So: Half-species are gone. Mechanically you are a member of one species but if you want parents of two different species you just choose the aesthetics you want
Does this mean.
1) No offspring can be produced from two different species
2) the production of two different species ignores one of its parents. (Mom is Elf. Dad is human. I look human and call myself human but mechanically I am an elf.)
3) find sone new suffix to represent a character who wants to be the child of two different species.
So: Half-species are gone. Mechanically you are a member of one species but if you want parents of two different species you just choose the aesthetics you want
Does this mean.
1) No offspring can be produced from two different species
2) the production of two different species ignores one of its parents. (Mom is Elf. Dad is human. I look human and call myself human but mechanically I am an elf.)
3) find sone new suffix to represent a character who wants to be the child of two different species.
It means "We don't wanna create a complete set of rules for hybridization that will be extremely complicated to balance and everyone will complain about anyway".
So: Half-species are gone. Mechanically you are a member of one species but if you want parents of two different species you just choose the aesthetics you want
Does this mean.
1) No offspring can be produced from two different species
2) the production of two different species ignores one of its parents. (Mom is Elf. Dad is human. I look human and call myself human but mechanically I am an elf.)
3) find sone new suffix to represent a character who wants to be the child of two different species.
It means "We don't wanna create a complete set of rules for hybridization that will be extremely complicated to balance and everyone will complain about anyway".
That’s why I think they should just do the most likely common ones, Half-Elf/Orc/Dwarf/Goblin/Gnome/Hobgoblin/Whatever, about a half a dozen of them, and then put a section in the DM’s Workshop that explains how to use those as examples of how to do anything else one might want to do. Change the name to “Elfkin” and “Orckin,” etc. to get away from the negative connotations associated with the idea of “Half-Races,” write good lord for them, and do it properly. A half-dozen “kin” species should both add diversity and set enough examples for the Homebrew of others.
I honestly don't understand this part. Has DnD community ever been unwelcoming or aggressive towards anyone?
Oh. Oh wow. Ouch. Umm, suffice it to say, but yes, yes, many times yes. On every level from published material to forum discussions right here to real life and in person. And at every level of intentionality from completely ignorant and unaware to outright and blatantly purposeful hatred. Take it from personal experience.
Has it ever been somehow a thing in the rules?
Maybe you don't remember a time when the rules capped women's strength scores lower than men's? And that's just one example, I can literally link you to more, but having this conversation one more time is exhausting.
Because to me, it looks like inclusivity department is just hunting witches in order to pretend like it has actual work to do.
So I take it you've never experienced discrimination and bigotry at the hands and words and art of the D&D community. That's a nice privilege to have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
That’s why I think they should just do the most likely common ones, Half-Elf/Orc/Dwarf/Goblin/Gnome/Hobgoblin/Whatever, about a half a dozen of them, and then put a section in the DM’s Workshop that explains how to use those as examples of how to do anything else one might want to do.
I think my proposal upthread is plenty. Sure, it puts the onus on the DM to decide what's appropriate, but that's kinda unavoidable.
So: Half-species are gone. Mechanically you are a member of one species but if you want parents of two different species you just choose the aesthetics you want
Does this mean.
1) No offspring can be produced from two different species
2) the production of two different species ignores one of its parents. (Mom is Elf. Dad is human. I look human and call myself human but mechanically I am an elf.)
3) find sone new suffix to represent a character who wants to be the child of two different species.
It means "We don't wanna create a complete set of rules for hybridization that will be extremely complicated to balance and everyone will complain about anyway".
That’s why I think they should just do the most likely common ones, Half-Elf/Orc/Dwarf/Goblin/Gnome/Hobgoblin/Whatever, about a half a dozen of them, and then put a section in the DM’s Workshop that explains how to use those as examples of how to do anything else one might want to do. Change the name to “Elfkin” and “Orckin,” etc. to get away from the negative connotations associated with the idea of “Half-Races,” write good lord for them, and do it properly. A half-dozen “kin” species should both add diversity and set enough examples for the Homebrew of others.
I guess they have dndbeyond data on what’s “common” but you’re still going to leave a lot of players out.
I think the solution is a more beefed up custom lineage rule set. Let people have parents, and grandparents and so on of whatever species they like, and make it how they like.
