to impose limits/strictures etc in their world which would allow you to lock races to certain ASIs. Personally I'd also like to see WotC provide quick start builds of lineage options in the format of races, and advocated they do so via the feedback survey to the UA. But if they don't, I have not been injured in the borderline criminal fashion you insinuate by calling it "scamming." Disappointment is one thing. Violation/injury is something completely different. You apparently don't see the difference. To touch on my initially points over your outrage, I'll say your upset is even more free floating that the unbound ASIs since in the case under discussion you can't fathom any reason that the new lineages ASIs should be bound to any particular stat, like the Variant Human. Instead you doubled down on outrage defining what WOTC's job is.
You're sore and I'm sorry about that. I think people on a TTRPG board should be enjoying their discussions. Having said that, if you're not willing to grow with the game on this course, you aren't hamstrung. Far from it.
When I drive a Tesla, the model out of the factory handles acceleration in a certain way. Let's say I bought* the Tesla because I thought the way it handled speed was safe and to my liking. Down the line, Tesla makes it possible to patch the way my car accelerates via a function called "ludicrous speed." The Tesla always had the capacity to in its machinery to go there, but the coding largely prevented it (I suppose if I was a master automotive operating system hacker I could have tweaked the coding myself, though would probably void the warrantee). The fact that my Tesla, which I planned to have for several years, over the course of those years gives me the option of owning ludicrous speed is not a scam. Neither is this.
*I don't actually own a Tesla, though have driven a few but actually don't care for any of their models over other EVs. All that said, ludicrous speed is actually pretty cool, but I can see why some wouldn't want it.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
You seem confused about the term 'official'. The official system is whatever system WotC requires its writers to use. Which is, apparently, the version in the current UA.
You seem very unexperienced regarding RPG, the official rules are always those presented in the core books.
Plus:
Design Note: Changes to Racial Traits In 2020, the book Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything introduced the option to customize several of your character’s racial traits, specifically the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, and traits that give skill, armor, weapon, or tool proficiencies
Wotc itself calls Tasha's rules as optionals, meaning the old ones are the official ones.
I'll weigh Pantagruel's postings on this board against your 8 posts that are only on this one topic today and it's pretty clear who looks more experienced with games.
TTRPGs often produce rules supplements that depart or offer alternatives to the core rules. That's just a fact. People can still play those rules out of the core books and aren't being scammed by publications offering alternatives.
The UA says future publications will present lineage options as that UA outlines instead of the way race is presented in the core rules. I think they could and should do a "both/and" instead. However, while it is a departure from the core rules, and DMs can take it or leave it for their games, it will be the way player options that used to be handled by race will be offered in the future it seems. Again, I'd prefer a balance of old and new just because I know a lot of my players would rather slap a race/class/background on quick and roll so they can role. But if I don't get that, the way the core rules presents those features, I'm pretty confident in my ability to give players an option like that via the lineages. And my game goes on.
I'm actually wondering how set in stone those sidebars are given the quick turnaround on the survey. I wonder if they knew it was coming out a bit of a mess so are pretty much doing a quick poll before going back to the drawing board before determining whether this is in fact the way they want to go forward.
I've mentioned "leaked" Draconians in this or another thread. Anyone know if they were fashioned like this, in line with the traditional core, or was the leak just the insinuation that Draconians are being worked on?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
6th edition maybe easier like this:
1. species
- biological stuff
2.culture
- FR elf, FR dwarf etc. (tool proficiencies, language, a skill maybe)
3. play style = playbook like in Masks
- ability scores (maybe some set things like can only add a +2 to choice1, choice2, choice3)
- choose from this list of skills or abilities/feats
4. Class
- just a big check list of leveled choices (no sub-class)
This topic should be discussed, unfortunately the social bullying has enough solidarity to harass innocent parties. The different races of forgotten realms are not just species and cultures, they are magically underpinned by magic and gods. A genocidal culture like the Drow doesn't leave a lot of room for individuality. And yet even with the Drow, there are exceptions like Drizzt.
There's enough magical exceptions as well, that the flexibility of Tasha's is a perfectly acceptable cannon, as even if a culture is indicative of certain qualities, there's more than enough possibilities that a player could create outside those boundaries. I have more problem with them stripping away more unique qualities like flight, or equine build from unique creatures rather than making standard Humanoids a little more flexible. The rules have long excluded more dramatic qualities from being used for symmetry, but the fantasy clearly acknowledges that tons of non humanoid creatures are sapient and sentient.
In the future they should offer more ethnic variety among PC races and clarify that there is a lot of ethnicities that have no impact on capability, and redefine race as species with different biological heritage. They can also establish culture more distinctly and clarify the unique qualities common among a culture based on their upbringing rather than specifically because of their race. A trade nation where most ppl speak 3 languages based on region rather than ethnicity or species is a natural outcome.
