Recommend disengaging, Ken. Your heart's in the right place, but this is something like the thirtieth thread in which the same four or five guys hold the same stance that any modernization of the game is tantamount to brand murder and Ruining D&D Forever. People have been arguing with the same squad of nay-saying gatekeepers since Tasha's Cauldron was announced. All those threads end the same way - people *****ing about D&D they don't like, mods locking threads, and infraction points for everybody.
I appreciate that, Yurei(1453?), but I'm happy to engage as long as no-one's getting hurt. Might as well crit-fish for the chance of constructive dialog.
Recommend disengaging, Ken. Your heart's in the right place, but this is something like the thirtieth thread in which the same four or five guys hold the same stance that any modernization of the game is tantamount to brand murder and Ruining D&D Forever. People have been arguing with the same squad of nay-saying gatekeepers since Tasha's Cauldron was announced. All those threads end the same way - people *****ing about D&D they don't like, mods locking threads, and infraction points for everybody.
Nobody'll ever convince these people the sky isn't falling.
I’d just like to point out three things
1.) WotC might be watching
2.) I created this thread. I’ve not discussed this topic elsewhere
3.) Except for one snide comment aimed at me which I largely ignored, I’ve not seen any flaming or flame baiting going on here
Let’s discuss this woke idea that saying different races have different attribute modifiers is somehow wrong.
First, what DND calls “races» are more like “species” with two exceptions that I know of (restricting ourselves to core 5e DND). Elves, Orcs, and Humans are the same species. We know this because they can interbreed.
We’ll focus on those races. Of them, off the top of my head, Elves get a Dex bonus and 1/2 Orcs get a Str bonus. Neither Dex nor Str is objectively better than the other one. So, if you are asserting that a rule set that says these racial adjustments are discriminatory, that discrimination exists only in your own head and is predicated on Str or Dex being better than the other one. What these racial adjustments do is acknowledge racial diversity. Last I checked, embracing diversity (rather than pretending it doesn’t exist) is a good thing.
Now, what about Int, Wis, and Cha adjustments. Well, again, there’s nothing making these attributes special as compared to Str, Dex, or Con. If you are asserting that a race with an average higher Int (for example) isbetter than one without, that’s your bias being imposed on the game. Does your life have more objective value than the life of someone with a learning disability? I don’t think so. So, why should one DND race be considered objectively better than another one just because it has a higher average intelligence? Once again, claims of discrimination merely reveal the prejudice of the person making the claim.
Diversity is a good thing. Embracing it rather than ignoring it should be encouraged. I don’t see what all the fuss is about.
Let’s discuss this woke idea that saying different races have different attribute modifiers is somehow wrong.
First, what DND calls “races» are more like “species” with two exceptions that I know of (restricting ourselves to core 5e DND). Elves, Orcs, and Humans are the same species. We know this because they can interbreed.
We’ll focus on those races. Of them, off the top of my head, Elves get a Dex bonus and 1/2 Orcs get a Str bonus. Neither Dex nor Str is objectively better than the other one. So, if you are asserting that a rule set that says these racial adjustments are discriminatory, that discrimination exists only in your own head and is predicated on Str or Dex being better than the other one. What these racial adjustments do is acknowledge racial diversity. Last I checked, embracing diversity (rather than pretending it doesn’t exist) is a good thing.
Now, what about Int, Wis, and Cha adjustments. Well, again, there’s nothing making these attributes special as compared to Str, Dex, or Con. If you are asserting that a race with an average higher Int (for example) isbetter than one without, that’s your bias being imposed on the game. Does your life have more objective value than the life of someone with a learning disability? I don’t think so. So, why should one DND race be considered objectively better than another one just because it has a higher average intelligence? Once again, claims of discrimination merely reveal the prejudice of the person making the claim.
Diversity is a good thing. Embracing it rather than ignoring it should be encouraged. I don’t see what all the fuss is about.
I think you are correct but I believe that’s why WotC made the distinction between other members of their race/species and PC’s of said race/species. So in general Orcs may have higher STR on average but your 1/2Orc wizard can have an 18 INT and 8 STR (via floating ASI’s). Adventurers are different from the rest of their race/species.
Let’s discuss this woke idea that saying different races have different attribute modifiers is somehow wrong.
First, what DND calls “races» are more like “species” with two exceptions that I know of (restricting ourselves to core 5e DND). Elves, Orcs, and Humans are the same species. We know this because they can interbreed.