Honestly, everyone who’s power gaming wants flight and darkvision. Other people it won’t matter. Just don’t let someone take both, and and most everything else will sort itself out.
I see the problem now. I thought you get some abilities from both when I first read it, but now I see you’re just a human with pointy ears. At least I can change this with homebrew.
Honestly the best option would be to put Mixed species in the DMG. If a player who chooses to play a character of mixed species would like a blend of features from both parents you can create a specie to represent them as an individual. Not everyone born of similar mixed species would have the same features. Choose the features from each parentage that supports the players flavor, but be cautious of allowing players features just for mechanically advantages. What features a character can have and how many is up to the you, the DM, but try not to be so restrictive that it kills the flavor the player is attempting achieve.
Oh. Oh wow. Ouch. Umm, suffice it to say, but yes, yes, many times yes. On every level from published material to forum discussions right here to real life and in person. And at every level of intentionality from completely ignorant and unaware to outright and blatantly purposeful hatred. Take it from personal experience.
Woah. Well, there's jerks in every walk of life, there's no denying that, especially in the internet. But IRL? I personally have never met a tabletop gamer that wouldn't like a new fellow geek at the table. Get a person to talk about their favorite game and why they like it and you've got their undivided attention and sympathy. Granted, my sample group is maybe three dozens of people at most, though they were from all kinds of hobbies, DnD, MtG, W40k, and just various casual tabletop games. Sorry to hear about your bad experiences. I'm really having a hard time even imagining this community being hateful.
Maybe you don't remember a time when the rules capped women's strength scores lower than men's? And that's just one example, I can literally link you to more, but having this conversation one more time is exhausting.
Of course I don't remember those times, you've got to be in your 60s to actually remember experiencing that. Though I'd argue that was more or less a technical inconvenience for minmaxers in the same way that some races were plainly better or worse than others stat-wise. Bad balance borne out of silly decision.
So I take it you've never experienced discrimination and bigotry at the hands and words and art of the D&D community. That's a nice privilege to have.
Privilege? I dunno. More like luck? Or maybe I'm just thick-skinned. After swimming in the cesspit of WoW forums in late 2000s, this community seems like some of the most polite and overall nice people I've conversed with online. Or I'm a charmer, like my grandma always told me)
So I take it you've never experienced discrimination and bigotry at the hands and words and art of the D&D community. That's a nice privilege to have.
Privilege? I dunno. More like luck? Or maybe I'm just thick-skinned. After swimming in the cesspit of WoW forums in late 2000s, this community seems like some of the most polite and overall nice people I've conversed with online. Or I'm a charmer, like my grandma always told me)
No, this is basically the definition of privilege. You come from a life where you haven't experienced it and it's not just luck because there are certain groups of people who experience discrimination at vastly greater frequency than other groups. The thing about this privilege is that it basically means you do not have the experience in life to understand the effects of discrimination. This lack of perspective means that you act and speak in ways that you are unaware can be hurtful or stressful to other people. It's not your fault, since you're unaware, but it is your responsibility to do better once you're made aware.
Case in point. "Because to me, it looks like inclusivity department is just hunting witches in order to pretend like it has actual work to do." came off really dismissive and hurtful to me. When I have been hurt by stuff that was published in the books and the actions of the inclusivity dept helped make sure they were removed or at least talked about, someone coming along to say that it looks like just a witch hunt feels like they are dismissing my real hurt. That doesn't feel good ... at all.
Again, since you were ignorant, it's not your fault you hurt me. But now I am informing you, and it is your responsibility to learn to do better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
That’s why I think they should just do the most likely common ones, Half-Elf/Orc/Dwarf/Goblin/Gnome/Hobgoblin/Whatever, about a half a dozen of them, and then put a section in the DM’s Workshop that explains how to use those as examples of how to do anything else one might want to do.
I think my proposal upthread is plenty. Sure, it puts the onus on the DM to decide what's appropriate, but that's kinda unavoidable.
Not even remotely. If you’re still just using the mechanics of a single species and the rest is purely cosmetic you’ve lost me already, and I only got through the first half of #1.
So: Half-species are gone. Mechanically you are a member of one species but if you want parents of two different species you just choose the aesthetics you want
Does this mean.
