Tashas Cauldron now includes full rules for full character customization so a lot of this is possible but, comes ata cost.
In summary the rules are now that whatever racial and I think profession bonus you get you can then swap out for a different thing. So +1 charisma can be swapped for +1 int, star dex etc. proficiency in history could become arcana, or nature or deception.
If you get +2 you may swap it for +2 in one or +1 in 2. So now your player can be a tiefling barbarian, or a Goliath wizard and not be at a disadvantage.
I take this a step further so if a character has a racial ability then talk with them about swapping it out for something that fits background. I have just had a player effectively build a tiefling with half orc stats and abilities.
If it is a tiefling with half-orc stats and abilities, why not play a half-orc in the first place?
Because they want to be a tiefling. It's not about having half-orc stats, it's about having stats that go with their class. As opposed to feeling forced to play a certain race only because it has the +2 that matches your class choice. Just because they want to be a barbarian shouldn't mean they have to be a half-orc to get that +2 str
You just said that this char has half-orc stats and abilities. What, precisely, is left that defines it as a Tiefling? Outside of how it looks, how is it different than a true Half-Orc? This is not a rhetorical question.
Well firstly it wasn't me you replied to the first time. But anyhow it's the lore that defines the tiefling. Not just skin color and "has horns", and certainly not it's mechanical traits. The player wants to play as the race with an infernal bloodline.
They want to play as the race that gets this description: "To be greeted with stares and whispers, to suffer violence and insult on the street, to see mistrust and fear in every eye: this is the lot of the tiefling. And to twist the knife, tieflings know that this is because a pact struck generations ago infused the essence of Asmodeus—overlord of the Nine Hells—into their bloodline. Their appearance and their nature are not their fault but the result of an ancient sin, for which they and their children and their children’s children will always be held accountable. Tieflings subsist in small minorities found mostly in human cities or towns, often in the roughest quarters of those places, where they grow up to be swindlers, thieves, or crime lords. Sometimes they live among other minority populations in enclaves where they are treated with more respect. Lacking a homeland, tieflings know that they have to make their own way in the world and that they have to be strong to survive. They are not quick to trust anyone who claims to be a friend, but when a tiefling’s companions demonstrate that they trust him or her, the tiefling learns to extend the same trust to them. And once a tiefling gives someone loyalty, the tiefling is a firm friend or ally for life."
They want to play as that race, while playing the Barbarian class, and get the +2 str that goes with being a barbarian instead of having a +2 cha that is useless for their class. The same applies for any abilities that were changed. You ask what's left to define tiefling besides appearance but appearance is the 2nd most important part of selecting a race, right after lore. Stats and abilities are tertiary, also phrasable as "least important". They want to play as a Barbarian and not automatically be worse than other barbarians just because the didn't choose the race most predefined as barbarian style.
This is literally the point of the changes in Tasha's, to let players be whatever race/class combo they want without feeling like they hindered themselves instead of having to specifically match certain races and classes to have a "properly" designed character.
In short, the race selection is just flavor text, existing only for backstory and roleplay. Players shouldn't be mechanically limited by it. So if a player says to a DM "I want to play as this race, but use that race's mechanics." There's really no reason to say no.
So, his char looks like a Tiefling, has the background of a Tiefling, but in all other aspects is a Half-Orc? What about all the species specific stuff like Resistance to Fire. Does this Barbarian have Resistance to Fire, and have access to Hellish Rebuke and Darkness at certain levels?
Just because they want to be a barbarian shouldn't mean they have to be a half-orc to get that +2 str
Just because they want to play a barbarian doesn't mean they are required to take a race that gives them that +2 str.
Play the game how you want... it's your game. But I think this mistaken belief that everyone has to start out at level 1 with a 17 in their prime stat is one of the more destructive ideas that has come along in 5e D&D.
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.
So, his char looks like a Tiefling, has the background of a Tiefling, but in all other aspects is a Half-Orc? What about all the species specific stuff like Resistance to Fire. Does this Barbarian have Resistance to Fire, and have access to Hellish Rebuke and Darkness at certain levels?
I would suspect (and would certainly hope) that this variant tiefling example traded all of those tiefling specific racial attributes for the half-orc abilities that they gained. Otherwise, it would be a fairly overpowered build if they're keeping the benefits of Hellish Resistance and Infernal Legacy as well as all of the things that they're gaining from the half-orc mechanics.
As for trading out the mechanics of one race for another race, I personally wouldn't have too big of an issue with it as a DM. If they're basically playing a half-orc that has the appearance and background fluff of a tiefling doesn't necessarily break anything from a general mechanics point of view...or, at least, not that I can immediately see. Could get a little convoluted with "racial" feats and magical items, since the player would be a tiefling in name but not in the mechanical features. Would assume that they qualify for tiefling feats and items, since they are a "tiefling" character...but are we assuming that that half-orc feats and items should apply because we reskinned the half-orc base?
Play the game how you want... it's your game. But I think this mistaken belief that everyone has to start out at level 1 with a 17 in their prime stat is one of the more destructive ideas that has come along in 5e D&D.
As a DM, I don't typically have much of an issue with players wanting to optimize their builds by increasing their main attribute(s). However, I would agree with your sentiment, BioWizard. It's a little frustrating to consistently see builds where 1st-level characters are always 17+ in their prime stat. Don't begrudge players wanting to have their characters be adept in main attribute(s) for their class, but the mentality that you always have to be maxed out at level one is rather disappointing.
How much y'all see players trying to pull the "power growth" (lack of better wording in my brain) that is trying to convince the dm let them have feature because of something in their backstory, instead of accounting for it themselves a way character creation already allows, like (I feel like)they should.
I currently have a player in one of my campaigns that consistently tries to gain multiple benefits for her background story. She created an elven ranger with the Outlander background, since she felt that this background best reflected her spending a lot of time in the wilderness learning her ranger trade... However, as an elf, she says that she's lived multiple decades trying to find her place in the world before settling on being a ranger. Her character spent time in the local militia, worked in the family's herbalist shop, and even studied under a local wizard. Okay, a little more detailed than for what I was looking, but it fits well with her character's indecisiveness.