We’ll focus on those races. Of them, off the top of my head, Elves get a Dex bonus and 1/2 Orcs get a Str bonus. Neither Dex nor Str is objectively better than the other one. So, if you are asserting that a rule set that says these racial adjustments are discriminatory, that discrimination exists only in your own head and is predicated on Str or Dex being better than the other one. What these racial adjustments do is acknowledge racial diversity. Last I checked, embracing diversity (rather than pretending it doesn’t exist) is a good thing.
Now, what about Int, Wis, and Cha adjustments. Well, again, there’s nothing making these attributes special as compared to Str, Dex, or Con. If you are asserting that a race with an average higher Int (for example) isbetter than one without, that’s your bias being imposed on the game. Does your life have more objective value than the life of someone with a learning disability? I don’t think so. So, why should one DND race be considered objectively better than another one just because it has a higher average intelligence? Once again, claims of discrimination merely reveal the prejudice of the person making the claim.
Diversity is a good thing. Embracing it rather than ignoring it should be encouraged. I don’t see what all the fuss is about.
I think you are correct but I believe that’s why WotC made the distinction between other members of their race/species and PC’s of said race/species. So in general Orcs may have higher STR on average but your 1/2Orc wizard can have an 18 INT and 8 STR (via floating ASI’s). Adventurers are different from the rest of their race/species.
My post was focused on this woke bullshit.
I’ll make arguments about PCs vs standard members of the race separately.
Just Yurei. Or Rei, if you're in a real hurry. "1453" is from when I signed up and was told my name is super common, and I needed to 1337 g@m3rt@g it to register. Man, I really wish companies would figure out a workaround for that, Some of them, have, why isn't it proliferating yet?
I get it. Honest. I really enjoy getting stuck into a good Internet fight. I just have also been in most of those threads Joel linked in the early stages here. I've come at this from every conceivable angle one can do so and a few of the inconceivable ones. I've tried reasonable debate, I've tried fiery rhetoric. I've tried logical tricks, I've tried straight-up knockout fighting. None of it mattered. None of it helped. None of it accomplished a single damn thing in the minds of those who are absolutely convinced that this is The End Of D&D As We Know It. Mostly, all I've gotten for my trouble was being called a battery of names that'd get people reported for harassment if they said them to my face.
But who knows? Maybe you'll find the one method of getting through to these folks that's eluded me. Just...don't get your hopes up, and do your best to find the escape hatch before this thing flames out and comes apart. They always do.
Just Yurei. Or Rei, if you're in a real hurry. "1453" is from when I signed up and was told my name is super common, and I needed to 1337 g@m3rt@g it to register. Man, I really wish companies would figure out a workaround for that, Some of them, have, why isn't it proliferating yet?
I get it. Honest. I really enjoy getting stuck into a good Internet fight. I just have also been in most of those threads Joel linked in the early stages here. I've come at this from every conceivable angle one can do so and a few of the inconceivable ones. I've tried reasonable debate, I've tried fiery rhetoric. I've tried logical tricks, I've tried straight-up knockout fighting. None of it mattered. None of it helped. None of it accomplished a single damn thing in the minds of those who are absolutely convinced that this is The End Of D&D As We Know It. Mostly, all I've gotten for my trouble was being called a battery of names that'd get people reported for harassment if they said them to my face.
But who knows? Maybe you'll find the one method of getting through to these folks that's eluded me. Just...don't get your hopes up, and do your best to find the escape hatch before this thing flames out and comes apart. They always do.
I don’t understand your goal. Are you simply playing WotC’s defender? Because nobody asked you to do that. It isn’t really helpful to the discussion.
what I’m looking for is somebody who believes this new way of doing races is a good idea.
what I’m looking for is somebody who believes this new way of doing races is a good idea.
OK...
I think it's a good idea. Or, at least, a partial improvement. More flexibility in character creation, less friction in character creation, less essentialism in the game, more diversity in the characters that will be created, happier players who get to play characters closer to what they want, etc.
Now, if you're just "looking" to call me stupid, or a min-maxer, for this, then I'll just ignore you.
Edit: Yurei's previous post was a reply to me, in case you need that context.
Honestly, if making this change will improve the game experience for many many people, then who cares about science?
Bounded Accuracy isn't really scientific, realistic, and it changed nearly everything about D&D.
