If you care about these supposed issues with races in D&D, why have races with different capabilities at all? Every character should just be human at that point, right? Hell, why play D&D at all? The game has so many concepts that from your logic would have to reflect xenophobic ideas of some sort. You should just move on to another game... Unless you're a hypocrite. Please, stop trying to peddle this argument. It's inherently flawed and problematic in general, and it's honestly quite offensive to compare non-human races to human ethnicities...
No, it is blind and stupid to pretend fantasy and fiction can be separated from the ideas and culture that inspired it. D&D is incredibly influenced by the American, White, Christian, and predominantly male perspective of the people who created it. Don't bury your head in the sand and pretend you are some alien being that hasn't had their world view, opinions, thoughts, attitudes and behaviours sculpted by your family, friends, media, language and culture since the moment you were born.
That’s not the current state of the race/lineage rules though. Currently, races don’t get ASI at all. That was moved to Backgrounds.
That's my point. It makes LESS sense.
It doesn't make less sense. It makes a lot MORE sense.
Why wouldn't a Soldier have developed better Constitution as part of their focus on physical training? Why wouldn't a Guide have developed their perception based attribute? Why wouldn't a bookworm (Sage) have emphasized their Intelligence over their physical stats?
Having it be related to background is perfectly reasonable, because Ability Scores are things that you can emphasize and develop ... and people do exactly that kind of thing around their careers (either as part of preparing for the career, and over time as they develop their niche within that career). If ASI's weren't an actual part of the game, then it could be argued that they cannot be developed over time, so you're stuck with some mumbojumbo about whether or not you were born with it .. but that argument just doesn't hold water given the actual rules of the game say it's a thing that people develop with some measure of effort (where you put your ASI).
Does it also make some sense to that some species will have more of X and less of Y? The case can be made that one species, on average, might have more leverage based on their typical skeletal proportions, or that their brains tend to have better features for this or that, or their eyes have physiological features that lend themselves to certain things.
But as you pointed out elsewhere, they're fantasy species.
So we don't actually have any concrete statement that "M's are, on average, stronger than E's" or "It takes more effort (allocation of stat values) for an M to be as smart as an E, because E's are naturally smarter than M's on average." We can't even say that that is an actual thing at all (that M's or E's are naturally better at one thing than another, and there's no way around that base "talent"), because M's and E's don't actually exist in any way shape nor form, and even any lore about them might be based on non-objective observations (or that the species practices some form of infanticide for non-desirable traits). The idea that there is absolute concrete basis for one species having a higher aptitude than an another species, for EVERY individual in that species ... is not even remotely a valid statement when neither of those species actually exist. No such hypothesis can be tested. So it comes down to: what does the author of that lore say is the current thought about it? And those authors have made that statement: it isn't based on species.
And that doesn't even take into account the whole possible-fallacy of "talent" having an absolute physical basis, in otherwise healthy individuals (as opposed to apparent talents being a result of extra effort that came from VERY early developmental encouragement, and the subject trying to get more endorphins from the positive feedback from results of their efforts in that area), even in the real world with the one real species we have to work with for all of this. The most realistic part of the 5e species based Ability Score Bonuses was that (variant) Humans and Custom Lineage get to pick where they put their bonus. And there is no concrete argument that can be made that this shouldn't be a feature of every other species in the game.
Last: because Backgrounds are also not set in stone (examples that you can modify at your leisure), you can make modifications that match your idea of the species, and justify it as "they have better bone structure" or "they have larger brains" or "they have more capillaries in the brain for better oxygenation and energy distribution to/from the brain" or whatever pseudo-science someone wants to come up with. Nothing has been lost by moving it to the Background.
Would it be even more sensible to have made them independent of either the Species OR the Background? probably. Because then your justification for why you have a +2 in one thing, and a +1 in another (or three +1's) could be whatever you want: natural talent or whatever other fantasy someone has about how we get good at things ... or something more plausible about career training. But the flexibility of the Background rules pragmatically makes that the case already.
Agree that floating ASIs don't make much sense on backgrounds, disagree that they make less sense than fixed racial ASIs. At this point, there's no reason to have them separate from rolling for stats, so it doesn't make much sense to stick them in another bit of the book.
Fixed racial ASIs are ass. It sucks that making an orc Warlock is actively shooting yourself in the foot. The rules should be there to support character ideas, not the other way around.
Elf subraces are about the same. You can choose between a changeable arcane spell and a faster speed. Just because they're recontextualized as choices within individual features doesn't mean they're any worse.
I like the new human. It's amazing that they finally get something unique (free inspiration on long rest) instead of just being the "normal guy with less stuff than everybody else" race. I've never liked the universal +1 myself because of how situational it's practicality is and how poorly it meshes with Standard Array.
I'm not sure how I feel about the hybrid rules, but I do know that it feels less awkward than giving only two hybrid races and leaving the rest to imagination.
I wouldn't hate an elf feature that somehow improves sight beyond Darkvision, but I don't think it's necessary for an effective elf species.
Making an Orc Warlock wouldn't be shooting yourself in the foot, lmao. You'd just use point buy to give yourself a higher CHA and eventually you'll be able to get to 20. No need to start at a 17 for your specific stat for every race.
Elf subraces are not the same. There's a bunch of stuff the subraces got in the PHB they don't get in UA. They're just bland now.
Honestly, the free inspiration on long rest is unique, I'll give you that, but the thing about Humans is that they're supposed to be well-rounded (+1 to everything), or adaptable (Variant). UA Human goes with the adaptable fantasy a little bit, but the inspiration feature feels... I don't know... Out of place? And I feel as if it's even more OP than the other races, which was already an issue with Human in some peoples' eyes.
The new Hybrid rules are literally just picking one race's mechanics and sticking with that. If you're a Half-Elf, your features don't reflect a blending of Human and Elf abilities, which is honestly shite.
Needing starting with a 14 or 15 in your main stat is shooting yourself in the foot. The game's bounded accuracy assumes that you start with a +3 modifier in your main stat, something you can't do with fixed racial ASIs unless they align with your class.
The 2014 high elf gives you one unreplaceable Wizard cantrip, a few weapon proficiencies, and an extra language. The 1D&D high elf gives you one replaceable Arcane cantrip, detect magic (quite powerful and thematic), and misty step (very powerful and thematic). The 2014 wood elf gives you 5 extra feet of movement, a few weapon proficiencies, and a very situational chance to Hide. The 1D&D wood elf gives you 5 extra feet of movement, druidcraft (very thematic), longstrider (very powerful, quite thematic), and pass without trace (incredibly powerful, very thematic). Unless you used the hell out of those few free weapon proficiencies, I really don't see how 1D&D is taking away from subraces.
Humans can accomplish great things despite their short lifespans because they possess a sheer determination that longer-lived species tend to lack. To me, that's infinitely more interesting and representative of humanity than "they're okay at most things". And things being out of balance is expected. That's not a fundamental flaw with the whole idea, that's something that can (and should) be neatly ironed out via the playtesting process.
In 2014, if you're a half-gnome, your features don't reflect a blending of human and gnome abilities, which is honestly shite, mostly because half-elves get neat tricks and you get left in the dust. Personally, I'd prefer there be no mechanical advantages to hybrids than only two possible mixes producing results.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about with the bonded accuracy thing, but I've made characters with +2 to their main stat a lot and have done perfectly fine. It's REALLY not that bad...
Sure, they might be more powerful, but you're missing one of the main points. They took the 1,3,5 spell approach to them all, which feels bland. Also, with Wood Elves, it's not quite thematic. In lore, they were always less magical than other Elves, but were also stronger and had heightened senses. I will agree with you on the High Elf, but would like to point out that their original 5e features were meant to reflect both their innate magic AND how their brains are developed differently.
EDIT: The weapon proficiencies reflected a connection Elves had to their god, Corellon, who was pretty good with bows and swords. Instead of a proficiency in these weapons though, Elves should have gotten a +1 bonus if they decide to use these weapons, or some other feature that can help them if they decide not to.
Well, you might like one specific viewpoint on Humans, but the truth is that both should be reflected in how Humans are designed. And only one is being reflected. I will say that the more I think about it, the more I'm okay with the inspiration thing, BUT the whole race as designed should be an alternate version of the Variant (or the base Human while the +1 to everything is Variant), rather than being the only option.
In 2014, you'd have to use homebrew to be a Half-Gnome, so your comparison kinda sucks. Making other races seemingly playable doesn't justify ruining races that already exist. They could have at least come up with a hybrid template of some sort. Shite, that's what I've been doing myself.
Bounded accuracy is the core math of the game. The ACs and to-hit bonuses of every single monster are based on it. You shouldn't fall short of what the core math of the game assumes just because of the species you picked.
My point wasn't that the subraces are more powerful, it's that they didn't really lose much of anything. Those 1st and 2nd level spells came at the cost of a couple incidental and barely-used features. And anyways, I don't think that you'll see a high elf casting detect magic, a wood elf casting pass without trace, and a drow casting darkness and say "well they're all basically the same thing". Spells have a broad scope.
But why should both "versions" of humans be reflected? The reason variant human was variant in 5e was because feats were an optional rule.
The fact that you can't be a half-gnome in 2014 is my whole point. In 2014, there are exactly 2 officially approved mixes, despite the countless species. That's lame. I think I've decided I don't love the new rules, but I'd honestly rather have no concrete rules at all than have WotC slap me in the face and say "half-gnomes are impossible!" To me, that's an improvement, if not a earth-shattering one.