1) No offspring can be produced from two different species
2) the production of two different species ignores one of its parents. (Mom is Elf. Dad is human. I look human and call myself human but mechanically I am an elf.)
3) find sone new suffix to represent a character who wants to be the child of two different species.
It means "We don't wanna create a complete set of rules for hybridization that will be extremely complicated to balance and everyone will complain about anyway".
That’s why I think they should just do the most likely common ones, Half-Elf/Orc/Dwarf/Goblin/Gnome/Hobgoblin/Whatever, about a half a dozen of them, and then put a section in the DM’s Workshop that explains how to use those as examples of how to do anything else one might want to do. Change the name to “Elfkin” and “Orckin,” etc. to get away from the negative connotations associated with the idea of “Half-Races,” write good lord for them, and do it properly. A half-dozen “kin” species should both add diversity and set enough examples for the Homebrew of others.
I guess they have dndbeyond data on what’s “common” but you’re still going to leave a lot of players out.
[Sic]
Hence the section in the DM’s Workshop with guidelines on how to make anything else.
Maybe you don't remember a time when the rules capped women's strength scores lower than men's? And that's just one example, I can literally link you to more, but having this conversation one more time is exhausting.
Of course I don't remember those times, you've got to be in your 60s to actually remember experiencing that. Though I'd argue that was more or less a technical inconvenience for minmaxers in the same way that some races were plainly better or worse than others stat-wise. Bad balance borne out of silly decision.
Heyyyyy. I’m in my [REDACTED]’s and I remember it quite well. It wasn’t all that long ago.
Notes: Please avoid sharing personal information, including age
Maybe you don't remember a time when the rules capped women's strength scores lower than men's? And that's just one example, I can literally link you to more, but having this conversation one more time is exhausting.
Of course I don't remember those times, you've got to be in your 60s to actually remember experiencing that. Though I'd argue that was more or less a technical inconvenience for minmaxers in the same way that some races were plainly better or worse than others stat-wise. Bad balance borne out of silly decision.
Heyyyyy. I’m in my [REDACTED]’s and I remember it quite well. It wasn’t all that long ago.
💩, I’m only [redacted] and I remember it well.
Notes: Please avoid sharing personal information, including age
That’s why I think they should just do the most likely common ones, Half-Elf/Orc/Dwarf/Goblin/Gnome/Hobgoblin/Whatever, about a half a dozen of them, and then put a section in the DM’s Workshop that explains how to use those as examples of how to do anything else one might want to do.
I think my proposal upthread is plenty. Sure, it puts the onus on the DM to decide what's appropriate, but that's kinda unavoidable.
Not even remotely. If you’re still just using the mechanics of a single species and the rest is purely cosmetic you’ve lost me already, and I only got through the first half of #1.
That’s why I think they should just do the most likely common ones, Half-Elf/Orc/Dwarf/Goblin/Gnome/Hobgoblin/Whatever, about a half a dozen of them, and then put a section in the DM’s Workshop that explains how to use those as examples of how to do anything else one might want to do.
I think my proposal upthread is plenty. Sure, it puts the onus on the DM to decide what's appropriate, but that's kinda unavoidable.
Not even remotely. If you’re still just using the mechanics of a single species and the rest is purely cosmetic you’ve lost me already, and I only got through the first half of #1.
Then maybe you should read the entire post?
I did. I’m against #1 for the reasons stated.
I’m against #2, because it shouldn’t cost anything unless every species gives feats and has species specific feats, it just doesn’t feel right. That would require an much broader overhaul than what WotC is apparently planning, and likely wouldn’t happen without an actual edition changeover. Not gonna happen.
And #3 is no better because it puts the entire onus on the DM which is no better than what we have now for any Half-Race that isn’t Elf or Orc. If it were easy for DMs to do this stuff without any guidelines this entire conversation likely wouldn’t be happening, or would be very different than what it is.
I would like an actual robust system with built in diversity. Something that makes “Half-Races” Kin-Species more normalized and more diverse, while also providing some structure for DMs to use when filling in the gaps for their own Kin-Species. I want them to actually put some thought and work into doing it properly. Your suggestions other than #2 aren’t really any better than what they’re planning to do, which I find wholly inadequate. And your suggestion #2 isn’t likely to fall within the scope of what’s happening without glaring holes in the process. I want them to do it up right, and actually invest in this aspect of the game. Make something that satisfies.