Problem is that she keeps expecting to gain the background benefits of being a Guild Artesian, Sage, and Solider (in addition to the Outlander background that she officially chose). I've had to pull her aside a couple times to explain that the game mechanics don't work that way...and, while I'll try to give her character times to shine, she cannot be proficient in every aspect just because her character may have had some peripheral experience in her backstory.
Taking this one step further, this player always created a fairly detailed family tree based on the tables in Xanathar's Guide, which isn't a problem in and of itself. The trouble is that she wants her character's parents and siblings to basically be PCs (or significantly power NPCS) in their own right, so she can have them assist her in times of need. She wants her one sister, who is an elven cleric, to be able to raise dead on fallen companions for free or at least at a heftily discounted price.
he trouble is that she wants her character's parents and siblings to basically be PCs (or significantly power NPCS) in their own right, so she can have them assist her in times of need. She wants her one sister, who is an elven cleric, to be able to raise dead on fallen companions for free or at least at a heftily discounted price.
Yes, this is a problem. It's one thing to have off-screen family members that may be of some weight (the cleric in my group is from a family with quite the military pedigree and some of his aunts/uncles/etc. were high-ranking officers). It's quite another to expect those characters to basically be retainers... especially when no one else in the party has a background like that.
I've said this before... a player cannot use the fact that he/she wrote a more extensive and detailed background than everyone else, or one that more specifically ties into the adventure locations or something, to gain an advantage over everyone else at the table. It does not do to have one PC with 5 wealthy/useful/powerful "retainer" relatives, and everyone else with 0.
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 rolled a Goliath druid in my buddies homebrew game about a year ago, and it's been one of the better characters i've played from an interesting narrative standpoint.
Sometimes the non-optimal character choices can create the coolest stories.
How much y'all see players trying to pull the "power growth" (lack of better wording in my brain) that is trying to convince the dm let them have feature because of something in their backstory, instead of accounting for it themselves a way character creation already allows, like (I feel like)they should.
I currently have a player in one of my campaigns that consistently tries to gain multiple benefits for her background story. She created an elven ranger with the Outlander background, since she felt that this background best reflected her spending a lot of time in the wilderness learning her ranger trade... However, as an elf, she says that she's lived multiple decades trying to find her place in the world before settling on being a ranger. Her character spent time in the local militia, worked in the family's herbalist shop, and even studied under a local wizard. Okay, a little more detailed than for what I was looking, but it fits well with her character's indecisiveness.
Problem is that she keeps expecting to gain the background benefits of being a Guild Artesian, Sage, and Solider (in addition to the Outlander background that she officially chose). I've had to pull her aside a couple times to explain that the game mechanics don't work that way...and, while I'll try to give her character times to shine, she cannot be proficient in every aspect just because her character may have had some peripheral experience in her backstory.
Taking this one step further, this player always created a fairly detailed family tree based on the tables in Xanathar's Guide, which isn't a problem in and of itself. The trouble is that she wants her character's parents and siblings to basically be PCs (or significantly power NPCS) in their own right, so she can have them assist her in times of need. She wants her one sister, who is an elven cleric, to be able to raise dead on fallen companions for free or at least at a heftily discounted price.
Yeesh. And here I was imagineing players asking for one little buff. Though this reads (to me) as a standard case of "We're starting at level 1, and you've written a backstory for starting at level 10." A whole 'nother issue some struggle with. I've had people ask my why the characters I make are consistently so young. Well, "Because we're starting at level 1, and if I write an older character I'm going to want them to have done stuff that would have raised their level."
So, his char looks like a Tiefling, has the background of a Tiefling, but in all other aspects is a Half-Orc? What about all the species specific stuff like Resistance to Fire. Does this Barbarian have Resistance to Fire, and have access to Hellish Rebuke and Darkness at certain levels?
The question of how exactly this group chose to handle it is naturally a question for said group. Maybe Scarloc will pop back in the thread to answer it. Maybe not. What I was imagining is that in the character creator they just made a half-orc, then put a Tiefling picture on it. Purely roleplay and visual, no mechanical effect.
Just because they want to be a barbarian shouldn't mean they have to be a half-orc to get that +2 str
Just because they want to play a barbarian doesn't mean they are required to take a race that gives them that +2 str.
Play the game how you want... it's your game. But I think this mistaken belief that everyone has to start out at level 1 with a 17 in their prime stat is one of the more destructive ideas that has come along in 5e D&D.
As much as you or I might disagree with obsessive optimization, fact is many/most players want to be optimized. Additionally, many/most players want their party members optimized. I've seen enough stories, from both sides, that were essentially just people upset that another players character was mechanically non-optimal and "suffering the hindrence in combat". The customization made RAW by Tasha's is really a great addition. Whether people are doing it for themselves or their party members, they can now roleplay whatever they wanted to roleplay without taking a mechanical nerf to do it. Everybody wins.
I rolled a Goliath druid in my buddies homebrew game about a year ago, and it's been one of the better characters i've played from an interesting narrative standpoint.
Sometimes the non-optimal character choices can create the coolest stories.
And now you can play that Goliath Druid with that +2 WIS Druids love, and nobody will complain about your unoptimized character, if you had anyone in your group who would. Win-Win.
The customization made RAW by Tasha's is really a great addition.
But is it customization, if you have to do it? If you are seen as an incompetent player or as "sub-optimal" if you don't?
Not required? Well, your earlier comment begs to differ:
Additionally, many/most players want their party members optimized. I've seen enough stories, from both sides, that were essentially just people upset that another players character was mechanically non-optimal and "suffering the hindrance in combat".
So the old way, pre-Tasha, someone could legit say, "I want to play a tiefling barbarian," and if people may have thought the stats were sub-optimal, having bonuses to int and cha (because the nine layers of hell forbid we might have a smart or charismatic barbarian -- now that has never happened in real history *cough*Alaric I*cough* let alone could happen in fiction), you could at least defend it: Well, my concept is a teifling + barbarian, this is the only way to do it.
But now? Because we CAN move the stat bonuses around, you MUST -- to retain that +cha/+int combo on your "FR version of Alaric I" tiefling, the player doing this is an idiot now. Because you can keep the tiefling concept and put the stats "in the right place." Not doing so makes the player a moron, unworthy to play D&D with us.