Edit: with the whole bounded accuracy, a bandit with a shortsword should have absolutely no chance at hitting a knight in even half-decent chainmail without a natural 20, and yet in game it's a normal occurrence. It makes for a better game, and therefore I'm perfectly fine with it.
Yet this change has literally no impact on the gameplay of D&D in the slightest and this threatens the core of D&D?
People are fine with a halfling being able to use a ASI to improve their STR at level 4, but not level 1? Really? There's a reason it's called Ability Score Increase and not Racial Starting Stats.
Yurei and several others like this new direction for races, or at least think it’s a step in the right direction and hoping more fleshing out of things is in the work. The threads Joelthewalrus linked earlier show as much.
At this point I’ve resigned myself, knowing that what I would like in a Character Creation system won’t happen without a serious revamp of the system, which would be too jarring to implement in the middle of an already established edition. So, I’m indifferent until I see more of what WotC plan to do with CC going forward. I think that Tasha’s new CC rules are awesome but I have several issues with the new lineages personally.
The more I see this debate crop up, the more I feel that WotC should have just released an actually statement/interview discussing their plans going forward with Racial and Cultural traits and the like instead of just adding a blurb to the latest UA with little else as far as explanation. People would still be upset if they didn’t like the direction but some of the more wild speculation and debate would have been toned down possibly. I don’t know.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
You can count me as another person that thinks that the changes are a good idea. I do think Lineage still needs some work, but it is a move in the right direction.
A new edition would allow this to be reworked better. I mean, take away the ASI and cultural stuff and the only thing discerning dwarf PCs is being slow and resistant to poison, half-elves have the charm/sleep resistance, half-orcs presumably only the relentless endurance thing, etc. Feels like a really short step to the entirely blank canvas and just buying special qualities from there, and to me at least that's not D&D anymore. I don't consider myself a purist, but to me D&D should be more than just a logo and a brand name on any kind of high fantasy ruleset. The game has come a long way and that's great (not to mention absolutely necessary to survive), but there should be a sort of pedigree, of game DNA, that keeps D&D recognizeable as D&D without needing a cover to spell that out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
A new edition would allow this to be reworked better. I mean, take away the ASI and cultural stuff and the only thing discerning dwarf PCs is being slow and resistant to poison, half-elves have the charm/sleep resistance, half-orcs presumably only the relentless endurance thing, etc. Feels like a really short step to the entirely blank canvas and just buying special qualities from there, and to me at least that's not D&D anymore. I don't consider myself a purist, but to me D&D should be more than just a logo and a brand name on any kind of high fantasy ruleset. The game has come a long way and that's great (not to mention absolutely necessary to survive), but there should be a sort of pedigree, of game DNA, that keeps D&D recognizeable as D&D without needing a cover to spell that out.
I’m not sure if ability score adjustments or elves being aloof, fleet of foot, and graceful is what gives D&D its DNA. I like some of the changes, not all, but it needs to be fleshed out more before making a final decision on the topic as far as the lineage is concerned
edit: I mean, if Dark Sun was just now released instead of many years ago with elves being 7 feet tall and halflings being cannibalistic savages it would probably be considered “not D&D”. ( and don’t forget the Mul’s and Thri-Kreen :) ) edit 2: and I believe you rolled 5d4 for stats. Yet now it’s one of the most asked for campaign settings
This is an argument that can never end, because it is about matters of personal taste and preference, not about objectively good/bad game design elements. You can't argue someone into liking something they don't. It's like trying to argue someone who likes Pepsi better than Coke into liking the taste of Coke better. You can't argue with taste buds...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I do think the new system is good, but yes it does need work. I believe they need a way to incorporate race abilities like the Goliaths large frame, the things actually mentioned in the UA for races going forward. Also if no races or lineages grant skills/language/weapons that to me indicates a potential rework on backgrounds granting some of those things or stating you get to choose an extra language of your choice during generation. As for the Darkvision I think if your original race had darkvision then have it extend said Darkvision by said 60 feet, it's not like certain class abilities or magical items don't do that already i.e. Gloomstalker Ranger, Googles of Night.
A new edition would allow this to be reworked better. I mean, take away the ASI and cultural stuff and the only thing discerning dwarf PCs is being slow and resistant to poison, half-elves have the charm/sleep resistance, half-orcs presumably only the relentless endurance thing, etc. Feels like a really short step to the entirely blank canvas and just buying special qualities from there, and to me at least that's not D&D anymore. I don't consider myself a purist, but to me D&D should be more than just a logo and a brand name on any kind of high fantasy ruleset. The game has come a long way and that's great (not to mention absolutely necessary to survive), but there should be a sort of pedigree, of game DNA, that keeps D&D recognizeable as D&D without needing a cover to spell that out.