Again, I've literally never had another player or myself suffer because of being at a +2. It REALLY isn't as much of an issue as you're making it out to be. If you're having that much of an issue, you might have dice that are weighted wrong or have really bad luck.
Okay, but you're still ignoring MY point, which is that the way they changed them feels bland.
Both versions should be there because they both reflect the abilities of humans in these worlds.
Then they should have made a Half-Gnome template, not the garbage "you're only one of the races mechanically" crap. It shows a lack of care on their part. If you can't see that, there's no point in continuing this argument.
If you care about these supposed issues with races in D&D, why have races with different capabilities at all? Every character should just be human at that point, right? Hell, why play D&D at all? The game has so many concepts that from your logic would have to reflect xenophobic ideas of some sort. You should just move on to another game... Unless you're a hypocrite. Please, stop trying to peddle this argument. It's inherently flawed and problematic in general, and it's honestly quite offensive to compare non-human races to human ethnicities...
No, it is blind and stupid to pretend fantasy and fiction can be separated from the ideas and culture that inspired it. D&D is incredibly influenced by the American, White, Christian, and predominantly male perspective of the people who created it. Don't bury your head in the sand and pretend you are some alien being that hasn't had their world view, opinions, thoughts, attitudes and behaviours sculpted by your family, friends, media, language and culture since the moment you were born.
You're missing the point. I'm not saying D&D isn't any of those things. I've had issues with D&D's presentation of religion for a long time, but that's a discussion for another time. And honestly, it's nice to see some of the changes made ever since 0e, because it's gotten away (or made an effort to get away from) from the xenophobic ideals. My main point is that in their attempts to look like they care about distancing themselves from those ideals, they've created issues with the game and not even really succeeded at creating that distance. The only way to get rid of those ideals is to stop playing D&D, unfortunately.
Agree that floating ASIs don't make much sense on backgrounds, disagree that they make less sense than fixed racial ASIs. At this point, there's no reason to have them separate from rolling for stats, so it doesn't make much sense to stick them in another bit of the book.
Fixed racial ASIs are ass. It sucks that making an orc Warlock is actively shooting yourself in the foot. The rules should be there to support character ideas, not the other way around.
Elf subraces are about the same. You can choose between a changeable arcane spell and a faster speed. Just because they're recontextualized as choices within individual features doesn't mean they're any worse.
I like the new human. It's amazing that they finally get something unique (free inspiration on long rest) instead of just being the "normal guy with less stuff than everybody else" race. I've never liked the universal +1 myself because of how situational it's practicality is and how poorly it meshes with Standard Array.
I'm not sure how I feel about the hybrid rules, but I do know that it feels less awkward than giving only two hybrid races and leaving the rest to imagination.
I wouldn't hate an elf feature that somehow improves sight beyond Darkvision, but I don't think it's necessary for an effective elf species.
Making an Orc Warlock wouldn't be shooting yourself in the foot, lmao. You'd just use point buy to give yourself a higher CHA and eventually you'll be able to get to 20. No need to start at a 17 for your specific stat for every race.
Elf subraces are not the same. There's a bunch of stuff the subraces got in the PHB they don't get in UA. They're just bland now.
Honestly, the free inspiration on long rest is unique, I'll give you that, but the thing about Humans is that they're supposed to be well-rounded (+1 to everything), or adaptable (Variant). UA Human goes with the adaptable fantasy a little bit, but the inspiration feature feels... I don't know... Out of place? And I feel as if it's even more OP than the other races, which was already an issue with Human in some peoples' eyes.
The new Hybrid rules are literally just picking one race's mechanics and sticking with that. If you're a Half-Elf, your features don't reflect a blending of Human and Elf abilities, which is honestly shite.
Needing starting with a 14 or 15 in your main stat is shooting yourself in the foot. The game's bounded accuracy assumes that you start with a +3 modifier in your main stat, something you can't do with fixed racial ASIs unless they align with your class.
The 2014 high elf gives you one unreplaceable Wizard cantrip, a few weapon proficiencies, and an extra language. The 1D&D high elf gives you one replaceable Arcane cantrip, detect magic (quite powerful and thematic), and misty step (very powerful and thematic). The 2014 wood elf gives you 5 extra feet of movement, a few weapon proficiencies, and a very situational chance to Hide. The 1D&D wood elf gives you 5 extra feet of movement, druidcraft (very thematic), longstrider (very powerful, quite thematic), and pass without trace (incredibly powerful, very thematic). Unless you used the hell out of those few free weapon proficiencies, I really don't see how 1D&D is taking away from subraces.
Humans can accomplish great things despite their short lifespans because they possess a sheer determination that longer-lived species tend to lack. To me, that's infinitely more interesting and representative of humanity than "they're okay at most things". And things being out of balance is expected. That's not a fundamental flaw with the whole idea, that's something that can (and should) be neatly ironed out via the playtesting process.
In 2014, if you're a half-gnome, your features don't reflect a blending of human and gnome abilities, which is honestly shite, mostly because half-elves get neat tricks and you get left in the dust. Personally, I'd prefer there be no mechanical advantages to hybrids than only two possible mixes producing results.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about with the bonded accuracy thing, but I've made characters with +2 to their main stat a lot and have done perfectly fine. It's REALLY not that bad...
Sure, they might be more powerful, but you're missing one of the main points. They took the 1,3,5 spell approach to them all, which feels bland. Also, with Wood Elves, it's not quite thematic. In lore, they were always less magical than other Elves, but were also stronger and had heightened senses. I will agree with you on the High Elf, but would like to point out that their original 5e features were meant to reflect both their innate magic AND how their brains are developed differently.
EDIT: The weapon proficiencies reflected a connection Elves had to their god, Corellon, who was pretty good with bows and swords. Instead of a proficiency in these weapons though, Elves should have gotten a +1 bonus if they decide to use these weapons, or some other feature that can help them if they decide not to.
Well, you might like one specific viewpoint on Humans, but the truth is that both should be reflected in how Humans are designed. And only one is being reflected. I will say that the more I think about it, the more I'm okay with the inspiration thing, BUT the whole race as designed should be an alternate version of the Variant (or the base Human while the +1 to everything is Variant), rather than being the only option.
In 2014, you'd have to use homebrew to be a Half-Gnome, so your comparison kinda sucks. Making other races seemingly playable doesn't justify ruining races that already exist. They could have at least come up with a hybrid template of some sort. Shite, that's what I've been doing myself.
Bounded accuracy is the core math of the game. The ACs and to-hit bonuses of every single monster are based on it. You shouldn't fall short of what the core math of the game assumes just because of the species you picked.
My point wasn't that the subraces are more powerful, it's that they didn't really lose much of anything. Those 1st and 2nd level spells came at the cost of a couple incidental and barely-used features. And anyways, I don't think that you'll see a high elf casting detect magic, a wood elf casting pass without trace, and a drow casting darkness and say "well they're all basically the same thing". Spells have a broad scope.
But why should both "versions" of humans be reflected? The reason variant human was variant in 5e was because feats were an optional rule.
The fact that you can't be a half-gnome in 2014 is my whole point. In 2014, there are exactly 2 officially approved mixes, despite the countless species. That's lame. I think I've decided I don't love the new rules, but I'd honestly rather have no concrete rules at all than have WotC slap me in the face and say "half-gnomes are impossible!" To me, that's an improvement, if not a earth-shattering one.
Again, I've literally never had another player or myself suffer because of being at a +2. It REALLY isn't as much of an issue as you're making it out to be. If you're having that much of an issue, you might have dice that are weighted wrong or have really bad luck.
Okay, but you're still ignoring MY point, which is that the way they changed them feels bland.
Both versions should be there because they both reflect the abilities of humans in these worlds.
Then they should have made a Half-Gnome template, not the garbage "you're only one of the races mechanically" crap. It shows a lack of care on their part. If you can't see that, there's no point in continuing this argument.
Just because you haven't noticed an issue doesn't mean it's not there. The core math of the game should not be weighted against certain character ideas.
Your opinion, that the way they changed them feels bland, is subjective, and you haven't really given any points to back up your reasoning. I don't know what you want me to respond to.
"The abilities of humans in these worlds" can change between editions. A change shouldn't be resisted because it's different, because then the end result is always going to be a lack of change. If the abilities of humans in these worlds are going to change to be more focused on adaptability and perseverance than just "being okay at everything," then that's a change I will welcome.
They should have just made every single combination of two species? Methinks that would be a lot. I'm not at all trying to say the new system is perfect, just that the old system of only allowing the mixes with WotC-approved stats was pretty ass.
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)
I will point out that racial ASI means literally saying a given race is better at something or worse at something, and the moral and ethical real world consequences of that do not belong in an escapist game unless you like repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
These are fantasy races. The Hell do you mean "real world consequences?"
the little mermaid is a fairytale and yet…
the fantasy races BS is just that, BS, and while you may not have seen any real world consequences, plenty of others did and still do experience them.
not going to relitigate that crap fest, you have an account, there are literally hundreds of posts on it.
^implying that fantasy races are equivalent to real world races
Look, I get that SOME races have had depictions that clearly pull from racist caricatures, but in 5e as it is, that argument doesn't work as well.
Also, I have no idea why you brought up Little Mermaid. Something to do with how some idjits don't like that the new actress is black? Not sure how that relates to an argument about tabletop mechanics regarding literal non-human races/species/whatever would be the best term, because both have issues.
the point went over your head, so you don’t see how it relates is fairly honest.
again, lots of posts on the topic already, and note that those arguments are why they don’t exist anymore. That alone should tell you plenty about how “fantasy” anything still has real world impact.