So now... that it is possible for any character of any race or lineage or species or ethnicity or ancestry or whatever the abyss they are calling it now, to have +2 STR for their barbarian, then everyone must, or else be thought a fool and labeled an incompetent builder "weighing down" the party like an albatross around their neck. Having every barbarian of every race not just capable of, but essentially required, to have +2 strength is not customization. It's the opposite of customization.
The customization made RAW by Tasha's is really a great addition.
But is it customization, if you have to do it? If you are seen as an incompetent player or as "sub-optimal" if you don't?
Not required? Well, your earlier comment begs to differ:
Additionally, many/most players want their party members optimized. I've seen enough stories, from both sides, that were essentially just people upset that another players character was mechanically non-optimal and "suffering the hindrance in combat".
So the old way, pre-Tasha, someone could legit say, "I want to play a tiefling barbarian," and if people may have thought the stats were sub-optimal, having bonuses to int and cha (because the nine layers of hell forbid we might have a smart or charismatic barbarian -- now that has never happened in real history *cough*Alaric I*cough* let alone could happen in fiction), you could at least defend it: Well, my concept is a teifling + barbarian, this is the only way to do it.
But now? Because we CAN move the stat bonuses around, you MUST -- to retain that +cha/+int combo on your "FR version of Alaric I" tiefling, the player doing this is an idiot now. Because you can keep the tiefling concept and put the stats "in the right place." Not doing so makes the player a moron, unworthy to play D&D with us.
So now... that it is possible for any character of any race or lineage or species or ethnicity or ancestry or whatever the abyss they are calling it now, to have +2 STR for their barbarian, then everyone must, or else be thought a fool and labeled an incompetent builder "weighing down" the party like an albatross around their neck. Having every barbarian of every race not just capable of, but essentially required, to have +2 strength is not customization. It's the opposite of customization.
Thank you for explaining why the abomination that shall not be named shall never darken my table.
God the number of people in here basically telling people they are playing a game of make believe wrong is honestly why this hobby gets a bad rap.
Look let's stop pretending that people HAVE to be suboptimal if they WANT to play a Halfing Barbarian. Let's STOP pretending that they HAVE to spend more ASIs than the half-orc to get to 20. Let's be frank, this game is about numbers. IT ******* sucks no matter who you are if your To HIT/DC is 2 to 3 points lower than another party member. HOWEVER this is NOT THE ******* CASE for every damn table. So let's stop this BS about what is bad and not bad and how bad DMs are for letting people make the damn characters they want.
I guess i must be the worst DM who has ever played because almost 100% of PCs in my campaigns have gotten a custom item or custom feat, or something that makes them stand apart when the campaign starts out. Why? because my players don't go overboard on backstory but they DO come up with unique things that I feel like SHOULD get a benefit or something to make their Bard/Sorc/Halfing/etc standout from the same PCs at other tables. But I am the worst DM obviously since I do this. But my players have such a fun time, but I am such a bad DM that I guess my work doesn't matter even though my players enjoy it and have a great time.
And Vince at some point you'll get tired of hearing it - but lets stop projecting how YOU want the game to be played on everyone seeking advice on these forums? mmmkay? I mean we get that you hate all this stuff that WoTC came up with that frankly has HELP so many tables but maybe... just maybe the world doesn't need to keep hearing how much you hate it. I mean at what point is continuing to treat a published book as "He who must not be named" frankly detrimental to the conversation and not even helping people on the fence? Like how is you latest post in this thread even helping the conversation hmmm? Or do you just need to keep repeating yourself in as many places as possible?
Frankly there is NOTHING wrong with giving PCs some extra goodies when they make a character, you know that PCs are supposed to be exceptional right? like the game even states that PCs are rare not walking around in every town and dealing with the worlds problems so the PCs at your table can go on vacation. So why are we pretending that making PCs that are worse than NPCs at their primary skill set is "better game play" and what not. OP do what is right for your table. Also frankly no I can't believe this idea that you have to be young to be a level 1 character. IF you truly thing that then well, I guess every elf in your world is a PC leveled NPC that is what level 20 or something when they make it to 500 years old? The idea that the only option for level one characters is "young" is just silly.
Now are there people who put too much in their backstory that it becomes something maybe they should tell the DM they hope this appears in game? Sure but unfortunately as demonstrated by this thread, there are so many DMs that refuse to do things for PCs that they HAVE to throw it in the backstory in order to even have the emotional turn out from looking back on that event. So if you SEE that happening TALK to your players about how maybe some things can be arcs you as the DM present to them in the future? But if you frankly just say that to get it out of the way, well you are the DM that causes PCs with "slayed a dragon" to keep appearing in that players future PCs.
The whole "your designing a level 1 character" aspect can be difficult for some people to rightly understand, I've noticed.
Yes, for some reason people have a hard time realizing that Level 1 is the start, not the end, of a character. Should go without saying but it often does not.
In Champions you'd get players wanting to start the game with 375 points in their character instead of the default 250. Same problem.
I actually blame the problem, at least in part, on the background system. A lot of the backgrounds imply that the character has been adventuring or doing things that would level a PC up well before they ever start playing their character. It's hard to match that up with characters that would struggle to survive those activities.
In the given example i can see nothing wrong with giving player A more information for the same roll as player B if player A has something in their background that would make the character know the subject matter better. An example from our campaign is that the Ranger and the Artificer have the same Sage background, however the Artificer's is primarily involving alchemy and the like while the Ranger studied and researched dragons and similar creatures out of fascination. When it came time to roll on knowledge checks for a mystery potion the artificer got extra knowledge even though they rolled slightly lower than the ranger, because they were experts in this field. Same went for the ranger when they rolled knowledge on dragons to determine if the weather patterns nearby indicated dragon presence and even though she rolled the same as the cleric she got more knowledge because she was more knowledgeable about dragons.
Now someone trying to say they worked at a zoo as a circle of moon druid is just trying to get more options for wild shape, and someone who tries to get a feat or an item due to a backstory is also just reaching. But knowledge due to a specific trait in your backstory i am all but ok with.
The whole "your designing a level 1 character" aspect can be difficult for some people to rightly understand, I've noticed.
