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.
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.
You have a valid point. The only abusive combo I could come up with off the top of my head would be flight+Tortle Shell+Darkvision, and even then….
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.
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 #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.
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.
It really doesn't work, because species don't have the same number of traits and make no effort to guarantee that they even have traits of a particular potency, plus those trades may wind up just leaving something that doesn't really feel right because you're getting major features from one and ribbon features from another. In any case, trading features from one to the other is available -- it's just option #3, not option #2, because it's always going to require DM adjudication.
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.
You have a valid point. The only abusive combo I could come up with off the top of my head would be flight+Tortle Shell+Darkvision, and even then….
You could go with Secondary Arms to be able to dual wield while wearing a shield or casting, plus Magic Resistance to get advantage on all saving throws against magic or magical effects, plus Healing Machine to be able to heal yourself to full after every fight with a cantrip. If you get 4 features throw in constructed resilience to eliminate food, sleep, disease, poisons, and the need to breathe (which blocks several spells) from the list of things that threaten you.
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.
You have a valid point. The only abusive combo I could come up with off the top of my head would be flight+Tortle Shell+Darkvision, and even then….
and even then, you're just a koopa paratroopa.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
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.
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.
It really doesn't work, because species don't have the same number of traits and make no effort to guarantee that they even have traits of a particular potency, plus those trades may wind up just leaving something that doesn't really feel right because you're getting major features from one and ribbon features from another. In any case, trading features from one to the other is available -- it's just option #3, not option #2, because it's always going to require DM adjudication.
You don’t need all that, you just need one specifically balanced designated trait that’s swappable if they mix heritages.
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.
You have a valid point. The only abusive combo I could come up with off the top of my head would be flight+Tortle Shell+Darkvision, and even then….
and even then, you're just a koopa paratroopa.
A half Tortle, half Aarakocra ranger with 'Favored enemy: Italian Plumber'?
You don’t need all that, you just need one specifically balanced designated trait that’s swappable if they mix heritages.
And a feat accomplishes that.
Look, if you don't think there's a balance concern for being able to do hybrids at will, and your DM agrees -- just put together the list of traits you think is reasonable and ask the DM "Is this okay?". You only need more sophisticated rules if you think it should be possible to create such a character without DM involvement -- and anything like that is either going to be complicated, very limited, or wind up with the DM having to vet them all anyway.
You don’t need all that, you just need one specifically balanced designated trait that’s swappable if they mix heritages.
And a feat accomplishes that.
Look, if you don't think there's a balance concern for being able to do hybrids at will, and your DM agrees -- just put together the list of traits you think is reasonable and ask the DM "Is this okay?". You only need more sophisticated rules if you think it should be possible to create such a character without DM involvement -- and anything like that is either going to be complicated, very limited, or wind up with the DM having to vet them all anyway.
You miss my point. My point is for the whole community at large, some structure is appreciated. Nevermind.
You miss my point. My point is for the whole community at large, some structure is appreciated. Nevermind.
The issue Pantagruel is getting at, and one I agree with, is that the current crop of species was not designed even the slightest tiniest little bit with this sort of inter-species modularity in mind. Some species have a huge mess of relatively minor traits, some species are entirely defined by one single extremely powerful trait, some species are blatantly more powerful than others, and none of it has any sort of systematic rhyme or reason to it in the faintest.
The only way to do this without completely scrapping every currently existing species in D&D and replacing them with an entirely new system rigorously designed for modularity...y'know, a point buy trait system...is to give the players and DM guidelines for how to homebrew up the combination that works for them. There's no possible systemic way to do it, which means it has to be done manually, which means the DM/player has to do it themselves since Wizards cannot and will not provide an Official Stat Block for every possible mix of every species that has ever existed in all of D&D.
You miss my point. My point is for the whole community at large, some structure is appreciated. Nevermind.
The problem is, structure is really an all or nothing. Either it's rigorous enough that someone can create fair characters without DM intervention, or it's not. If it's not rigorous enough, it doesn't really serve any purpose that isn't served by "mix and match features and ask the DM if it seems okay".
You miss my point. My point is for the whole community at large, some structure is appreciated. Nevermind.
The problem is, structure is really an all or nothing. Either it's rigorous enough that someone can create fair characters without DM intervention, or it's not. If it's not rigorous enough, it doesn't really serve any purpose that isn't served by "mix and match features and ask the DM if it seems okay".
The keyword there is “enough.” It only has to be just rigorous enough to serve the purpose. If every species had 1 trait specifically balanced to be swappable, that would be enough. Not every trait has to be swappable, just one for each species.