The R word applies, and that’s why racial ASIs are out.
as others noted, the focus now is on the special capabilities of the not-human/inhuman/other than human beings, and those are changing for the better as the game advances, giving more flexibility.
personally, I think players getting more flexibility is cool, but I also don’t even do starting out ASIs myself, at all (so, not even from backgrounds). What you roll or point buy or assign is what you start with. Then you get better as you advance.
and there are more interesting abilities to give a group of people than bonuses to ability scores. Hell, there is a thread about bugbear PCs….
If you care about these supposed issues with races in D&D, why have races with different capabilities at all? Every character should just be human at that point, right? Hell, why play D&D at all? The game has so many concepts that from your logic would have to reflect xenophobic ideas of some sort. You should just move on to another game... Unless you're a hypocrite. Please, stop trying to peddle this argument. It's inherently flawed and problematic in general, and it's honestly quite offensive to compare non-human races to human ethnicities...
Well, yes, the game does, in fact, have significant and major issues, though calling them "xenophobic" is incorrect (indeed, your suggestion to get rid of non-humanrics is an example of xenophobia, not the reverse).
Why play pretend at all? Because when you are someone for whom the issues those things reflect, having an outlet for your frustration and a place where you can battle those same things is pretty incredible.
As a note, I have five different kinds of humans, all with different special abilities. And I have a bunch of other peoples, as well. None have ASIs and all feel more distinct than the default races do in the game as a core.
Hypocrite? Not at all. Hypocrisy is easy if you lack knowledge on a subject. I don't get that benefit, since dealing with all that crap is my day job.
Again, all of the stuff I am pointing out is why they were removed from the game. Done. Past tense. Because it was acknowledged that there is a huge degree of racist basis behind all of it.
That fight is over.
I see in a different post where you start analyzing the special abilities -- and that's cool. But ASI's for race are a legacy item that is gone.
That wasn't even a real suggestion, first of all. That was me taking your line of thought and applying it to similar issues with the game. Second, if I'm going by the logic you've presented to me, having non-human races is inherently xenophobic/racist, because some of these races actually have taken inspiration from racist depictions of human ethnicities in the past. So, them having abilities other races inherently don't have would have to be considered racist. If you disagree, you're actually a hypocrite.
Also, they didn't do it because they actually care. They did it because some people saw an issue and they wanted to act like they care. Let's be honest, WotC doesn't care. I mean, they changed "races" to "species," thinking that was somehow better, lmao. So, really, WotC didn't do it because of something that definitely exists as much as they did because some people perceived something.
Look... I'm not saying D&D doesn't inherently have a xenophobic basis. What I am saying is that there's a point where attempting to get away from that doesn't actually do anything good. These races HAVE changed over time from being racist metaphors to being unique non-human people for us to explore being in a fantasy setting, and the changes I take issue with take away from that. Also, I'm not even saying every player should be forced into having set ASI's. What I am saying is that suggested ASI's based in the race should be given, with Tasha's rule being an option. And honestly, I feel like WotC is using this change as an excuse to put less effort into races (even if it's not a whole lot of effort).
That’s not the current state of the race/lineage rules though. Currently, races don’t get ASI at all. That was moved to Backgrounds.
That's my point. It makes LESS sense.
It doesn't make less sense. It makes a lot MORE sense.
Why wouldn't a Soldier have developed better Constitution as part of their focus on physical training? Why wouldn't a Guide have developed their perception based attribute? Why wouldn't a bookworm (Sage) have emphasized their Intelligence over their physical stats?
Having it be related to background is perfectly reasonable, because Ability Scores are things that you can emphasize and develop ... and people do exactly that kind of thing around their careers (either as part of preparing for the career, and over time as they develop their niche within that career). If ASI's weren't an actual part of the game, then it could be argued that they cannot be developed over time, so you're stuck with some mumbojumbo about whether or not you were born with it .. but that argument just doesn't hold water given the actual rules of the game say it's a thing that people develop with some measure of effort (where you put your ASI).
Does it also make some sense to that some species will have more of X and less of Y? The case can be made that one species, on average, might have more leverage based on their typical skeletal proportions, or that their brains tend to have better features for this or that, or their eyes have physiological features that lend themselves to certain things.
But as you pointed out elsewhere, they're fantasy species.
So we don't actually have any concrete statement that "M's are, on average, stronger than E's" or "It takes more effort (allocation of stat values) for an M to be as smart as an E, because E's are naturally smarter than M's on average." We can't even say that that is an actual thing at all (that M's or E's are naturally better at one thing than another, and there's no way around that base "talent"), because M's and E's don't actually exist in any way shape nor form, and even any lore about them might be based on non-objective observations (or that the species practices some form of infanticide for non-desirable traits). The idea that there is absolute concrete basis for one species having a higher aptitude than an another species, for EVERY individual in that species ... is not even remotely a valid statement when neither of those species actually exist. No such hypothesis can be tested. So it comes down to: what does the author of that lore say is the current thought about it? And those authors have made that statement: it isn't based on species.
And that doesn't even take into account the whole possible-fallacy of "talent" having an absolute physical basis, in otherwise healthy individuals (as opposed to apparent talents being a result of extra effort that came from VERY early developmental encouragement, and the subject trying to get more endorphins from the positive feedback from results of their efforts in that area), even in the real world with the one real species we have to work with for all of this. The most realistic part of the 5e species based Ability Score Bonuses was that (variant) Humans and Custom Lineage get to pick where they put their bonus. And there is no concrete argument that can be made that this shouldn't be a feature of every other species in the game.
Last: because Backgrounds are also not set in stone (examples that you can modify at your leisure), you can make modifications that match your idea of the species, and justify it as "they have better bone structure" or "they have larger brains" or "they have more capillaries in the brain for better oxygenation and energy distribution to/from the brain" or whatever pseudo-science someone wants to come up with. Nothing has been lost by moving it to the Background.
Would it be even more sensible to have made them independent of either the Species OR the Background? probably. Because then your justification for why you have a +2 in one thing, and a +1 in another (or three +1's) could be whatever you want: natural talent or whatever other fantasy someone has about how we get good at things ... or something more plausible about career training. But the flexibility of the Background rules pragmatically makes that the case already.
It makes less sense because ASIs reflect inherent ability, not abilities attained through background/training. Point buy and standard array are meant to reflect background/training. I haven't read anything in either the UA's or the books that suggests otherwise. Even Tasha's, where that rule was introduced, doesn't say that. It says that they were supposed to reinforce an archetype, but it doesn't clarify exactly if that means something like "High Elves are typically Eldritch Knights" or something like "High Elves are the Dexterous and Intelligent characters." Based on the text around it, I'd assume the latter? Also, even with that text, even if we go back to the PHB, ASI's are presented as being natural abilities, because these are fantasy races. Either way, what you're saying is kinda incorrect.
Now, I will give you that IF ASI's were redefined in the UA (which they weren't), then you're argument would MAKE some sense. Some backgrounds make perfect sense with their ASI's, but others feel like they were just thrown in there. For example, Criminals could have any ASI, let's be honest. However, as you said, backgrounds are presented in the UA as more fluid.
Regarding the second half of your argument, you are right, these are fantasy races and players and DMs are free to come up with their own lore. That said, in the specific settings we have, there is already tons of lore about these races and how they biologically have certain traits that are supposed to be reflected by their ASI's. I'm not saying racial ASI's should be forced by every DM. What I am saying is that WotC should actually put in some more effort when designing races, and that includes a short "suggested ASI" section...
It makes less sense because ASIs reflect inherent ability, not abilities attained through background/training.
They absolutely do not reflect that, otherwise you would not be able to increase you ASIs as you level up from gaining experience. ASIs are attained though experience & levelling up thus reflect your character's previous life experience & training via their background.
That’s not the current state of the race/lineage rules though. Currently, races don’t get ASI at all. That was moved to Backgrounds.
That's my point. It makes LESS sense.
It doesn't make less sense. It makes a lot MORE sense.
Why wouldn't a Soldier have developed better Constitution as part of their focus on physical training? Why wouldn't a Guide have developed their perception based attribute? Why wouldn't a bookworm (Sage) have emphasized their Intelligence over their physical stats?
Having it be related to background is perfectly reasonable, because Ability Scores are things that you can emphasize and develop ... and people do exactly that kind of thing around their careers (either as part of preparing for the career, and over time as they develop their niche within that career). If ASI's weren't an actual part of the game, then it could be argued that they cannot be developed over time, so you're stuck with some mumbojumbo about whether or not you were born with it .. but that argument just doesn't hold water given the actual rules of the game say it's a thing that people develop with some measure of effort (where you put your ASI).
Does it also make some sense to that some species will have more of X and less of Y? The case can be made that one species, on average, might have more leverage based on their typical skeletal proportions, or that their brains tend to have better features for this or that, or their eyes have physiological features that lend themselves to certain things.
But as you pointed out elsewhere, they're fantasy species.