Yes, for some reason people have a hard time realizing that Level 1 is the start, not the end, of a character. Should go without saying but it often does not.
In Champions you'd get players wanting to start the game with 375 points in their character instead of the default 250. Same problem.
I actually blame the problem, at least in part, on the background system. A lot of the backgrounds imply that the character has been adventuring or doing things that would level a PC up well before they ever start playing their character. It's hard to match that up with characters that would struggle to survive those activities.
I mean NPCs exist in all the backgrounds, are you implying that they should all have gained levels as PCs?
Now someone trying to say they worked at a zoo as a circle of moon druid is just trying to get more options for wild shape, and someone who tries to get a feat or an item due to a backstory is also just reaching. But knowledge due to a specific trait in your backstory i am all but ok with.
But again only if you hate this type of thing frankly. I mean in a world of fantasy it make logical sense that Druids would work closely in places with animals, especially if that druid is in a setting where the wild is overtaken by cities.
Are some people trying to game a system sure, but thinking anyone doing things that might hold an advantage as being nefarious and trying to gain more is silly. And frankly if that is the way you believe your players are working you need to talk with them.
Frankly there is NOTHING wrong with giving PCs some extra goodies when they make a character, you know that PCs are supposed to be exceptional right?
The Standard Array already makes them exceptional, before you even apply any "ancestry stat bonuses" or whatever they are called now.
And yes, there is nothing wrong with giving the PCs some extra goodies, except that it's going to warp the difficulty curve of the game. As long as the DM realizes he's going to need to throw multiple "deadly" encounters at them just to avoid them yawning through the session, it's fine. But we have seen from many posts in the DM forum here, that a lot of DMs do not realize just how much an optimized party pushes the power curve beyond what the game expects, and what this does to the building of encounters.
As I've said -- if you want to do it, go for it. But giving PCs extra goodies has consequences down the road - so the DM needs to account for it.
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.
The whole "your designing a level 1 character" aspect can be difficult for some people to rightly understand, I've noticed.
Yes, for some reason people have a hard time realizing that Level 1 is the start, not the end, of a character. Should go without saying but it often does not.
In Champions you'd get players wanting to start the game with 375 points in their character instead of the default 250. Same problem.
I actually blame the problem, at least in part, on the background system. A lot of the backgrounds imply that the character has been adventuring or doing things that would level a PC up well before they ever start playing their character. It's hard to match that up with characters that would struggle to survive those activities.
I mean NPCs exist in all the backgrounds, are you implying that they should all have gained levels as PCs?
Not at all, I'm saying that the background system makes it very easy to create a background where your character encountered threats that are more significant than a level 1 PC should have survived. In fact, it's difficult to find threats that would make a reasonable encounter for a CR 1/8 or so character.
Most of the backgrounds could reasonably avoid particularly dangerous encounters, but the existence of the ones that necessitate them encourages the inclusion of those encounters in other backgrounds. Also, most game worlds are unreasonably dangerous to people that aren't the PCs, with frequent random encounters designed based on the PCs' levels.
I would like if either the particularly problematic backgrounds didn't exist, or if they included reasons why the character survived as part of the process. How did the CR1/8 or so survive standing alone against a monster that would be described as terrible? Did reinforcements arrive? Was the monster already weakened? Was it a sham?
Which ones in particular do you think necessitate the fighting of powerful monsters solo? I had a quick look through them and I didn't notice any, although admittedly I did not read them all or even half. Just some of the ones I thought most likely.
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.
Tashas Cauldron now includes full rules for full character customization so a lot of this is possible but, comes ata cost.
In summary the rules are now that whatever racial and I think profession bonus you get you can then swap out for a different thing. So +1 charisma can be swapped for +1 int, star dex etc. proficiency in history could become arcana, or nature or deception.
If you get +2 you may swap it for +2 in one or +1 in 2. So now your player can be a tiefling barbarian, or a Goliath wizard and not be at a disadvantage.
I take this a step further so if a character has a racial ability then talk with them about swapping it out for something that fits background. I have just had a player effectively build a tiefling with half orc stats and abilities.
If it is a tiefling with half-orc stats and abilities, why not play a half-orc in the first place?
Because they want to be a tiefling. It's not about having half-orc stats, it's about having stats that go with their class. As opposed to feeling forced to play a certain race only because it has the +2 that matches your class choice. Just because they want to be a barbarian shouldn't mean they have to be a half-orc to get that +2 str
You just said that this char has half-orc stats and abilities. What, precisely, is left that defines it as a Tiefling? Outside of how it looks, how is it different than a true Half-Orc? This is not a rhetorical question.
Well firstly it wasn't me you replied to the first time. But anyhow it's the lore that defines the tiefling. Not just skin color and "has horns", and certainly not it's mechanical traits. The player wants to play as the race with an infernal bloodline.
They want to play as the race that gets this description: "To be greeted with stares and whispers, to suffer violence and insult on the street, to see mistrust and fear in every eye: this is the lot of the tiefling. And to twist the knife, tieflings know that this is because a pact struck generations ago infused the essence of Asmodeus—overlord of the Nine Hells—into their bloodline. Their appearance and their nature are not their fault but the result of an ancient sin, for which they and their children and their children’s children will always be held accountable. Tieflings subsist in small minorities found mostly in human cities or towns, often in the roughest quarters of those places, where they grow up to be swindlers, thieves, or crime lords. Sometimes they live among other minority populations in enclaves where they are treated with more respect. Lacking a homeland, tieflings know that they have to make their own way in the world and that they have to be strong to survive. They are not quick to trust anyone who claims to be a friend, but when a tiefling’s companions demonstrate that they trust him or her, the tiefling learns to extend the same trust to them. And once a tiefling gives someone loyalty, the tiefling is a firm friend or ally for life."
They want to play as that race, while playing the Barbarian class, and get the +2 str that goes with being a barbarian instead of having a +2 cha that is useless for their class. The same applies for any abilities that were changed. You ask what's left to define tiefling besides appearance but appearance is the 2nd most important part of selecting a race, right after lore. Stats and abilities are tertiary, also phrasable as "least important". They want to play as a Barbarian and not automatically be worse than other barbarians just because the didn't choose the race most predefined as barbarian style.