I’m not sure if ability score adjustments or elves being aloof, fleet of foot, and graceful is what gives D&D its DNA. I like some of the changes, not all, but it needs to be fleshed out more before making a final decision on the topic as far as the lineage is concerned
edit: I mean, if Dark Sun was just now released instead of many years ago with elves being 7 feet tall and halflings being cannibalistic savages it would probably be considered “not D&D”. ( and don’t forget the Mul’s and Thri-Kreen :) ) edit 2: and I believe you rolled 5d4 for stats. Yet now it’s one of the most asked for campaign settings
It's not so much about race specifics as it is about there being fantastical races and those races having specific traits. I doubt there's anyone disagreeing a setting with nothing but human as character race option wouldn't be D&D. And if we are to have that racial diversity it should be (IMO) explicit. There's nothing wrong with playing against type and adventurers being exceptional and thus not uncommonly exceptions to the norm, but for me the norm should still be codified even for PCs. Now, if you want to play a dwarf raised by elves that's fine, and that should be reflected in your skills and demeanor. If you want to play a gnome from some jungle tribe that's lost contact with their "normal" cousins for a few dozen centuries and developed differently that's fine too, and clearly a number of things will set these savage gnomes apart from the normative ones. If you want to play a character from an entirely homebrewed race of humanoid bees, that's still fine. To me that's something to take up with your DM though, not something the PHB should provide rules for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If you think that it is bias to suggest that humans are not smarter than chimps, and as creatures age, they get physically weaker, and that female primates are physically weaker and smaller than the males of the species, then you may as well say gravity is bias and pseudoscience.
I was trying to avoid this flamewar, but I'm coming in to address this. It's been done before, but hopefully I can do it more effectively here.
Humans are "smarter" than chimpanzees and bonobos on average. Chimpanzees and other great apes can learn and "speak" sign language, invent new terms with it, and communicate effectively between each other and with us. The "dumbest" human is less intelligent than the smartest chimp.
I, and the others that agree with my opinion on this issue, have not been fighting to take away penalties from aging. This is a strawman argument and is irrelevant to this discussion. The reason that rules for aging aren't being published anymore is simply because it isn't useful enough to the game in general to need official publishing in one of the core rule books. There are more important things to be published, like rules for different races, classes, and spells.
Female primates are on average physically weaker in terms of muscle strength than a male of the same species. I, as a cisgender human male, have a genetic disorder known as EDS (Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome) that makes my muscles weaker than the average human, including the average female. There are also female humans that are much stronger than the average human male.
On average is the thing that you, Wren, and the rest of the bunch of you seem to be missing. PCs in D&D are not average. They have access to powers and features that the majority of the population of the world is incapable of getting. An NPC wizard doesn't have access to Arcane Recovery. Orcs don't have Powerful Build listed in their stat block. This is because PCs are not average. They are exceptional. The average Hobbit-Joe may be physically weaker than the average Orc-Joe, but PCs are not average, and are thus not constrained by the outdated, restrictive +2, +1 racial ASIs that the vast majority of the rest of the world's inhabitants are restricted to. However, that is not to say that they are completely free to have whatever powers they want to take willy-nilly. That Hobbit-Joe PC will still have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons, and that Orc-Joe will be able to carry twice as much as the halfling could with the same STR score.
The point isn't "realistic averages" it is "interesting exceptions".
Recommend disengaging, Ken. Your heart's in the right place, but this is something like the thirtieth thread in which the same four or five guys hold the same stance that any modernization of the game is tantamount to brand murder and Ruining D&D Forever. People have been arguing with the same squad of nay-saying gatekeepers since Tasha's Cauldron was announced. All those threads end the same way - people *****ing about D&D they don't like, mods locking threads, and infraction points for everybody.
Nobody'll ever convince these people the sky isn't falling.
I’d just like to point out three things
1.) WotC might be watching
2.) I created this thread. I’ve not discussed this topic elsewhere
3.) Except for one snide comment aimed at me which I largely ignored, I’ve not seen any flaming or flame baiting going on here
1) Ha. No they're not. Even if they were, they wouldn't care about just a handful or two of people bickering on the internet and have made up their minds on this topic already.