So we don't actually have any concrete statement that "M's are, on average, stronger than E's" or "It takes more effort (allocation of stat values) for an M to be as smart as an E, because E's are naturally smarter than M's on average." We can't even say that that is an actual thing at all (that M's or E's are naturally better at one thing than another, and there's no way around that base "talent"), because M's and E's don't actually exist in any way shape nor form, and even any lore about them might be based on non-objective observations (or that the species practices some form of infanticide for non-desirable traits). The idea that there is absolute concrete basis for one species having a higher aptitude than an another species, for EVERY individual in that species ... is not even remotely a valid statement when neither of those species actually exist. No such hypothesis can be tested. So it comes down to: what does the author of that lore say is the current thought about it? And those authors have made that statement: it isn't based on species.
And that doesn't even take into account the whole possible-fallacy of "talent" having an absolute physical basis, in otherwise healthy individuals (as opposed to apparent talents being a result of extra effort that came from VERY early developmental encouragement, and the subject trying to get more endorphins from the positive feedback from results of their efforts in that area), even in the real world with the one real species we have to work with for all of this. The most realistic part of the 5e species based Ability Score Bonuses was that (variant) Humans and Custom Lineage get to pick where they put their bonus. And there is no concrete argument that can be made that this shouldn't be a feature of every other species in the game.
Last: because Backgrounds are also not set in stone (examples that you can modify at your leisure), you can make modifications that match your idea of the species, and justify it as "they have better bone structure" or "they have larger brains" or "they have more capillaries in the brain for better oxygenation and energy distribution to/from the brain" or whatever pseudo-science someone wants to come up with. Nothing has been lost by moving it to the Background.
Would it be even more sensible to have made them independent of either the Species OR the Background? probably. Because then your justification for why you have a +2 in one thing, and a +1 in another (or three +1's) could be whatever you want: natural talent or whatever other fantasy someone has about how we get good at things ... or something more plausible about career training. But the flexibility of the Background rules pragmatically makes that the case already.
It makes less sense because ASIs reflect inherent ability, not abilities attained through background/training.
[...]
Now, I will give you that IF ASI's were redefined in the UA (which they weren't),
ASIs don't need to be redefined, because they mean exactly what I'm referring to. They are not inherent ability, they are developments that happen later in your career (no earlier than 4th level).
You do NOT get an ASI at 1st level (which is the only thing that would make sense of what you said). What you get at 1st level is not called an ASI (whether through species, background, or otherwise). Not in 5e, and not in OneD&D. ASI is specifically the Ability Score Increase you get through leveling up (in 5e, by default you get an ASI _or_ a Feat, depending on whether or not you were using the Feat rules ... in OneD&D, you get a Feat, and one of the Feats is the ASI Feat). I used that initialization twice, and both times I used it purposefully for the meaning the rules give the term.
You can get ASI's at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th levels (and Rogues and Fighters can get them a little more often than that). Which means that as you gain experience/etc. you develop certain Ability Scores enough to increase them. Those increases are experience/development based, and therefore not inherent ability. If they were inherent ability, you'd get it at 1st level. Neither 5e nor OneD&D allow you to get an ASI at first level.
Regarding the second half of your argument, you are right, these are fantasy races and players and DMs are free to come up with their own lore. That said, in the specific settings we have, there is already tons of lore about these races and how they biologically
For the official settings, that Lore is no longer valid. Full Stop.
It has been deprecated and superseded by the owner of those settings. There is no longer currently valid lore that justifies race/lineage/species ability score bonuses.
And, as was already pointed out, for your homebrew settings or at your game table, nothing stops you from forcing the Background ability score bonuses from being species based.
I think the new race species system is fine. It could be better; I'd go further and make it even more flexible (and move further away from a nature/nurture divide).
It's not bland, it's not boring, it doesn't fail to differentiate between the species. It's just different. People always worry about change.
Also, people have been arguing about this ever since pre-Tasha's, and the "controversey" flames have been fanned by bad actors for years now. People on D&D forums everywhere are on edge about this, for good reason. You (the OP) should be aware of that.
I will point out that racial ASI means literally saying a given race is better at something or worse at something, and the moral and ethical real world consequences of that do not belong in an escapist game unless you like repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
These are fantasy races. The Hell do you mean "real world consequences?"
the little mermaid is a fairytale and yet…
the fantasy races BS is just that, BS, and while you may not have seen any real world consequences, plenty of others did and still do experience them.
not going to relitigate that crap fest, you have an account, there are literally hundreds of posts on it.
^implying that fantasy races are equivalent to real world races
Look, I get that SOME races have had depictions that clearly pull from racist caricatures, but in 5e as it is, that argument doesn't work as well.
Also, I have no idea why you brought up Little Mermaid. Something to do with how some idjits don't like that the new actress is black? Not sure how that relates to an argument about tabletop mechanics regarding literal non-human races/species/whatever would be the best term, because both have issues.
the point went over your head, so you don’t see how it relates is fairly honest.
again, lots of posts on the topic already, and note that those arguments are why they don’t exist anymore. That alone should tell you plenty about how “fantasy” anything still has real world impact.
The R word applies, and that’s why racial ASIs are out.
as others noted, the focus now is on the special capabilities of the not-human/inhuman/other than human beings, and those are changing for the better as the game advances, giving more flexibility.
personally, I think players getting more flexibility is cool, but I also don’t even do starting out ASIs myself, at all (so, not even from backgrounds). What you roll or point buy or assign is what you start with. Then you get better as you advance.
and there are more interesting abilities to give a group of people than bonuses to ability scores. Hell, there is a thread about bugbear PCs….
If you care about these supposed issues with races in D&D, why have races with different capabilities at all? Every character should just be human at that point, right? Hell, why play D&D at all? The game has so many concepts that from your logic would have to reflect xenophobic ideas of some sort. You should just move on to another game... Unless you're a hypocrite. Please, stop trying to peddle this argument. It's inherently flawed and problematic in general, and it's honestly quite offensive to compare non-human races to human ethnicities...
Well, yes, the game does, in fact, have significant and major issues, though calling them "xenophobic" is incorrect (indeed, your suggestion to get rid of non-humanrics is an example of xenophobia, not the reverse).
Why play pretend at all? Because when you are someone for whom the issues those things reflect, having an outlet for your frustration and a place where you can battle those same things is pretty incredible.
As a note, I have five different kinds of humans, all with different special abilities. And I have a bunch of other peoples, as well. None have ASIs and all feel more distinct than the default races do in the game as a core.
Hypocrite? Not at all. Hypocrisy is easy if you lack knowledge on a subject. I don't get that benefit, since dealing with all that crap is my day job.
Again, all of the stuff I am pointing out is why they were removed from the game. Done. Past tense. Because it was acknowledged that there is a huge degree of racist basis behind all of it.
That fight is over.
I see in a different post where you start analyzing the special abilities -- and that's cool. But ASI's for race are a legacy item that is gone.
That wasn't even a real suggestion, first of all. That was me taking your line of thought and applying it to similar issues with the game. Second, if I'm going by the logic you've presented to me, having non-human races is inherently xenophobic/racist, because some of these races actually have taken inspiration from racist depictions of human ethnicities in the past. So, them having abilities other races inherently don't have would have to be considered racist. If you disagree, you're actually a hypocrite.
Also, they didn't do it because they actually care. They did it because some people saw an issue and they wanted to act like they care. Let's be honest, WotC doesn't care. I mean, they changed "races" to "species," thinking that was somehow better, lmao. So, really, WotC didn't do it because of something that definitely exists as much as they did because some people perceived something.
Look... I'm not saying D&D doesn't inherently have a xenophobic basis. What I am saying is that there's a point where attempting to get away from that doesn't actually do anything good. These races HAVE changed over time from being racist metaphors to being unique non-human people for us to explore being in a fantasy setting, and the changes I take issue with take away from that. Also, I'm not even saying every player should be forced into having set ASI's. What I am saying is that suggested ASI's based in the race should be given, with Tasha's rule being an option. And honestly, I feel like WotC is using this change as an excuse to put less effort into races (even if it's not a whole lot of effort).
You *really* need to learn what xenophobia is. To paraphrase, it does not mean what you think it means. Once you do, we can talk more on that subject Until then, keep in mind that I just turned in a plan for adoption of a water control plan in a nation experiencing civil war that I have never set foot in as part of a job for the UN.
understanding xenophobia is literally part of my job.
Your note about racism (which is not synonymous with xenophobia -- they are not even approximate) is, in fact, accurate about original source -- but the same can be said for the humans, so we should probably remove Barbarians, Druids, Thieves, Clerics, all of the sub classes, Elves, dwarves, gnomes, and well, then damn, ain't we all hypocrites
Next, disagreeing wouldn't make me a hypocrite. It would depend on the nature of the disagreement and the basis for it, but that's really part of the first part of this response. Nuance matters.
"they don't really care"? You do realize that if they didn't really care they wouldn't have done anything? Money is just as reasonable a motive as decency. More reasonable, in fact, when dealing with an institution that is factually amoral. And no, Species is not better, and has only a smidge less overt BS attached to it, but if you think that getting rid of racism is easy, well, I have some non-US history to talk to you about in depth that the mods won't allow me to do here, lol.
I am a mixed race person born before Loving -- my existence was illegal when it started. They also acknowledged that it wasn't enough -- that they needed to revisit the concept (and they do, and many others have, and there are some incredible systems out there that sidestep the issues around racism entirely while still letting you have elves and dwarves and humans and goblins and blah blah).
It definitely existed, and the admitted that it did. That was why they changed it.
I will say that D&D doesn't have a xenophobic basis. Again, word-meaning-not what you think.