This is literally the point of the changes in Tasha's, to let players be whatever race/class combo they want without feeling like they hindered themselves instead of having to specifically match certain races and classes to have a "properly" designed character.
In short, the race selection is just flavor text, existing only for backstory and roleplay. Players shouldn't be mechanically limited by it. So if a player says to a DM "I want to play as this race, but use that race's mechanics." There's really no reason to say no.
So, his char looks like a Tiefling, has the background of a Tiefling, but in all other aspects is a Half-Orc? What about all the species specific stuff like Resistance to Fire. Does this Barbarian have Resistance to Fire, and have access to Hellish Rebuke and Darkness at certain levels?
Disappear offline for a few days so sorry for the delayed response.
I view Tasha's Cauldron as a great way to add flavour to a character during creation, My players don't all take stats to maximise abilities and class but in this case I sat down with my player working on a new character around about the time Tashas Cauldron came out. He had a fantastic background idea of a hell created creature that was made for the blood war, but due to "fluff" had developed a soul and escaped the war trying to find its role as a being in the material plane. It is being hunted by its creator but still loses itself in moments of rage, which it has managed to control in such a way to be useful more than a problem. Once the backstory was created we sat down to determine the best race and class to fit this story.
For race Tiefling made sense, except that the stats and abilities of Half Orc kind of also made sense, I had considered swapping stats about to create my own version of Tiefling but then tashas cauldron came out so we sat down and had a play. The whole thing is a work in progress and we will balance it as the game continues but the main flavour is note these decisions where all made Before dice where rolled. Barbarian made the most sense for class and we decided to leave the class details unchanged.
Tiefling race, swapped out ability scores for half orc so +2 strength and +1 constitution Gets Thaurmatergy I gave the following choices Menacing (+1 intimidation) or Hellish Resistance (resistance to fire damage) Player took Menacing because it better suited the fluff of the character. Relentless Endurance or savage attacks or Hellish rebuke or darkness. The player took Relentless Endurance and Hellish Rebuke again they made sense, for the fluff. The player was shaped to be able to fight back even on the moment of death against the demons of the blood war, Hellish Rebuke fitted in to the infernal past of the character and that it had been shaped from an infernal type creature.
For Background we worked on Outlander for a base and made some minor tweaks, so musical instrument was swapped out for an additional language.
So far this has not resulted in a horribly unbalanced character and fits in very nicely with what is a really interesting background for me as a DM to fit into the story I want to tell with my players.
Getting to the question though I have also in the past allowed small buffs to characters at creation for fluff, a dragonborn with wings based off the old UA racial feat that never got published officially, a War Forged created by the Gith for the great war against the Mind Flayers was given advantage for saves against psychic attacks, or efforts to charm him or read his thoughts, a pair of Tabaxi Twins had Twintuition, once per long rest they could communicate to each other as if casting the spell sending. This was in the form of emotions, shapes, colours and images rather then words so I had it that based on factors like distance, strength of the emotion (danger, pain, etc) and just story there was a % chance the message would fail to be received or misunderstood, this is done to accentuate the character for story not for max advantage to "win" the game, I generally don't DM for players who approach the game like that.
Tashas Cauldron now includes full rules for full character customization so a lot of this is possible but, comes ata cost.
In summary the rules are now that whatever racial and I think profession bonus you get you can then swap out for a different thing. So +1 charisma can be swapped for +1 int, star dex etc. proficiency in history could become arcana, or nature or deception.
If you get +2 you may swap it for +2 in one or +1 in 2. So now your player can be a tiefling barbarian, or a Goliath wizard and not be at a disadvantage.
I take this a step further so if a character has a racial ability then talk with them about swapping it out for something that fits background. I have just had a player effectively build a tiefling with half orc stats and abilities.
If it is a tiefling with half-orc stats and abilities, why not play a half-orc in the first place?
Because they want to be a tiefling. It's not about having half-orc stats, it's about having stats that go with their class. As opposed to feeling forced to play a certain race only because it has the +2 that matches your class choice. Just because they want to be a barbarian shouldn't mean they have to be a half-orc to get that +2 str
You just said that this char has half-orc stats and abilities. What, precisely, is left that defines it as a Tiefling? Outside of how it looks, how is it different than a true Half-Orc? This is not a rhetorical question.
Well firstly it wasn't me you replied to the first time. But anyhow it's the lore that defines the tiefling. Not just skin color and "has horns", and certainly not it's mechanical traits. The player wants to play as the race with an infernal bloodline.
They want to play as the race that gets this description: "To be greeted with stares and whispers, to suffer violence and insult on the street, to see mistrust and fear in every eye: this is the lot of the tiefling. And to twist the knife, tieflings know that this is because a pact struck generations ago infused the essence of Asmodeus—overlord of the Nine Hells—into their bloodline. Their appearance and their nature are not their fault but the result of an ancient sin, for which they and their children and their children’s children will always be held accountable. Tieflings subsist in small minorities found mostly in human cities or towns, often in the roughest quarters of those places, where they grow up to be swindlers, thieves, or crime lords. Sometimes they live among other minority populations in enclaves where they are treated with more respect. Lacking a homeland, tieflings know that they have to make their own way in the world and that they have to be strong to survive. They are not quick to trust anyone who claims to be a friend, but when a tiefling’s companions demonstrate that they trust him or her, the tiefling learns to extend the same trust to them. And once a tiefling gives someone loyalty, the tiefling is a firm friend or ally for life."
They want to play as that race, while playing the Barbarian class, and get the +2 str that goes with being a barbarian instead of having a +2 cha that is useless for their class. The same applies for any abilities that were changed. You ask what's left to define tiefling besides appearance but appearance is the 2nd most important part of selecting a race, right after lore. Stats and abilities are tertiary, also phrasable as "least important". They want to play as a Barbarian and not automatically be worse than other barbarians just because the didn't choose the race most predefined as barbarian style.
This is literally the point of the changes in Tasha's, to let players be whatever race/class combo they want without feeling like they hindered themselves instead of having to specifically match certain races and classes to have a "properly" designed character.