3) I would call Vince saying "people who have no interest in D&D" flame baiting. I would call you saying "what I’m looking for is somebody who believes this new way of doing races is a good idea" flame baiting. You have been provided tons of threads representing both sides of people on this issue. Asking for more is flame baiting.
If you think that it is bias to suggest that humans are not smarter than chimps, and as creatures age, they get physically weaker, and that female primates are physically weaker and smaller than the males of the species, then you may as well say gravity is bias and pseudoscience.
I was trying to avoid this flamewar, but I'm coming in to address this. It's been done before, but hopefully I can do it more effectively here.
Humans are "smarter" than chimpanzees and bonobos on average. Chimpanzees and other great apes can learn and "speak" sign language, invent new terms with it, and communicate effectively between each other and with us. The "dumbest" human is less intelligent than the smartest chimp.
I, and the others that agree with my opinion on this issue, have not been fighting to take away penalties from aging. This is a strawman argument and is irrelevant to this discussion. The reason that rules for aging aren't being published anymore is simply because it isn't useful enough to the game in general to need official publishing in one of the core rule books. There are more important things to be published, like rules for different races, classes, and spells.
Female primates are on average physically weaker in terms of muscle strength than a male of the same species. I, as a cisgender human male, have a genetic disorder known as EDS (Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome) that makes my muscles weaker than the average human, including the average female. There are also female humans that are much stronger than the average human male.
On average is the thing that you, Wren, and the rest of the bunch of you seem to be missing. PCs in D&D are not average. They have access to powers and features that the majority of the population of the world is incapable of getting. An NPC wizard doesn't have access to Arcane Recovery. Orcs don't have Powerful Build listed in their stat block. This is because PCs are not average. They are exceptional. The average Hobbit-Joe may be physically weaker than the average Orc-Joe, but PCs are not average, and are thus not constrained by the outdated, restrictive +2, +1 racial ASIs that the vast majority of the rest of the world's inhabitants are restricted to. However, that is not to say that they are completely free to have whatever powers they want to take willy-nilly. That Hobbit-Joe PC will still have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons, and that Orc-Joe will be able to carry twice as much as the halfling could with the same STR score.
The point isn't "realistic averages" it is "interesting exceptions".
And you know what the +2 Str, +1 Con represents in the Orc species? It represents the AVERAGE attributes in a species. Then there is the 27 point buy to allocate points to the "interesting exceptions" in a species. That goes across the board for ALL species in the game. There is zero reason to alter the base attributes for any species because the 27 point buy takes care of any exceptions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I appreciate that, Yurei(1453?), but I'm happy to engage as long as no-one's getting hurt. Might as well crit-fish for the chance of constructive dialog.
I’d just like to point out three things
1.) WotC might be watching
2.) I created this thread. I’ve not discussed this topic elsewhere
3.) Except for one snide comment aimed at me which I largely ignored, I’ve not seen any flaming or flame baiting going on here
Let’s discuss this woke idea that saying different races have different attribute modifiers is somehow wrong.
First, what DND calls “races» are more like “species” with two exceptions that I know of (restricting ourselves to core 5e DND). Elves, Orcs, and Humans are the same species. We know this because they can interbreed.
We’ll focus on those races. Of them, off the top of my head, Elves get a Dex bonus and 1/2 Orcs get a Str bonus. Neither Dex nor Str is objectively better than the other one. So, if you are asserting that a rule set that says these racial adjustments are discriminatory, that discrimination exists only in your own head and is predicated on Str or Dex being better than the other one. What these racial adjustments do is acknowledge racial diversity. Last I checked, embracing diversity (rather than pretending it doesn’t exist) is a good thing.
Now, what about Int, Wis, and Cha adjustments. Well, again, there’s nothing making these attributes special as compared to Str, Dex, or Con. If you are asserting that a race with an average higher Int (for example) isbetter than one without, that’s your bias being imposed on the game. Does your life have more objective value than the life of someone with a learning disability? I don’t think so. So, why should one DND race be considered objectively better than another one just because it has a higher average intelligence? Once again, claims of discrimination merely reveal the prejudice of the person making the claim.
Diversity is a good thing. Embracing it rather than ignoring it should be encouraged. I don’t see what all the fuss is about.
I think you are correct but I believe that’s why WotC made the distinction between other members of their race/species and PC’s of said race/species. So in general Orcs may have higher STR on average but your 1/2Orc wizard can have an 18 INT and 8 STR (via floating ASI’s). Adventurers are different from the rest of their race/species.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
My post was focused on this woke bullshit.