Race and racism being improperly targeted at a fantasy is a problem with our culture and our sensitivity, not our games. The whole concept of real race is artificial since we are genetically interchangeable in real life, while the reality of discrimination is authentic, and a necessary part of fantasy immersion. Whether its legitimate, like Chromatic dragons feeling superior, or manufactured, like wood elves preferring isolation. There's very natural and practical reasons why sapient creatures discriminate, and pretending that our fantasies are above immersive discrimination out of misplaced indignation is immature. D&D is primarily for adults, society can practice their safe spaces however they like, as long as they don't try to imprison everyone in it with them.
WotC needs to be wiser about how they respond to indignant solidarity, because those witch hunters can't replace the greater number of consumers they drive away with their hysteria.
how do you know it's zero extra work? it totally depends on how it's implemented on this website.
It's silly to nitpick hyperbole, it's a trivial amount of work, you just tell your players what features and settings you allow. Even adventures league limits players to two sources for simplification.
well this only applies with physical books and supplements. but in an increasingly digital world...a lot of us rely on websites like this to run our games.to me it seems this is the root of the problem....because if what is on this website is official then if we want to play an older edition...its impossible. it might seem forced on DM's rather than a choice. but again that was another convo which dndbeyond can't provide an answer to. so if all the character building changed...we'd have to do extra work to homebrew races like they used to be...whereas in the past i just wouldn't buy that new book. that seems like it's what grimorio is saying.
1) I seriously doubt that any of the existing races will be forced onto the TCoE system on this site. Unless WoTC bring out errata specifically making the new rules mandatory and changing all of the existing races to the new system (which is doubtful without them releasing a new edition), D&D Beyond are highly likely to continue support for existing races.
2) I thought we were discussing the new D&D race/lineage system by WotC, not the D&D Beyond toolset. They are 2 completely separate things.
nope totally get they are separate things.
but
1. we are on dndbeyond right now
2. they have not implemented it yet on this website, and if WOTC is creating UA on a new race/lineage system....what makes you think they won't make that official in 5th edition?
All other optional and additional content is toggleable. I know of nothing which has been officially released (except errata) which has overridden previously released content. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that they would behave completely differently with this than they have with everything else they've ever done.
if they ever were to go so far as to errata that much of the core books, then I would guess the logical (and marketable) option would be to just release it as 5.5e.
So.. Long time D&D player here who is not so skilled at any of the online stuff. (I started playing in the late ‘70s & mostly use DDB for NPC creation and the encounter builder.)
Honest Query. (Not trying to sound snarky, I’m just a little ignorant about some of this online stuff.)
UA means it is play test material, correct? That it is in fact -not- official rules as yet, but something that is being tossed out to test the waters so to speak and see how it is received.. ??
It seems, after reading this and the 22 page thread that proceeded this one, that a lot of folks are assuming that the UA publication is what will be going forward verbatim, and I guess I am just not entirely sure that’s a given. It seems to me that many things often change between UA publication and “official implementation.”
Is it unreasonable to think that what was stated in the current UA may be modified before implementing it into official material?
Personally I really don’t have a problem with the ideas presented other than I myself am not real interested in utilizing the gothic lineages as they don’t really fit the campaign setting I am currently running,. (This does not mean I think they are bad or wrong, only that they may not be a good fit for the current table narrative.)
I also don’t see how moving forward with this racial system removes anyone’s ability to use the old system if that is what they are comfortable with, like many have said.. it seems more of a case of just making sure you have the correct toggles set for your preference when designing characters.
I admit I am a fan of variety, and personally see no reason that everyone should be limited to specific ‘racial traits,” if such do not fit their playstyle or the narrative being built at their table. The game has always changed and adapted to the times. (Gnomes are no longer limited to Illusionists as arcane spell casters, and they can progress higher than sixth level as fighters. Isn’t that nice!?! I think so, and I am not a fan of Gnomes.) That said, it is up to the folks at each table to decide what they want, together, when they sit down to play.. (That session zero part of Tasha’s.)
I’m not trying to tell anyone how to play. I am saying I personally don’t have a problem with the ideas presented and am curious to see how they will be officially implemented once they move beyond UA playtesting. (Again.. if I am understanding that correctly.) I do encourage folks to (politely and respectfully) share their points of view however.. because I’d bet that how these ideas are received will have a lot to do with how they are adopted & adapted officially.
Hope that all makes sense and isn’t just me rambling..
Considering the poll at the top of the thread, I’d say at least a few people were persuaded.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Unfortunately, 78 people from a little used Forum is not really a quality measure of what the community as a whole thinks or why.
I voted yes because I like consistency of rules and think making a permanent change in the middle of an edition is a bad idea, but I do want changes like these and acknowledge that they are happening.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master