I will say that D&D is based in the inspirations and the biases and foibles of the many people that helped turn a miniatures game into a TTRPG, and all of them were products of their time (mostly from between 1860 and 1980) both in terms of the people and the inspirations. The shift away from racist analogues (metaphors is less accurate, more euphemistic) has happened mostly during the development and existence of 5e, as well, and has happened in tandem with the growth of the game and the changes in the business world overall.
So, yes, a lot of the specific being stuff has changed, but that isn't the only racialized structure within the larger system. So yes, there is still a lot of stuff -- and before you come at me on those, keep in mind I don't use Druids as written (mine are more more spirit conjurers) or Barbarians (I use a gladiator base type). I also don't use any inspiration material from between 1920 and 1980. So no Vance (oops, magic system), no Tolkien (oops, long lived elves, goblins), etc. And I haven't used racial modifiers since 1982 after we had that fight among my player group. I also don't use any published worlds or adventures.
Well, ok, I use a couple -- I worked phandelver into an area on my new campaign because of a joke from the one that just ended, and the radiant citadel stuff was too tempting.
I have homebrewed my own worlds, classes, races, and more for over 40 years. Because I already knew all of this stuff way back in the early 80's, before I began working in that area (as I just explained in a different thread, I am a sociologist and psychologist who works in human rights. Diversity and anti-racism, et al are literally my job).
You want ASI's in your world setting, despite their being based in racist ideas, cool -- do so. But they don't belong in a game that is played by as many different and diverse people who would see haat and be turned away from it -- and especially not when their presence is just one of the reasons why WotC doesn't have me spending more money on generic fantasy world starting with an F or an E. It was a business decision, and it had to do with money, and they were removed, and it only took a little over 40 years to do it, even though people raised the issue in 1977.
Lastly, I will point out a bit of humor you might find if, like me, you can laugh at yourself. I laugh at myself all the time -- I am an old lady who spends her free time making up a fantasy land for other people to prance around in. Violently. Ain't funnier than that.
This humor is that you say you think it is because it allows them to spend less time working on races, making it easier for them to skip over it. Well, as someone who has been doing the creation of races for damn near as long as the game exists, allow me to point out that it makes it a lot harder. And part of the reason why it is harder is because it is super easy to just lean into that idea that they should have different Ability scores. That idea has been around in the real world for 700 years. it is in our language, our laws, our habits, our idioms. We swim in it.
It is harder because it means you have to put more thought into what makes these races special, what gives them those special abilities, who do they have them, how does that impact and effect the other elements of their culture?
My new setting has Elfs who were created to be the shock troops -- the SEALs, the Green Berets, the Rangers -- of the Armies of the Gods during a 500 year long war. They have a tendency to lose their shit. Generational trauma. And Rage, the Berserker fit? That's present in all the peoples. Elfs are just more likely to fall into it. They are nt light footed, far seeing, sorts. They are deadly, dangerous, and the thought of an Elfin Ranger in my world gives me nightmares from a min/maxer standpoint (rangers got wildshape, plus they can craft weapons and armor out of nature, and then they are still fighters, so they can learn sword feats like chop someone behind a tree ten yards away but leave the tree alone).
Want me to go down a list of just some of the stuff that is still linked to racism that is extant in the game? Racial homelands, Druids, Barbarians, a bunch of the sub-classes, Clerics, racial languages, the presumption of default of humans, magic as a whole (it tends towards only a very western approach to it), -- you worry about "changing so much", and yet the ASI's? They are a compromise of the least reductive sort.
Now for the hilarity of it all, I should point out that the Goblins of my world live in a patriarchal, fascist military state that is very much xenophobic, and that they were bred for the same war before the Elfs, and one of the things done for them was that they are able to scavenge off the battlefield for survival and are strictly carnivorous. Well, most of them. Some get away from all of that and find out that the "good lands" are pretty darn racist towards them.
In game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The reality of racial ASIs is: if people want to play a stereotypical X, they're going to assign their ASIs in the stereotypical manner anyway, so it really doesn't matter unless people want to play outside of the stereotype.
I will point out that racial ASI means literally saying a given race is better at something or worse at something, and the moral and ethical real world consequences of that do not belong in an escapist game unless you like repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
These are fantasy races. The Hell do you mean "real world consequences?"
People discriminate against real life orcs and goblins all the time, don't you know?
Then again, ASI on races limit the options. When features became mostly defensive and utility-focused, they also became pretty agnostic to class choice, which is good. Who has ever played a tiefling wizard or a half-orc sorcerer? A small minority of players. Let's be real here, in 5e and all editions before it, races were picked for their ability score bonuses that complemented the chosen classes. So it was an illusion of choice for the most part.
I will point out that racial ASI means literally saying a given race is better at something or worse at something, and the moral and ethical real world consequences of that do not belong in an escapist game unless you like repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
As much as I agree, I want the +1/+2 to be just given for you to do on your own.
Moving to backgrounds is just as bad, as it funnels the rogue to take an urchin background, for example and it reinforces the idea of a caste system, as those who are urchins are naturally inclined to be thieves, or acolytes are naturally predisposed to priesthood.
And even if you want to argue that it doesn't do so, it still railroads you into those choices just as it does the orc barbarian.
Tasha's is a bit of a double edged sword in that regard: it removes some of the more controversial race analogies but it makes a player choice a bit less meaningful. (the background aspect is just making the same mistake if not a bit worse).
Moving to backgrounds is just as bad, as it funnels the rogue to take an urchin background
No, it really doesn't. The default assumption for One D&D appears to be that you'll define your own background, and even if you're using the prebuilt backgrounds it's really only a medium choice.
Moving to backgrounds is just as bad, as it funnels the rogue to take an urchin background
No, it really doesn't. The default assumption for One D&D appears to be that you'll define your own background, and even if you're using the prebuilt backgrounds it's really only a medium choice.
I disagree. They could have just left Tasha's +1/+2 and left it be.
They instead tied it to background. I initially thought it was a brilliant move, as it would emphasize the choice of a background rather than something you took for a random skill/language and an extra proficiency.
HOWEVER, the problem with race is that the the +1/+2 forces certain classes, and emphasizes certain stereotypes, the background ASI's do the same, but saying that you come from a crappy background you get the ASI's that will predetermine your job later on in life. An urchin wizard isn't going to be likely because the ASI for urchin isn't necessarily good for a wizard, though maybe I want it for the sleight of hand to do "magic tricks" or because my wizard has skills that give him flavor and uniqueness. This being just one example.
How about a charlatan that ends sub being chosen by a god to be its cleric? HELL of a story with that concept, but ASI to class just might not work as you'd like...Especially when they gave only enough backgrounds that each class had one MAYBE two backgrounds that had ASI's that aligned with what the class would seek.
I disagree. They could have just left Tasha's +1/+2 and left it be.
Honestly, the best place to put it would be just as part of attribute generation -- "generate your attributes in whatever way you like, then add +2 to one, +1 to another". Or just make it only applicable to die rolling, and point build becomes 34 points with the ability to buy up to 17.
I will point out that racial ASI means literally saying a given race is better at something or worse at something, and the moral and ethical real world consequences of that do not belong in an escapist game unless you like repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
These are fantasy races. The Hell do you mean "real world consequences?"
the little mermaid is a fairytale and yet…
the fantasy races BS is just that, BS, and while you may not have seen any real world consequences, plenty of others did and still do experience them.
not going to relitigate that crap fest, you have an account, there are literally hundreds of posts on it.
^implying that fantasy races are equivalent to real world races
Look, I get that SOME races have had depictions that clearly pull from racist caricatures, but in 5e as it is, that argument doesn't work as well.
Also, I have no idea why you brought up Little Mermaid. Something to do with how some idjits don't like that the new actress is black? Not sure how that relates to an argument about tabletop mechanics regarding literal non-human races/species/whatever would be the best term, because both have issues.
the point went over your head, so you don’t see how it relates is fairly honest.
again, lots of posts on the topic already, and note that those arguments are why they don’t exist anymore. That alone should tell you plenty about how “fantasy” anything still has real world impact.
The R word applies, and that’s why racial ASIs are out.
as others noted, the focus now is on the special capabilities of the not-human/inhuman/other than human beings, and those are changing for the better as the game advances, giving more flexibility.
personally, I think players getting more flexibility is cool, but I also don’t even do starting out ASIs myself, at all (so, not even from backgrounds). What you roll or point buy or assign is what you start with. Then you get better as you advance.
and there are more interesting abilities to give a group of people than bonuses to ability scores. Hell, there is a thread about bugbear PCs….
If you care about these supposed issues with races in D&D, why have races with different capabilities at all? Every character should just be human at that point, right? Hell, why play D&D at all? The game has so many concepts that from your logic would have to reflect xenophobic ideas of some sort. You should just move on to another game... Unless you're a hypocrite. Please, stop trying to peddle this argument. It's inherently flawed and problematic in general, and it's honestly quite offensive to compare non-human races to human ethnicities...
Well, yes, the game does, in fact, have significant and major issues, though calling them "xenophobic" is incorrect (indeed, your suggestion to get rid of non-humanrics is an example of xenophobia, not the reverse).
Why play pretend at all? Because when you are someone for whom the issues those things reflect, having an outlet for your frustration and a place where you can battle those same things is pretty incredible.
As a note, I have five different kinds of humans, all with different special abilities. And I have a bunch of other peoples, as well. None have ASIs and all feel more distinct than the default races do in the game as a core.
Hypocrite? Not at all. Hypocrisy is easy if you lack knowledge on a subject. I don't get that benefit, since dealing with all that crap is my day job.