I’ll make arguments about PCs vs standard members of the race separately.
Just Yurei. Or Rei, if you're in a real hurry. "1453" is from when I signed up and was told my name is super common, and I needed to 1337 g@m3rt@g it to register. Man, I really wish companies would figure out a workaround for that, Some of them, have, why isn't it proliferating yet?
I get it. Honest. I really enjoy getting stuck into a good Internet fight. I just have also been in most of those threads Joel linked in the early stages here. I've come at this from every conceivable angle one can do so and a few of the inconceivable ones. I've tried reasonable debate, I've tried fiery rhetoric. I've tried logical tricks, I've tried straight-up knockout fighting. None of it mattered. None of it helped. None of it accomplished a single damn thing in the minds of those who are absolutely convinced that this is The End Of D&D As We Know It. Mostly, all I've gotten for my trouble was being called a battery of names that'd get people reported for harassment if they said them to my face.
But who knows? Maybe you'll find the one method of getting through to these folks that's eluded me. Just...don't get your hopes up, and do your best to find the escape hatch before this thing flames out and comes apart. They always do.
Please do not contact or message me.
I don’t understand your goal. Are you simply playing WotC’s defender? Because nobody asked you to do that. It isn’t really helpful to the discussion.
what I’m looking for is somebody who believes this new way of doing races is a good idea.
OK...
I think it's a good idea. Or, at least, a partial improvement. More flexibility in character creation, less friction in character creation, less essentialism in the game, more diversity in the characters that will be created, happier players who get to play characters closer to what they want, etc.
Now, if you're just "looking" to call me stupid, or a min-maxer, for this, then I'll just ignore you.
Edit: Yurei's previous post was a reply to me, in case you need that context.
Honestly, if making this change will improve the game experience for many many people, then who cares about science?
Bounded Accuracy isn't really scientific, realistic, and it changed nearly everything about D&D.
Edit: with the whole bounded accuracy, a bandit with a shortsword should have absolutely no chance at hitting a knight in even half-decent chainmail without a natural 20, and yet in game it's a normal occurrence. It makes for a better game, and therefore I'm perfectly fine with it.
Yet this change has literally no impact on the gameplay of D&D in the slightest and this threatens the core of D&D?
People are fine with a halfling being able to use a ASI to improve their STR at level 4, but not level 1? Really? There's a reason it's called Ability Score Increase and not Racial Starting Stats.
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.
Yurei and several others like this new direction for races, or at least think it’s a step in the right direction and hoping more fleshing out of things is in the work. The threads Joelthewalrus linked earlier show as much.
At this point I’ve resigned myself, knowing that what I would like in a Character Creation system won’t happen without a serious revamp of the system, which would be too jarring to implement in the middle of an already established edition. So, I’m indifferent until I see more of what WotC plan to do with CC going forward. I think that Tasha’s new CC rules are awesome but I have several issues with the new lineages personally.
The more I see this debate crop up, the more I feel that WotC should have just released an actually statement/interview discussing their plans going forward with Racial and Cultural traits and the like instead of just adding a blurb to the latest UA with little else as far as explanation. People would still be upset if they didn’t like the direction but some of the more wild speculation and debate would have been toned down possibly. I don’t know.
"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
You can count me as another person that thinks that the changes are a good idea. I do think Lineage still needs some work, but it is a move in the right direction.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It's not a perfect idea, it still needs work, but I think it is overall a good change.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
A new edition would allow this to be reworked better. I mean, take away the ASI and cultural stuff and the only thing discerning dwarf PCs is being slow and resistant to poison, half-elves have the charm/sleep resistance, half-orcs presumably only the relentless endurance thing, etc. Feels like a really short step to the entirely blank canvas and just buying special qualities from there, and to me at least that's not D&D anymore. I don't consider myself a purist, but to me D&D should be more than just a logo and a brand name on any kind of high fantasy ruleset. The game has come a long way and that's great (not to mention absolutely necessary to survive), but there should be a sort of pedigree, of game DNA, that keeps D&D recognizeable as D&D without needing a cover to spell that out.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I’m not sure if ability score adjustments or elves being aloof, fleet of foot, and graceful is what gives D&D its DNA. I like some of the changes, not all, but it needs to be fleshed out more before making a final decision on the topic as far as the lineage is concerned
edit: I mean, if Dark Sun was just now released instead of many years ago with elves being 7 feet tall and halflings being cannibalistic savages it would probably be considered “not D&D”. ( and don’t forget the Mul’s and Thri-Kreen :) ) edit 2: and I believe you rolled 5d4 for stats. Yet now it’s one of the most asked for campaign settings
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
This is an argument that can never end, because it is about matters of personal taste and preference, not about objectively good/bad game design elements. You can't argue someone into liking something they don't. It's like trying to argue someone who likes Pepsi better than Coke into liking the taste of Coke better. You can't argue with taste buds...