There are mixed heritage and non-mixed heritage people in this very thread who are upset that mixed heritage PCs are effectively disappearing for a variety of reasons. Satisfy those people by giving us a system with which to work that feels like something other than a reskin.
There are mixed heritage and non-mixed heritage people in this thread alone who are upset about how mixed heritage PCs have been handled. So satisfy those people by handling them properly and giving them the attention they deserve.
The only group that wouldn’t be satisfied are those who want species to be an entirely cosmetic, non-mechanical thing, and it looks like they will be unsatisfied anyway since WotC isn’t going that rout whole hog. They may as well try to satisfy everyone else at least.
I’m against #2, because it shouldn’t cost anything unless every species gives feats and has species specific feats, it just doesn’t feel right. That would require an much broader overhaul than what WotC is apparently planning, and likely wouldn’t happen without an actual edition changeover. Not gonna happen.
And #3 is no better because it puts the entire onus on the DM which is no better than what we have now for any Half-Race that isn’t Elf or Orc.
#2 is "you get all the features of one species and one feature of another". Of course that should cost something.
#3 is really just pointing out to people that the option exists.
Any solution that doesn't come down to DM discretion is going to require way more page count than Wizards wants to spend.
Are we just overthinking this? Do they really need to do a lot about balancing mixed-species? I’m not enough of a power gamer/theory crafter to know how crazy things could get. Maybe people can come up with insane combinations. But what if they said, choose one trait from one parent, one trait from another, look how you want, and there you go. What kind of game-breaking combos are there? Serious question.
Flight is really the only species trait that people seem to get upset about. And DMs already either ban that or they don’t, so nothing would really change there.
I guess it opens you up to being able to take multiple species-specific feats, but you’re still only going to get 2-4 feats in a campaign, would it be awful for a character to have dragon fear and fade away? Especially since that means they didn’t do something like GWM/PAM, or XBE/sharpshooter.
I’m against #2, because it shouldn’t cost anything unless every species gives feats and has species specific feats, it just doesn’t feel right. That would require an much broader overhaul than what WotC is apparently planning, and likely wouldn’t happen without an actual edition changeover. Not gonna happen.
And #3 is no better because it puts the entire onus on the DM which is no better than what we have now for any Half-Race that isn’t Elf or Orc.
#2 is "you get all the features of one species and one feature of another". Of course that should cost something.
#3 is really just pointing out to people that the option exists.
Any solution that doesn't come down to DM discretion is going to require way more page count than Wizards wants to spend.
For #2, Let it cost one of the features from the first species then. Actually list out the trait for any species in a particular order so that each species has a “Trait A” that is balanced against all other “Traits A” and could be swapped. That would work, wouldn’t it? And it wouldn’t increase page count at all. Look at that, now we have a viable system. Ne? It’s not my ideal system, but it’s at least workable.
For #3, that’s fine except that without any guidelines, you get a mess.
Adding 3-4 pages to the DM’s Workshop with a set of guidelines wouldn’t kill anybody. Adding another, what, 8ish pages to the species section of the PHB to include a handful more Kin-Species to use both in game and as examples for others wouldn’t kill anybody either. We’re talking about a combined total of around 10-12ish pages across 2 books here. And pages of actually useful content that people would use I might add. That’s all I’m asking for. It would add diversity, allow for proper treatment of mixed heritage species, and act as a system for an unlimited amount of structured homebrew. It could even be combined with that whole “Trait A” idea. Is that really such an unreasonable suggestion?
For #2, Let it cost one of the features from the first species then.
The problem is that species features are significantly variable in value -- there are very few that are more valuable than a feat, but a substantial number that are less valuable. As such, "You can spend a feat on a species feature" will usually be fair (it will sometimes be a bad choice, but players are smart -- they won't choose the bad features), but the reverse is not.
So: Half-species are gone. Mechanically you are a member of one species but if you want parents of two different species you just choose the aesthetics you want
Does this mean.
1) No offspring can be produced from two different species
2) the production of two different species ignores one of its parents. (Mom is Elf. Dad is human. I look human and call myself human but mechanically I am an elf.)
3) find sone new suffix to represent a character who wants to be the child of two different species.