In short, the race selection is just flavor text, existing only for backstory and roleplay. Players shouldn't be mechanically limited by it. So if a player says to a DM "I want to play as this race, but use that race's mechanics." There's really no reason to say no.
So, his char looks like a Tiefling, has the background of a Tiefling, but in all other aspects is a Half-Orc? What about all the species specific stuff like Resistance to Fire. Does this Barbarian have Resistance to Fire, and have access to Hellish Rebuke and Darkness at certain levels?
Disappear offline for a few days so sorry for the delayed response.
I view Tasha's Cauldron as a great way to add flavour to a character during creation, My players don't all take stats to maximise abilities and class but in this case I sat down with my player working on a new character around about the time Tashas Cauldron came out. He had a fantastic background idea of a hell created creature that was made for the blood war, but due to "fluff" had developed a soul and escaped the war trying to find its role as a being in the material plane. It is being hunted by its creator but still loses itself in moments of rage, which it has managed to control in such a way to be useful more than a problem. Once the backstory was created we sat down to determine the best race and class to fit this story.
For race Tiefling made sense, except that the stats and abilities of Half Orc kind of also made sense, I had considered swapping stats about to create my own version of Tiefling but then tashas cauldron came out so we sat down and had a play. The whole thing is a work in progress and we will balance it as the game continues but the main flavour is note these decisions where all made Before dice where rolled. Barbarian made the most sense for class and we decided to leave the class details unchanged.
Tiefling race, swapped out ability scores for half orc so +2 strength and +1 constitution Gets Thaurmatergy I gave the following choices Menacing (+1 intimidation) or Hellish Resistance (resistance to fire damage) Player took Menacing because it better suited the fluff of the character. Relentless Endurance or savage attacks or Hellish rebuke or darkness. The player took Relentless Endurance and Hellish Rebuke again they made sense, for the fluff. The player was shaped to be able to fight back even on the moment of death against the demons of the blood war, Hellish Rebuke fitted in to the infernal past of the character and that it had been shaped from an infernal type creature.
For Background we worked on Outlander for a base and made some minor tweaks, so musical instrument was swapped out for an additional language.
So far this has not resulted in a horribly unbalanced character and fits in very nicely with what is a really interesting background for me as a DM to fit into the story I want to tell with my players.
Getting to the question though I have also in the past allowed small buffs to characters at creation for fluff, a dragonborn with wings based off the old UA racial feat that never got published officially, a War Forged created by the Gith for the great war against the Mind Flayers was given advantage for saves against psychic attacks, or efforts to charm him or read his thoughts, a pair of Tabaxi Twins had Twintuition, once per long rest they could communicate to each other as if casting the spell sending. This was in the form of emotions, shapes, colours and images rather then words so I had it that based on factors like distance, strength of the emotion (danger, pain, etc) and just story there was a % chance the message would fail to be received or misunderstood, this is done to accentuate the character for story not for max advantage to "win" the game, I generally don't DM for players who approach the game like that.
So in essence, you let the player choose the species specific features that they wanted, between Teifling and Half-Orc, all based supposedly on the player's uniquely written background. Yeah, we may use the same vocabulary, but we are most certainly not speaking the same language, nor playing the same game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, his char looks like a Tiefling, has the background of a Tiefling, but in all other aspects is a Half-Orc? What about all the species specific stuff like Resistance to Fire. Does this Barbarian have Resistance to Fire, and have access to Hellish Rebuke and Darkness at certain levels?
Just because they want to play a barbarian doesn't mean they are required to take a race that gives them that +2 str.
Play the game how you want... it's your game. But I think this mistaken belief that everyone has to start out at level 1 with a 17 in their prime stat is one of the more destructive ideas that has come along in 5e D&D.
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 would suspect (and would certainly hope) that this variant tiefling example traded all of those tiefling specific racial attributes for the half-orc abilities that they gained. Otherwise, it would be a fairly overpowered build if they're keeping the benefits of Hellish Resistance and Infernal Legacy as well as all of the things that they're gaining from the half-orc mechanics.
As for trading out the mechanics of one race for another race, I personally wouldn't have too big of an issue with it as a DM. If they're basically playing a half-orc that has the appearance and background fluff of a tiefling doesn't necessarily break anything from a general mechanics point of view...or, at least, not that I can immediately see. Could get a little convoluted with "racial" feats and magical items, since the player would be a tiefling in name but not in the mechanical features. Would assume that they qualify for tiefling feats and items, since they are a "tiefling" character...but are we assuming that that half-orc feats and items should apply because we reskinned the half-orc base?
As a DM, I don't typically have much of an issue with players wanting to optimize their builds by increasing their main attribute(s). However, I would agree with your sentiment, BioWizard. It's a little frustrating to consistently see builds where 1st-level characters are always 17+ in their prime stat. Don't begrudge players wanting to have their characters be adept in main attribute(s) for their class, but the mentality that you always have to be maxed out at level one is rather disappointing.
I currently have a player in one of my campaigns that consistently tries to gain multiple benefits for her background story. She created an elven ranger with the Outlander background, since she felt that this background best reflected her spending a lot of time in the wilderness learning her ranger trade... However, as an elf, she says that she's lived multiple decades trying to find her place in the world before settling on being a ranger. Her character spent time in the local militia, worked in the family's herbalist shop, and even studied under a local wizard. Okay, a little more detailed than for what I was looking, but it fits well with her character's indecisiveness.
Problem is that she keeps expecting to gain the background benefits of being a Guild Artesian, Sage, and Solider (in addition to the Outlander background that she officially chose). I've had to pull her aside a couple times to explain that the game mechanics don't work that way...and, while I'll try to give her character times to shine, she cannot be proficient in every aspect just because her character may have had some peripheral experience in her backstory.
Taking this one step further, this player always created a fairly detailed family tree based on the tables in Xanathar's Guide, which isn't a problem in and of itself. The trouble is that she wants her character's parents and siblings to basically be PCs (or significantly power NPCS) in their own right, so she can have them assist her in times of need. She wants her one sister, who is an elven cleric, to be able to raise dead on fallen companions for free or at least at a heftily discounted price.