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I do think the new system is good, but yes it does need work. I believe they need a way to incorporate race abilities like the Goliaths large frame, the things actually mentioned in the UA for races going forward. Also if no races or lineages grant skills/language/weapons that to me indicates a potential rework on backgrounds granting some of those things or stating you get to choose an extra language of your choice during generation. As for the Darkvision I think if your original race had darkvision then have it extend said Darkvision by said 60 feet, it's not like certain class abilities or magical items don't do that already i.e. Gloomstalker Ranger, Googles of Night.
It's not so much about race specifics as it is about there being fantastical races and those races having specific traits. I doubt there's anyone disagreeing a setting with nothing but human as character race option wouldn't be D&D. And if we are to have that racial diversity it should be (IMO) explicit. There's nothing wrong with playing against type and adventurers being exceptional and thus not uncommonly exceptions to the norm, but for me the norm should still be codified even for PCs. Now, if you want to play a dwarf raised by elves that's fine, and that should be reflected in your skills and demeanor. If you want to play a gnome from some jungle tribe that's lost contact with their "normal" cousins for a few dozen centuries and developed differently that's fine too, and clearly a number of things will set these savage gnomes apart from the normative ones. If you want to play a character from an entirely homebrewed race of humanoid bees, that's still fine. To me that's something to take up with your DM though, not something the PHB should provide rules for.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I was trying to avoid this flamewar, but I'm coming in to address this. It's been done before, but hopefully I can do it more effectively here.
Humans are "smarter" than chimpanzees and bonobos on average. Chimpanzees and other great apes can learn and "speak" sign language, invent new terms with it, and communicate effectively between each other and with us. The "dumbest" human is less intelligent than the smartest chimp.
I, and the others that agree with my opinion on this issue, have not been fighting to take away penalties from aging. This is a strawman argument and is irrelevant to this discussion. The reason that rules for aging aren't being published anymore is simply because it isn't useful enough to the game in general to need official publishing in one of the core rule books. There are more important things to be published, like rules for different races, classes, and spells.
Female primates are on average physically weaker in terms of muscle strength than a male of the same species. I, as a cisgender human male, have a genetic disorder known as EDS (Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome) that makes my muscles weaker than the average human, including the average female. There are also female humans that are much stronger than the average human male.
On average is the thing that you, Wren, and the rest of the bunch of you seem to be missing. PCs in D&D are not average. They have access to powers and features that the majority of the population of the world is incapable of getting. An NPC wizard doesn't have access to Arcane Recovery. Orcs don't have Powerful Build listed in their stat block. This is because PCs are not average. They are exceptional. The average Hobbit-Joe may be physically weaker than the average Orc-Joe, but PCs are not average, and are thus not constrained by the outdated, restrictive +2, +1 racial ASIs that the vast majority of the rest of the world's inhabitants are restricted to. However, that is not to say that they are completely free to have whatever powers they want to take willy-nilly. That Hobbit-Joe PC will still have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons, and that Orc-Joe will be able to carry twice as much as the halfling could with the same STR score.
The point isn't "realistic averages" it is "interesting exceptions".
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
1) Ha. No they're not. Even if they were, they wouldn't care about just a handful or two of people bickering on the internet and have made up their minds on this topic already.
2) Yes you have.
3) I would call Vince saying "people who have no interest in D&D" flame baiting. I would call you saying "what I’m looking for is somebody who believes this new way of doing races is a good idea" flame baiting. You have been provided tons of threads representing both sides of people on this issue. Asking for more is flame baiting.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
And you know what the +2 Str, +1 Con represents in the Orc species? It represents the AVERAGE attributes in a species. Then there is the 27 point buy to allocate points to the "interesting exceptions" in a species. That goes across the board for ALL species in the game. There is zero reason to alter the base attributes for any species because the 27 point buy takes care of any exceptions.