Again, all of the stuff I am pointing out is why they were removed from the game. Done. Past tense. Because it was acknowledged that there is a huge degree of racist basis behind all of it.
That fight is over.
I see in a different post where you start analyzing the special abilities -- and that's cool. But ASI's for race are a legacy item that is gone.
That wasn't even a real suggestion, first of all. That was me taking your line of thought and applying it to similar issues with the game. Second, if I'm going by the logic you've presented to me, having non-human races is inherently xenophobic/racist, because some of these races actually have taken inspiration from racist depictions of human ethnicities in the past. So, them having abilities other races inherently don't have would have to be considered racist. If you disagree, you're actually a hypocrite.
Also, they didn't do it because they actually care. They did it because some people saw an issue and they wanted to act like they care. Let's be honest, WotC doesn't care. I mean, they changed "races" to "species," thinking that was somehow better, lmao. So, really, WotC didn't do it because of something that definitely exists as much as they did because some people perceived something.
Look... I'm not saying D&D doesn't inherently have a xenophobic basis. What I am saying is that there's a point where attempting to get away from that doesn't actually do anything good. These races HAVE changed over time from being racist metaphors to being unique non-human people for us to explore being in a fantasy setting, and the changes I take issue with take away from that. Also, I'm not even saying every player should be forced into having set ASI's. What I am saying is that suggested ASI's based in the race should be given, with Tasha's rule being an option. And honestly, I feel like WotC is using this change as an excuse to put less effort into races (even if it's not a whole lot of effort).
You *really* need to learn what xenophobia is. To paraphrase, it does not mean what you think it means. Once you do, we can talk more on that subject Until then, keep in mind that I just turned in a plan for adoption of a water control plan in a nation experiencing civil war that I have never set foot in as part of a job for the UN.
understanding xenophobia is literally part of my job.
Your note about racism (which is not synonymous with xenophobia -- they are not even approximate) is, in fact, accurate about original source -- but the same can be said for the humans, so we should probably remove Barbarians, Druids, Thieves, Clerics, all of the sub classes, Elves, dwarves, gnomes, and well, then damn, ain't we all hypocrites
Next, disagreeing wouldn't make me a hypocrite. It would depend on the nature of the disagreement and the basis for it, but that's really part of the first part of this response. Nuance matters.
"they don't really care"? You do realize that if they didn't really care they wouldn't have done anything? Money is just as reasonable a motive as decency. More reasonable, in fact, when dealing with an institution that is factually amoral. And no, Species is not better, and has only a smidge less overt BS attached to it, but if you think that getting rid of racism is easy, well, I have some non-US history to talk to you about in depth that the mods won't allow me to do here, lol.
I am a mixed race person born before Loving -- my existence was illegal when it started. They also acknowledged that it wasn't enough -- that they needed to revisit the concept (and they do, and many others have, and there are some incredible systems out there that sidestep the issues around racism entirely while still letting you have elves and dwarves and humans and goblins and blah blah).
It definitely existed, and the admitted that it did. That was why they changed it.
I will say that D&D doesn't have a xenophobic basis. Again, word-meaning-not what you think.
I will say that D&D is based in the inspirations and the biases and foibles of the many people that helped turn a miniatures game into a TTRPG, and all of them were products of their time (mostly from between 1860 and 1980) both in terms of the people and the inspirations. The shift away from racist analogues (metaphors is less accurate, more euphemistic) has happened mostly during the development and existence of 5e, as well, and has happened in tandem with the growth of the game and the changes in the business world overall.
So, yes, a lot of the specific being stuff has changed, but that isn't the only racialized structure within the larger system. So yes, there is still a lot of stuff -- and before you come at me on those, keep in mind I don't use Druids as written (mine are more more spirit conjurers) or Barbarians (I use a gladiator base type). I also don't use any inspiration material from between 1920 and 1980. So no Vance (oops, magic system), no Tolkien (oops, long lived elves, goblins), etc. And I haven't used racial modifiers since 1982 after we had that fight among my player group. I also don't use any published worlds or adventures.
Well, ok, I use a couple -- I worked phandelver into an area on my new campaign because of a joke from the one that just ended, and the radiant citadel stuff was too tempting.
I have homebrewed my own worlds, classes, races, and more for over 40 years. Because I already knew all of this stuff way back in the early 80's, before I began working in that area (as I just explained in a different thread, I am a sociologist and psychologist who works in human rights. Diversity and anti-racism, et al are literally my job).
You want ASI's in your world setting, despite their being based in racist ideas, cool -- do so. But they don't belong in a game that is played by as many different and diverse people who would see haat and be turned away from it -- and especially not when their presence is just one of the reasons why WotC doesn't have me spending more money on generic fantasy world starting with an F or an E. It was a business decision, and it had to do with money, and they were removed, and it only took a little over 40 years to do it, even though people raised the issue in 1977.
Lastly, I will point out a bit of humor you might find if, like me, you can laugh at yourself. I laugh at myself all the time -- I am an old lady who spends her free time making up a fantasy land for other people to prance around in. Violently. Ain't funnier than that.
This humor is that you say you think it is because it allows them to spend less time working on races, making it easier for them to skip over it. Well, as someone who has been doing the creation of races for damn near as long as the game exists, allow me to point out that it makes it a lot harder. And part of the reason why it is harder is because it is super easy to just lean into that idea that they should have different Ability scores. That idea has been around in the real world for 700 years. it is in our language, our laws, our habits, our idioms. We swim in it.
It is harder because it means you have to put more thought into what makes these races special, what gives them those special abilities, who do they have them, how does that impact and effect the other elements of their culture?
My new setting has Elfs who were created to be the shock troops -- the SEALs, the Green Berets, the Rangers -- of the Armies of the Gods during a 500 year long war. They have a tendency to lose their shit. Generational trauma. And Rage, the Berserker fit? That's present in all the peoples. Elfs are just more likely to fall into it. They are nt light footed, far seeing, sorts. They are deadly, dangerous, and the thought of an Elfin Ranger in my world gives me nightmares from a min/maxer standpoint (rangers got wildshape, plus they can craft weapons and armor out of nature, and then they are still fighters, so they can learn sword feats like chop someone behind a tree ten yards away but leave the tree alone).
Want me to go down a list of just some of the stuff that is still linked to racism that is extant in the game? Racial homelands, Druids, Barbarians, a bunch of the sub-classes, Clerics, racial languages, the presumption of default of humans, magic as a whole (it tends towards only a very western approach to it), -- you worry about "changing so much", and yet the ASI's? They are a compromise of the least reductive sort.
Now for the hilarity of it all, I should point out that the Goblins of my world live in a patriarchal, fascist military state that is very much xenophobic, and that they were bred for the same war before the Elfs, and one of the things done for them was that they are able to scavenge off the battlefield for survival and are strictly carnivorous. Well, most of them. Some get away from all of that and find out that the "good lands" are pretty darn racist towards them.
In game.
Xenophobia has been used MANY times to refer to prejudices of all sorts, by many people. It's a catch-all term, because just saying "prejudices" can be inaccurate and saying the "ists and phobes" is even more inaccurate. I'm not just referring to racism. I'm also referring to religious xenophobia. The fact you're getting hung up on this says a lot.
Honestly, after reading your blurb, the main thing I have to say is this: publish your stuff and make a new system for it if you want. Because yeah, if you think racial ASI's are racist, then the races inherently having magic and whatnot has gotta be even more racist. Think about it. Ever hear of the "magical PoC" trope, based in older stereotypes that non-whites have magical powers or whatever? If you publish your own stuff, you can get away from these issues. I'm not giving you shite or being sarcastic, by the way. I'm encouraging you to stick up for what you believe in in a way that doesn't make you a hypocrite. Just as I'm sticking for what I believe in. Ya know?
I'm also encouraging this because I genuinely think WotC doesn't care. I mean, they tried changing the lore for some races in MotM to supposedly feel less racist, but they fudged that up bad. Goblinoids went from being servants of an evil god to servants of an evil fey. Orcs are still inherently connected to a god that is for some reason inherently evil. Sure, some people there might actually care, but as a company, their end goal is making money for less effort.
One last thing, just so you understand my perspective. Yes, SOME racial ASIs were originally based in racist ideas (Orcs used to have a -2 in INT even in 5e, reflecting ideas of various non-whites), but not all of them are based in that. Many are simply based on in game lore and outside mythology in some cases. The reason I enforce them in my games is because I like giving my players an extra thing to cement that their character isn't human and that they're part of a group of people that isn't human. It adds to the fantasy when you've got inherent abilities, even if those abilities are different from those which your class would use.
Agree that floating ASIs don't make much sense on backgrounds, disagree that they make less sense than fixed racial ASIs. At this point, there's no reason to have them separate from rolling for stats, so it doesn't make much sense to stick them in another bit of the book.
Fixed racial ASIs are ass. It sucks that making an orc Warlock is actively shooting yourself in the foot. The rules should be there to support character ideas, not the other way around.
Elf subraces are about the same. You can choose between a changeable arcane spell and a faster speed. Just because they're recontextualized as choices within individual features doesn't mean they're any worse.
I like the new human. It's amazing that they finally get something unique (free inspiration on long rest) instead of just being the "normal guy with less stuff than everybody else" race. I've never liked the universal +1 myself because of how situational it's practicality is and how poorly it meshes with Standard Array.
I'm not sure how I feel about the hybrid rules, but I do know that it feels less awkward than giving only two hybrid races and leaving the rest to imagination.