It means "We don't wanna create a complete set of rules for hybridization that will be extremely complicated to balance and everyone will complain about anyway".
That’s why I think they should just do the most likely common ones, Half-Elf/Orc/Dwarf/Goblin/Gnome/Hobgoblin/Whatever, about a half a dozen of them, and then put a section in the DM’s Workshop that explains how to use those as examples of how to do anything else one might want to do. Change the name to “Elfkin” and “Orckin,” etc. to get away from the negative connotations associated with the idea of “Half-Races,” write good lord for them, and do it properly. A half-dozen “kin” species should both add diversity and set enough examples for the Homebrew of others.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Oh. Oh wow. Ouch. Umm, suffice it to say, but yes, yes, many times yes. On every level from published material to forum discussions right here to real life and in person. And at every level of intentionality from completely ignorant and unaware to outright and blatantly purposeful hatred. Take it from personal experience.
Maybe you don't remember a time when the rules capped women's strength scores lower than men's? And that's just one example, I can literally link you to more, but having this conversation one more time is exhausting.
So I take it you've never experienced discrimination and bigotry at the hands and words and art of the D&D community. That's a nice privilege to have.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I think my proposal upthread is plenty. Sure, it puts the onus on the DM to decide what's appropriate, but that's kinda unavoidable.
I guess they have dndbeyond data on what’s “common” but you’re still going to leave a lot of players out.
I think the solution is a more beefed up custom lineage rule set. Let people have parents, and grandparents and so on of whatever species they like, and make it how they like.
Honestly, everyone who’s power gaming wants flight and darkvision. Other people it won’t matter. Just don’t let someone take both, and and most everything else will sort itself out.
I see the problem now. I thought you get some abilities from both when I first read it, but now I see you’re just a human with pointy ears. At least I can change this with homebrew.
Hi, I’m DrakenBrine, here’s my Sig and characters
I am The Grand Envisioner!
Honestly the best option would be to put Mixed species in the DMG.
If a player who chooses to play a character of mixed species would like a blend of features from both parents you can create a specie to represent them as an individual. Not everyone born of similar mixed species would have the same features. Choose the features from each parentage that supports the players flavor, but be cautious of allowing players features just for mechanically advantages. What features a character can have and how many is up to the you, the DM, but try not to be so restrictive that it kills the flavor the player is attempting achieve.
Woah. Well, there's jerks in every walk of life, there's no denying that, especially in the internet. But IRL? I personally have never met a tabletop gamer that wouldn't like a new fellow geek at the table. Get a person to talk about their favorite game and why they like it and you've got their undivided attention and sympathy. Granted, my sample group is maybe three dozens of people at most, though they were from all kinds of hobbies, DnD, MtG, W40k, and just various casual tabletop games. Sorry to hear about your bad experiences. I'm really having a hard time even imagining this community being hateful.
Of course I don't remember those times, you've got to be in your 60s to actually remember experiencing that. Though I'd argue that was more or less a technical inconvenience for minmaxers in the same way that some races were plainly better or worse than others stat-wise. Bad balance borne out of silly decision.
Privilege? I dunno. More like luck? Or maybe I'm just thick-skinned. After swimming in the cesspit of WoW forums in late 2000s, this community seems like some of the most polite and overall nice people I've conversed with online. Or I'm a charmer, like my grandma always told me)
No, this is basically the definition of privilege. You come from a life where you haven't experienced it and it's not just luck because there are certain groups of people who experience discrimination at vastly greater frequency than other groups. The thing about this privilege is that it basically means you do not have the experience in life to understand the effects of discrimination. This lack of perspective means that you act and speak in ways that you are unaware can be hurtful or stressful to other people. It's not your fault, since you're unaware, but it is your responsibility to do better once you're made aware.
Case in point. "Because to me, it looks like inclusivity department is just hunting witches in order to pretend like it has actual work to do." came off really dismissive and hurtful to me. When I have been hurt by stuff that was published in the books and the actions of the inclusivity dept helped make sure they were removed or at least talked about, someone coming along to say that it looks like just a witch hunt feels like they are dismissing my real hurt. That doesn't feel good ... at all.