Yes, this is a problem. It's one thing to have off-screen family members that may be of some weight (the cleric in my group is from a family with quite the military pedigree and some of his aunts/uncles/etc. were high-ranking officers). It's quite another to expect those characters to basically be retainers... especially when no one else in the party has a background like that.
I've said this before... a player cannot use the fact that he/she wrote a more extensive and detailed background than everyone else, or one that more specifically ties into the adventure locations or something, to gain an advantage over everyone else at the table. It does not do to have one PC with 5 wealthy/useful/powerful "retainer" relatives, and everyone else with 0.
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 agree.
I rolled a Goliath druid in my buddies homebrew game about a year ago, and it's been one of the better characters i've played from an interesting narrative standpoint.
Sometimes the non-optimal character choices can create the coolest stories.
I have a fun idea for one that I am dying to try out... if I ever get a chance to play instead of DMing...
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.
Yeesh. And here I was imagineing players asking for one little buff.
Though this reads (to me) as a standard case of "We're starting at level 1, and you've written a backstory for starting at level 10."
A whole 'nother issue some struggle with. I've had people ask my why the characters I make are consistently so young. Well, "Because we're starting at level 1, and if I write an older character I'm going to want them to have done stuff that would have raised their level."
The question of how exactly this group chose to handle it is naturally a question for said group. Maybe Scarloc will pop back in the thread to answer it. Maybe not. What I was imagining is that in the character creator they just made a half-orc, then put a Tiefling picture on it. Purely roleplay and visual, no mechanical effect.
As much as you or I might disagree with obsessive optimization, fact is many/most players want to be optimized. Additionally, many/most players want their party members optimized. I've seen enough stories, from both sides, that were essentially just people upset that another players character was mechanically non-optimal and "suffering the hindrence in combat".
The customization made RAW by Tasha's is really a great addition. Whether people are doing it for themselves or their party members, they can now roleplay whatever they wanted to roleplay without taking a mechanical nerf to do it. Everybody wins.
And now you can play that Goliath Druid with that +2 WIS Druids love, and nobody will complain about your unoptimized character, if you had anyone in your group who would. Win-Win.
But is it customization, if you have to do it? If you are seen as an incompetent player or as "sub-optimal" if you don't?
Not required? Well, your earlier comment begs to differ:
So the old way, pre-Tasha, someone could legit say, "I want to play a tiefling barbarian," and if people may have thought the stats were sub-optimal, having bonuses to int and cha (because the nine layers of hell forbid we might have a smart or charismatic barbarian -- now that has never happened in real history *cough*Alaric I*cough* let alone could happen in fiction), you could at least defend it: Well, my concept is a teifling + barbarian, this is the only way to do it.
But now? Because we CAN move the stat bonuses around, you MUST -- to retain that +cha/+int combo on your "FR version of Alaric I" tiefling, the player doing this is an idiot now. Because you can keep the tiefling concept and put the stats "in the right place." Not doing so makes the player a moron, unworthy to play D&D with us.
So now... that it is possible for any character of any race or lineage or species or ethnicity or ancestry or whatever the abyss they are calling it now, to have +2 STR for their barbarian, then everyone must, or else be thought a fool and labeled an incompetent builder "weighing down" the party like an albatross around their neck. Having every barbarian of every race not just capable of, but essentially required, to have +2 strength is not customization. It's the opposite of customization.
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.
Thank you for explaining why the abomination that shall not be named shall never darken my table.
God the number of people in here basically telling people they are playing a game of make believe wrong is honestly why this hobby gets a bad rap.
Look let's stop pretending that people HAVE to be suboptimal if they WANT to play a Halfing Barbarian. Let's STOP pretending that they HAVE to spend more ASIs than the half-orc to get to 20. Let's be frank, this game is about numbers. IT ******* sucks no matter who you are if your To HIT/DC is 2 to 3 points lower than another party member. HOWEVER this is NOT THE ******* CASE for every damn table. So let's stop this BS about what is bad and not bad and how bad DMs are for letting people make the damn characters they want.
I guess i must be the worst DM who has ever played because almost 100% of PCs in my campaigns have gotten a custom item or custom feat, or something that makes them stand apart when the campaign starts out. Why? because my players don't go overboard on backstory but they DO come up with unique things that I feel like SHOULD get a benefit or something to make their Bard/Sorc/Halfing/etc standout from the same PCs at other tables. But I am the worst DM obviously since I do this. But my players have such a fun time, but I am such a bad DM that I guess my work doesn't matter even though my players enjoy it and have a great time.
And Vince at some point you'll get tired of hearing it - but lets stop projecting how YOU want the game to be played on everyone seeking advice on these forums? mmmkay? I mean we get that you hate all this stuff that WoTC came up with that frankly has HELP so many tables but maybe... just maybe the world doesn't need to keep hearing how much you hate it. I mean at what point is continuing to treat a published book as "He who must not be named" frankly detrimental to the conversation and not even helping people on the fence? Like how is you latest post in this thread even helping the conversation hmmm? Or do you just need to keep repeating yourself in as many places as possible?
Frankly there is NOTHING wrong with giving PCs some extra goodies when they make a character, you know that PCs are supposed to be exceptional right? like the game even states that PCs are rare not walking around in every town and dealing with the worlds problems so the PCs at your table can go on vacation. So why are we pretending that making PCs that are worse than NPCs at their primary skill set is "better game play" and what not. OP do what is right for your table. Also frankly no I can't believe this idea that you have to be young to be a level 1 character. IF you truly thing that then well, I guess every elf in your world is a PC leveled NPC that is what level 20 or something when they make it to 500 years old? The idea that the only option for level one characters is "young" is just silly.
Now are there people who put too much in their backstory that it becomes something maybe they should tell the DM they hope this appears in game? Sure but unfortunately as demonstrated by this thread, there are so many DMs that refuse to do things for PCs that they HAVE to throw it in the backstory in order to even have the emotional turn out from looking back on that event. So if you SEE that happening TALK to your players about how maybe some things can be arcs you as the DM present to them in the future? But if you frankly just say that to get it out of the way, well you are the DM that causes PCs with "slayed a dragon" to keep appearing in that players future PCs.