I wouldn't hate an elf feature that somehow improves sight beyond Darkvision, but I don't think it's necessary for an effective elf species.
Making an Orc Warlock wouldn't be shooting yourself in the foot, lmao. You'd just use point buy to give yourself a higher CHA and eventually you'll be able to get to 20. No need to start at a 17 for your specific stat for every race.
Elf subraces are not the same. There's a bunch of stuff the subraces got in the PHB they don't get in UA. They're just bland now.
Honestly, the free inspiration on long rest is unique, I'll give you that, but the thing about Humans is that they're supposed to be well-rounded (+1 to everything), or adaptable (Variant). UA Human goes with the adaptable fantasy a little bit, but the inspiration feature feels... I don't know... Out of place? And I feel as if it's even more OP than the other races, which was already an issue with Human in some peoples' eyes.
The new Hybrid rules are literally just picking one race's mechanics and sticking with that. If you're a Half-Elf, your features don't reflect a blending of Human and Elf abilities, which is honestly shite.
Needing starting with a 14 or 15 in your main stat is shooting yourself in the foot. The game's bounded accuracy assumes that you start with a +3 modifier in your main stat, something you can't do with fixed racial ASIs unless they align with your class.
The 2014 high elf gives you one unreplaceable Wizard cantrip, a few weapon proficiencies, and an extra language. The 1D&D high elf gives you one replaceable Arcane cantrip, detect magic (quite powerful and thematic), and misty step (very powerful and thematic). The 2014 wood elf gives you 5 extra feet of movement, a few weapon proficiencies, and a very situational chance to Hide. The 1D&D wood elf gives you 5 extra feet of movement, druidcraft (very thematic), longstrider (very powerful, quite thematic), and pass without trace (incredibly powerful, very thematic). Unless you used the hell out of those few free weapon proficiencies, I really don't see how 1D&D is taking away from subraces.
Humans can accomplish great things despite their short lifespans because they possess a sheer determination that longer-lived species tend to lack. To me, that's infinitely more interesting and representative of humanity than "they're okay at most things". And things being out of balance is expected. That's not a fundamental flaw with the whole idea, that's something that can (and should) be neatly ironed out via the playtesting process.
In 2014, if you're a half-gnome, your features don't reflect a blending of human and gnome abilities, which is honestly shite, mostly because half-elves get neat tricks and you get left in the dust. Personally, I'd prefer there be no mechanical advantages to hybrids than only two possible mixes producing results.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about with the bonded accuracy thing, but I've made characters with +2 to their main stat a lot and have done perfectly fine. It's REALLY not that bad...
Sure, they might be more powerful, but you're missing one of the main points. They took the 1,3,5 spell approach to them all, which feels bland. Also, with Wood Elves, it's not quite thematic. In lore, they were always less magical than other Elves, but were also stronger and had heightened senses. I will agree with you on the High Elf, but would like to point out that their original 5e features were meant to reflect both their innate magic AND how their brains are developed differently.
EDIT: The weapon proficiencies reflected a connection Elves had to their god, Corellon, who was pretty good with bows and swords. Instead of a proficiency in these weapons though, Elves should have gotten a +1 bonus if they decide to use these weapons, or some other feature that can help them if they decide not to.
Well, you might like one specific viewpoint on Humans, but the truth is that both should be reflected in how Humans are designed. And only one is being reflected. I will say that the more I think about it, the more I'm okay with the inspiration thing, BUT the whole race as designed should be an alternate version of the Variant (or the base Human while the +1 to everything is Variant), rather than being the only option.
In 2014, you'd have to use homebrew to be a Half-Gnome, so your comparison kinda sucks. Making other races seemingly playable doesn't justify ruining races that already exist. They could have at least come up with a hybrid template of some sort. Shite, that's what I've been doing myself.
Bounded accuracy is the core math of the game. The ACs and to-hit bonuses of every single monster are based on it. You shouldn't fall short of what the core math of the game assumes just because of the species you picked.
My point wasn't that the subraces are more powerful, it's that they didn't really lose much of anything. Those 1st and 2nd level spells came at the cost of a couple incidental and barely-used features. And anyways, I don't think that you'll see a high elf casting detect magic, a wood elf casting pass without trace, and a drow casting darkness and say "well they're all basically the same thing". Spells have a broad scope.
But why should both "versions" of humans be reflected? The reason variant human was variant in 5e was because feats were an optional rule.
The fact that you can't be a half-gnome in 2014 is my whole point. In 2014, there are exactly 2 officially approved mixes, despite the countless species. That's lame. I think I've decided I don't love the new rules, but I'd honestly rather have no concrete rules at all than have WotC slap me in the face and say "half-gnomes are impossible!" To me, that's an improvement, if not a earth-shattering one.
Again, I've literally never had another player or myself suffer because of being at a +2. It REALLY isn't as much of an issue as you're making it out to be. If you're having that much of an issue, you might have dice that are weighted wrong or have really bad luck.
Okay, but you're still ignoring MY point, which is that the way they changed them feels bland.
Both versions should be there because they both reflect the abilities of humans in these worlds.
Then they should have made a Half-Gnome template, not the garbage "you're only one of the races mechanically" crap. It shows a lack of care on their part. If you can't see that, there's no point in continuing this argument.
Just because you haven't noticed an issue doesn't mean it's not there. The core math of the game should not be weighted against certain character ideas.
Your opinion, that the way they changed them feels bland, is subjective, and you haven't really given any points to back up your reasoning. I don't know what you want me to respond to.
"The abilities of humans in these worlds" can change between editions. A change shouldn't be resisted because it's different, because then the end result is always going to be a lack of change. If the abilities of humans in these worlds are going to change to be more focused on adaptability and perseverance than just "being okay at everything," then that's a change I will welcome.
They should have just made every single combination of two species? Methinks that would be a lot. I'm not at all trying to say the new system is perfect, just that the old system of only allowing the mixes with WotC-approved stats was pretty ass.
Present the math to me then. You're the one arguing about the math.
Let me use a more objective word for my issue with Elves... The 1,3,5 spell progression being used for all of them is simple compared to the PHB versions. The simplicity feels bland to me.
I'm not resisting it because it's different, I'm saying what's bad is that both aren't there as options. We had both options in regular 5e. Why can't they both be there in 5.5?
I'm not saying they should do that for every race, but they could do an overall template, or a couple overall templates. Half-human would be the most simple, probably.
It makes less sense because ASIs reflect inherent ability, not abilities attained through background/training.
They absolutely do not reflect that, otherwise you would not be able to increase you ASIs as you level up from gaining experience. ASIs are attained though experience & levelling up thus reflect your character's previous life experience & training via their background.
1st level ASI and level up ASI are different things, bub...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No, it is blind and stupid to pretend fantasy and fiction can be separated from the ideas and culture that inspired it. D&D is incredibly influenced by the American, White, Christian, and predominantly male perspective of the people who created it. Don't bury your head in the sand and pretend you are some alien being that hasn't had their world view, opinions, thoughts, attitudes and behaviours sculpted by your family, friends, media, language and culture since the moment you were born.
It doesn't make less sense. It makes a lot MORE sense.
Why wouldn't a Soldier have developed better Constitution as part of their focus on physical training?
Why wouldn't a Guide have developed their perception based attribute?
Why wouldn't a bookworm (Sage) have emphasized their Intelligence over their physical stats?
Having it be related to background is perfectly reasonable, because Ability Scores are things that you can emphasize and develop ... and people do exactly that kind of thing around their careers (either as part of preparing for the career, and over time as they develop their niche within that career). If ASI's weren't an actual part of the game, then it could be argued that they cannot be developed over time, so you're stuck with some mumbojumbo about whether or not you were born with it .. but that argument just doesn't hold water given the actual rules of the game say it's a thing that people develop with some measure of effort (where you put your ASI).
Does it also make some sense to that some species will have more of X and less of Y? The case can be made that one species, on average, might have more leverage based on their typical skeletal proportions, or that their brains tend to have better features for this or that, or their eyes have physiological features that lend themselves to certain things.
But as you pointed out elsewhere, they're fantasy species.
So we don't actually have any concrete statement that "M's are, on average, stronger than E's" or "It takes more effort (allocation of stat values) for an M to be as smart as an E, because E's are naturally smarter than M's on average." We can't even say that that is an actual thing at all (that M's or E's are naturally better at one thing than another, and there's no way around that base "talent"), because M's and E's don't actually exist in any way shape nor form, and even any lore about them might be based on non-objective observations (or that the species practices some form of infanticide for non-desirable traits). The idea that there is absolute concrete basis for one species having a higher aptitude than an another species, for EVERY individual in that species ... is not even remotely a valid statement when neither of those species actually exist. No such hypothesis can be tested. So it comes down to: what does the author of that lore say is the current thought about it? And those authors have made that statement: it isn't based on species.
And that doesn't even take into account the whole possible-fallacy of "talent" having an absolute physical basis, in otherwise healthy individuals (as opposed to apparent talents being a result of extra effort that came from VERY early developmental encouragement, and the subject trying to get more endorphins from the positive feedback from results of their efforts in that area), even in the real world with the one real species we have to work with for all of this. The most realistic part of the 5e species based Ability Score Bonuses was that (variant) Humans and Custom Lineage get to pick where they put their bonus. And there is no concrete argument that can be made that this shouldn't be a feature of every other species in the game.