Again, since you were ignorant, it's not your fault you hurt me. But now I am informing you, and it is your responsibility to learn to do better.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Not even remotely. If you’re still just using the mechanics of a single species and the rest is purely cosmetic you’ve lost me already, and I only got through the first half of #1.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hence the section in the DM’s Workshop with guidelines on how to make anything else.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Heyyyyy. I’m in my [REDACTED]’s and I remember it quite well. It wasn’t all that long ago.
💩, I’m only [redacted] and I remember it well.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Then maybe you should read the entire post?
I did. I’m against #1 for the reasons stated.
I’m against #2, because it shouldn’t cost anything unless every species gives feats and has species specific feats, it just doesn’t feel right. That would require an much broader overhaul than what WotC is apparently planning, and likely wouldn’t happen without an actual edition changeover. Not gonna happen.
And #3 is no better because it puts the entire onus on the DM which is no better than what we have now for any Half-Race that isn’t Elf or Orc. If it were easy for DMs to do this stuff without any guidelines this entire conversation likely wouldn’t be happening, or would be very different than what it is.
I would like an actual robust system with built in diversity. Something that makes “
Half-Races” Kin-Species more normalized and more diverse, while also providing some structure for DMs to use when filling in the gaps for their own Kin-Species. I want them to actually put some thought and work into doing it properly. Your suggestions other than #2 aren’t really any better than what they’re planning to do, which I find wholly inadequate. And your suggestion #2 isn’t likely to fall within the scope of what’s happening without glaring holes in the process. I want them to do it up right, and actually invest in this aspect of the game. Make something that satisfies.There are mixed heritage and non-mixed heritage people in this very thread who are upset that mixed heritage PCs are effectively disappearing for a variety of reasons. Satisfy those people by giving us a system with which to work that feels like something other than a reskin.
There are mixed heritage and non-mixed heritage people in this thread alone who are upset about how mixed heritage PCs have been handled. So satisfy those people by handling them properly and giving them the attention they deserve.
The only group that wouldn’t be satisfied are those who want species to be an entirely cosmetic, non-mechanical thing, and it looks like they will be unsatisfied anyway since WotC isn’t going that rout whole hog. They may as well try to satisfy everyone else at least.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
#2 is "you get all the features of one species and one feature of another". Of course that should cost something.
#3 is really just pointing out to people that the option exists.
Any solution that doesn't come down to DM discretion is going to require way more page count than Wizards wants to spend.
Are we just overthinking this? Do they really need to do a lot about balancing mixed-species? I’m not enough of a power gamer/theory crafter to know how crazy things could get. Maybe people can come up with insane combinations.
But what if they said, choose one trait from one parent, one trait from another, look how you want, and there you go. What kind of game-breaking combos are there? Serious question.
Flight is really the only species trait that people seem to get upset about. And DMs already either ban that or they don’t, so nothing would really change there.
I guess it opens you up to being able to take multiple species-specific feats, but you’re still only going to get 2-4 feats in a campaign, would it be awful for a character to have dragon fear and fade away? Especially since that means they didn’t do something like GWM/PAM, or XBE/sharpshooter.
For #2, Let it cost one of the features from the first species then. Actually list out the trait for any species in a particular order so that each species has a “Trait A” that is balanced against all other “Traits A” and could be swapped. That would work, wouldn’t it? And it wouldn’t increase page count at all. Look at that, now we have a viable system. Ne? It’s not my ideal system, but it’s at least workable.
For #3, that’s fine except that without any guidelines, you get a mess.
Adding 3-4 pages to the DM’s Workshop with a set of guidelines wouldn’t kill anybody. Adding another, what, 8ish pages to the species section of the PHB to include a handful more Kin-Species to use both in game and as examples for others wouldn’t kill anybody either. We’re talking about a combined total of around 10-12ish pages across 2 books here. And pages of actually useful content that people would use I might add. That’s all I’m asking for. It would add diversity, allow for proper treatment of mixed heritage species, and act as a system for an unlimited amount of structured homebrew. It could even be combined with that whole “Trait A” idea. Is that really such an unreasonable suggestion?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The problem is that species features are significantly variable in value -- there are very few that are more valuable than a feat, but a substantial number that are less valuable. As such, "You can spend a feat on a species feature" will usually be fair (it will sometimes be a bad choice, but players are smart -- they won't choose the bad features), but the reverse is not.