The keyword there is “enough.” It only has to be just rigorous enough to serve the purpose. If every species had 1 trait specifically balanced to be swappable, that would be enough. Not every trait has to be swappable, just one for each species.
If you think it's easy... demonstrate? Just go through the list of species in the first playtest packet and list each one.
The keyword there is “enough.” It only has to be just rigorous enough to serve the purpose. If every species had 1 trait specifically balanced to be swappable, that would be enough. Not every trait has to be swappable, just one for each species.
If you think it's easy... demonstrate? Just go through the list of species in the first playtest packet and list each one.
Sure. Pay me to do Crawford’s job for him and I will.
The keyword there is “enough.” It only has to be just rigorous enough to serve the purpose. If every species had 1 trait specifically balanced to be swappable, that would be enough. Not every trait has to be swappable, just one for each species.
If you think it's easy... demonstrate? Just go through the list of species in the first playtest packet and list each one.
Sure. Pay me to do Crawford’s job for him and I will.
If it's complicated enough that you feel the need to be paid, it's too complicated to actually include.
The keyword there is “enough.” It only has to be just rigorous enough to serve the purpose. If every species had 1 trait specifically balanced to be swappable, that would be enough. Not every trait has to be swappable, just one for each species.
If you think it's easy... demonstrate? Just go through the list of species in the first playtest packet and list each one.
Sure. Pay me to do Crawford’s job for him and I will.
If it's complicated enough that you feel the need to be paid, it's too complicated to actually include.
Then it should be no problem for you to make a new edition in its entirety right now, right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
You have a valid point. The only abusive combo I could come up with off the top of my head would be flight+Tortle Shell+Darkvision, and even then….
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Hence the rest of my answer:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It really doesn't work, because species don't have the same number of traits and make no effort to guarantee that they even have traits of a particular potency, plus those trades may wind up just leaving something that doesn't really feel right because you're getting major features from one and ribbon features from another. In any case, trading features from one to the other is available -- it's just option #3, not option #2, because it's always going to require DM adjudication.
You could go with Secondary Arms to be able to dual wield while wearing a shield or casting, plus Magic Resistance to get advantage on all saving throws against magic or magical effects, plus Healing Machine to be able to heal yourself to full after every fight with a cantrip. If you get 4 features throw in constructed resilience to eliminate food, sleep, disease, poisons, and the need to breathe (which blocks several spells) from the list of things that threaten you.
and even then, you're just a koopa paratroopa.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
You don’t need all that, you just need one specifically balanced designated trait that’s swappable if they mix heritages.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A half Tortle, half Aarakocra ranger with 'Favored enemy: Italian Plumber'?
And a feat accomplishes that.
Look, if you don't think there's a balance concern for being able to do hybrids at will, and your DM agrees -- just put together the list of traits you think is reasonable and ask the DM "Is this okay?". You only need more sophisticated rules if you think it should be possible to create such a character without DM involvement -- and anything like that is either going to be complicated, very limited, or wind up with the DM having to vet them all anyway.
You miss my point. My point is for the whole community at large, some structure is appreciated. Nevermind.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The issue Pantagruel is getting at, and one I agree with, is that the current crop of species was not designed even the slightest tiniest little bit with this sort of inter-species modularity in mind. Some species have a huge mess of relatively minor traits, some species are entirely defined by one single extremely powerful trait, some species are blatantly more powerful than others, and none of it has any sort of systematic rhyme or reason to it in the faintest.
The only way to do this without completely scrapping every currently existing species in D&D and replacing them with an entirely new system rigorously designed for modularity...y'know, a point buy trait system...is to give the players and DM guidelines for how to homebrew up the combination that works for them. There's no possible systemic way to do it, which means it has to be done manually, which means the DM/player has to do it themselves since Wizards cannot and will not provide an Official Stat Block for every possible mix of every species that has ever existed in all of D&D.
Please do not contact or message me.
The problem is, structure is really an all or nothing. Either it's rigorous enough that someone can create fair characters without DM intervention, or it's not. If it's not rigorous enough, it doesn't really serve any purpose that isn't served by "mix and match features and ask the DM if it seems okay".
The keyword there is “enough.” It only has to be just rigorous enough to serve the purpose. If every species had 1 trait specifically balanced to be swappable, that would be enough. Not every trait has to be swappable, just one for each species.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If you think it's easy... demonstrate? Just go through the list of species in the first playtest packet and list each one.
Sure. Pay me to do Crawford’s job for him and I will.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
: (
Edit: : )
If it's complicated enough that you feel the need to be paid, it's too complicated to actually include.
Then it should be no problem for you to make a new edition in its entirety right now, right?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)