I actually blame the problem, at least in part, on the background system. A lot of the backgrounds imply that the character has been adventuring or doing things that would level a PC up well before they ever start playing their character. It's hard to match that up with characters that would struggle to survive those activities.
In the given example i can see nothing wrong with giving player A more information for the same roll as player B if player A has something in their background that would make the character know the subject matter better. An example from our campaign is that the Ranger and the Artificer have the same Sage background, however the Artificer's is primarily involving alchemy and the like while the Ranger studied and researched dragons and similar creatures out of fascination. When it came time to roll on knowledge checks for a mystery potion the artificer got extra knowledge even though they rolled slightly lower than the ranger, because they were experts in this field. Same went for the ranger when they rolled knowledge on dragons to determine if the weather patterns nearby indicated dragon presence and even though she rolled the same as the cleric she got more knowledge because she was more knowledgeable about dragons.
Now someone trying to say they worked at a zoo as a circle of moon druid is just trying to get more options for wild shape, and someone who tries to get a feat or an item due to a backstory is also just reaching. But knowledge due to a specific trait in your backstory i am all but ok with.
|| Sol Night-Arrow, Tabaxi Ranger ||
||Currently DMing a Homebrew Campaign ||
Guides or Important Threads of Mine ----- || List of ALL Official Familiars || My Homebrew Monsters ||
Level 3 One Shot Character Concepts ----- || Fist of the Gods || Triple Tap Hunter || Bullseye Dartmaster || Captain America ||
^^^Those are Links BTW^^^
I mean NPCs exist in all the backgrounds, are you implying that they should all have gained levels as PCs?
But again only if you hate this type of thing frankly. I mean in a world of fantasy it make logical sense that Druids would work closely in places with animals, especially if that druid is in a setting where the wild is overtaken by cities.
Are some people trying to game a system sure, but thinking anyone doing things that might hold an advantage as being nefarious and trying to gain more is silly. And frankly if that is the way you believe your players are working you need to talk with them.
The Standard Array already makes them exceptional, before you even apply any "ancestry stat bonuses" or whatever they are called now.
And yes, there is nothing wrong with giving the PCs some extra goodies, except that it's going to warp the difficulty curve of the game. As long as the DM realizes he's going to need to throw multiple "deadly" encounters at them just to avoid them yawning through the session, it's fine. But we have seen from many posts in the DM forum here, that a lot of DMs do not realize just how much an optimized party pushes the power curve beyond what the game expects, and what this does to the building of encounters.
As I've said -- if you want to do it, go for it. But giving PCs extra goodies has consequences down the road - so the DM needs to account for it.
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.
Not at all, I'm saying that the background system makes it very easy to create a background where your character encountered threats that are more significant than a level 1 PC should have survived. In fact, it's difficult to find threats that would make a reasonable encounter for a CR 1/8 or so character.
Most of the backgrounds could reasonably avoid particularly dangerous encounters, but the existence of the ones that necessitate them encourages the inclusion of those encounters in other backgrounds. Also, most game worlds are unreasonably dangerous to people that aren't the PCs, with frequent random encounters designed based on the PCs' levels.
I would like if either the particularly problematic backgrounds didn't exist, or if they included reasons why the character survived as part of the process. How did the CR1/8 or so survive standing alone against a monster that would be described as terrible? Did reinforcements arrive? Was the monster already weakened? Was it a sham?
Which ones in particular do you think necessitate the fighting of powerful monsters solo? I had a quick look through them and I didn't notice any, although admittedly I did not read them all or even half. Just some of the ones I thought most likely.
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.
Disappear offline for a few days so sorry for the delayed response.
I view Tasha's Cauldron as a great way to add flavour to a character during creation, My players don't all take stats to maximise abilities and class but in this case I sat down with my player working on a new character around about the time Tashas Cauldron came out. He had a fantastic background idea of a hell created creature that was made for the blood war, but due to "fluff" had developed a soul and escaped the war trying to find its role as a being in the material plane. It is being hunted by its creator but still loses itself in moments of rage, which it has managed to control in such a way to be useful more than a problem. Once the backstory was created we sat down to determine the best race and class to fit this story.
For race Tiefling made sense, except that the stats and abilities of Half Orc kind of also made sense, I had considered swapping stats about to create my own version of Tiefling but then tashas cauldron came out so we sat down and had a play. The whole thing is a work in progress and we will balance it as the game continues but the main flavour is note these decisions where all made Before dice where rolled. Barbarian made the most sense for class and we decided to leave the class details unchanged.
Tiefling race, swapped out ability scores for half orc so +2 strength and +1 constitution Gets Thaurmatergy
I gave the following choices
Menacing (+1 intimidation) or Hellish Resistance (resistance to fire damage) Player took Menacing because it better suited the fluff of the character.
Relentless Endurance or savage attacks or Hellish rebuke or darkness. The player took Relentless Endurance and Hellish Rebuke again they made sense, for the fluff. The player was shaped to be able to fight back even on the moment of death against the demons of the blood war, Hellish Rebuke fitted in to the infernal past of the character and that it had been shaped from an infernal type creature.
For Background we worked on Outlander for a base and made some minor tweaks, so musical instrument was swapped out for an additional language.
So far this has not resulted in a horribly unbalanced character and fits in very nicely with what is a really interesting background for me as a DM to fit into the story I want to tell with my players.
Getting to the question though I have also in the past allowed small buffs to characters at creation for fluff, a dragonborn with wings based off the old UA racial feat that never got published officially, a War Forged created by the Gith for the great war against the Mind Flayers was given advantage for saves against psychic attacks, or efforts to charm him or read his thoughts, a pair of Tabaxi Twins had Twintuition, once per long rest they could communicate to each other as if casting the spell sending. This was in the form of emotions, shapes, colours and images rather then words so I had it that based on factors like distance, strength of the emotion (danger, pain, etc) and just story there was a % chance the message would fail to be received or misunderstood, this is done to accentuate the character for story not for max advantage to "win" the game, I generally don't DM for players who approach the game like that.
So in essence, you let the player choose the species specific features that they wanted, between Teifling and Half-Orc, all based supposedly on the player's uniquely written background. Yeah, we may use the same vocabulary, but we are most certainly not speaking the same language, nor playing the same game.