Last: because Backgrounds are also not set in stone (examples that you can modify at your leisure), you can make modifications that match your idea of the species, and justify it as "they have better bone structure" or "they have larger brains" or "they have more capillaries in the brain for better oxygenation and energy distribution to/from the brain" or whatever pseudo-science someone wants to come up with. Nothing has been lost by moving it to the Background.
Would it be even more sensible to have made them independent of either the Species OR the Background? probably. Because then your justification for why you have a +2 in one thing, and a +1 in another (or three +1's) could be whatever you want: natural talent or whatever other fantasy someone has about how we get good at things ... or something more plausible about career training. But the flexibility of the Background rules pragmatically makes that the case already.
Again, I've literally never had another player or myself suffer because of being at a +2. It REALLY isn't as much of an issue as you're making it out to be. If you're having that much of an issue, you might have dice that are weighted wrong or have really bad luck.
Okay, but you're still ignoring MY point, which is that the way they changed them feels bland.
Both versions should be there because they both reflect the abilities of humans in these worlds.
Then they should have made a Half-Gnome template, not the garbage "you're only one of the races mechanically" crap. It shows a lack of care on their part. If you can't see that, there's no point in continuing this argument.
You're missing the point. I'm not saying D&D isn't any of those things. I've had issues with D&D's presentation of religion for a long time, but that's a discussion for another time. And honestly, it's nice to see some of the changes made ever since 0e, because it's gotten away (or made an effort to get away from) from the xenophobic ideals. My main point is that in their attempts to look like they care about distancing themselves from those ideals, they've created issues with the game and not even really succeeded at creating that distance. The only way to get rid of those ideals is to stop playing D&D, unfortunately.
Just because you haven't noticed an issue doesn't mean it's not there. The core math of the game should not be weighted against certain character ideas.
Your opinion, that the way they changed them feels bland, is subjective, and you haven't really given any points to back up your reasoning. I don't know what you want me to respond to.
"The abilities of humans in these worlds" can change between editions. A change shouldn't be resisted because it's different, because then the end result is always going to be a lack of change. If the abilities of humans in these worlds are going to change to be more focused on adaptability and perseverance than just "being okay at everything," then that's a change I will welcome.
They should have just made every single combination of two species? Methinks that would be a lot. I'm not at all trying to say the new system is perfect, just that the old system of only allowing the mixes with WotC-approved stats was pretty ass.
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)
That wasn't even a real suggestion, first of all. That was me taking your line of thought and applying it to similar issues with the game. Second, if I'm going by the logic you've presented to me, having non-human races is inherently xenophobic/racist, because some of these races actually have taken inspiration from racist depictions of human ethnicities in the past. So, them having abilities other races inherently don't have would have to be considered racist. If you disagree, you're actually a hypocrite.
Also, they didn't do it because they actually care. They did it because some people saw an issue and they wanted to act like they care. Let's be honest, WotC doesn't care. I mean, they changed "races" to "species," thinking that was somehow better, lmao. So, really, WotC didn't do it because of something that definitely exists as much as they did because some people perceived something.
Look... I'm not saying D&D doesn't inherently have a xenophobic basis. What I am saying is that there's a point where attempting to get away from that doesn't actually do anything good. These races HAVE changed over time from being racist metaphors to being unique non-human people for us to explore being in a fantasy setting, and the changes I take issue with take away from that. Also, I'm not even saying every player should be forced into having set ASI's. What I am saying is that suggested ASI's based in the race should be given, with Tasha's rule being an option. And honestly, I feel like WotC is using this change as an excuse to put less effort into races (even if it's not a whole lot of effort).
It makes less sense because ASIs reflect inherent ability, not abilities attained through background/training. Point buy and standard array are meant to reflect background/training. I haven't read anything in either the UA's or the books that suggests otherwise. Even Tasha's, where that rule was introduced, doesn't say that. It says that they were supposed to reinforce an archetype, but it doesn't clarify exactly if that means something like "High Elves are typically Eldritch Knights" or something like "High Elves are the Dexterous and Intelligent characters." Based on the text around it, I'd assume the latter? Also, even with that text, even if we go back to the PHB, ASI's are presented as being natural abilities, because these are fantasy races. Either way, what you're saying is kinda incorrect.
Now, I will give you that IF ASI's were redefined in the UA (which they weren't), then you're argument would MAKE some sense. Some backgrounds make perfect sense with their ASI's, but others feel like they were just thrown in there. For example, Criminals could have any ASI, let's be honest. However, as you said, backgrounds are presented in the UA as more fluid.
Regarding the second half of your argument, you are right, these are fantasy races and players and DMs are free to come up with their own lore. That said, in the specific settings we have, there is already tons of lore about these races and how they biologically have certain traits that are supposed to be reflected by their ASI's. I'm not saying racial ASI's should be forced by every DM. What I am saying is that WotC should actually put in some more effort when designing races, and that includes a short "suggested ASI" section...
They absolutely do not reflect that, otherwise you would not be able to increase you ASIs as you level up from gaining experience. ASIs are attained though experience & levelling up thus reflect your character's previous life experience & training via their background.
ASIs don't need to be redefined, because they mean exactly what I'm referring to. They are not inherent ability, they are developments that happen later in your career (no earlier than 4th level).
You do NOT get an ASI at 1st level (which is the only thing that would make sense of what you said). What you get at 1st level is not called an ASI (whether through species, background, or otherwise). Not in 5e, and not in OneD&D. ASI is specifically the Ability Score Increase you get through leveling up (in 5e, by default you get an ASI _or_ a Feat, depending on whether or not you were using the Feat rules ... in OneD&D, you get a Feat, and one of the Feats is the ASI Feat). I used that initialization twice, and both times I used it purposefully for the meaning the rules give the term.
You can get ASI's at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th levels (and Rogues and Fighters can get them a little more often than that). Which means that as you gain experience/etc. you develop certain Ability Scores enough to increase them. Those increases are experience/development based, and therefore not inherent ability. If they were inherent ability, you'd get it at 1st level. Neither 5e nor OneD&D allow you to get an ASI at first level.
For the official settings, that Lore is no longer valid. Full Stop.
It has been deprecated and superseded by the owner of those settings. There is no longer currently valid lore that justifies race/lineage/species ability score bonuses.
And, as was already pointed out, for your homebrew settings or at your game table, nothing stops you from forcing the Background ability score bonuses from being species based.
I think the new
racespecies system is fine. It could be better; I'd go further and make it even more flexible (and move further away from a nature/nurture divide).It's not bland, it's not boring, it doesn't fail to differentiate between the species. It's just different. People always worry about change.
Also, people have been arguing about this ever since pre-Tasha's, and the "controversey" flames have been fanned by bad actors for years now. People on D&D forums everywhere are on edge about this, for good reason. You (the OP) should be aware of that.
You *really* need to learn what xenophobia is. To paraphrase, it does not mean what you think it means. Once you do, we can talk more on that subject Until then, keep in mind that I just turned in a plan for adoption of a water control plan in a nation experiencing civil war that I have never set foot in as part of a job for the UN.
understanding xenophobia is literally part of my job.
Your note about racism (which is not synonymous with xenophobia -- they are not even approximate) is, in fact, accurate about original source -- but the same can be said for the humans, so we should probably remove Barbarians, Druids, Thieves, Clerics, all of the sub classes, Elves, dwarves, gnomes, and well, then damn, ain't we all hypocrites
Next, disagreeing wouldn't make me a hypocrite. It would depend on the nature of the disagreement and the basis for it, but that's really part of the first part of this response. Nuance matters.
"they don't really care"? You do realize that if they didn't really care they wouldn't have done anything? Money is just as reasonable a motive as decency. More reasonable, in fact, when dealing with an institution that is factually amoral. And no, Species is not better, and has only a smidge less overt BS attached to it, but if you think that getting rid of racism is easy, well, I have some non-US history to talk to you about in depth that the mods won't allow me to do here, lol.
I am a mixed race person born before Loving -- my existence was illegal when it started. They also acknowledged that it wasn't enough -- that they needed to revisit the concept (and they do, and many others have, and there are some incredible systems out there that sidestep the issues around racism entirely while still letting you have elves and dwarves and humans and goblins and blah blah).
It definitely existed, and the admitted that it did. That was why they changed it.
I will say that D&D doesn't have a xenophobic basis. Again, word-meaning-not what you think.
I will say that D&D is based in the inspirations and the biases and foibles of the many people that helped turn a miniatures game into a TTRPG, and all of them were products of their time (mostly from between 1860 and 1980) both in terms of the people and the inspirations. The shift away from racist analogues (metaphors is less accurate, more euphemistic) has happened mostly during the development and existence of 5e, as well, and has happened in tandem with the growth of the game and the changes in the business world overall.
So, yes, a lot of the specific being stuff has changed, but that isn't the only racialized structure within the larger system. So yes, there is still a lot of stuff -- and before you come at me on those, keep in mind I don't use Druids as written (mine are more more spirit conjurers) or Barbarians (I use a gladiator base type). I also don't use any inspiration material from between 1920 and 1980. So no Vance (oops, magic system), no Tolkien (oops, long lived elves, goblins), etc. And I haven't used racial modifiers since 1982 after we had that fight among my player group. I also don't use any published worlds or adventures.
Well, ok, I use a couple -- I worked phandelver into an area on my new campaign because of a joke from the one that just ended, and the radiant citadel stuff was too tempting.
I have homebrewed my own worlds, classes, races, and more for over 40 years. Because I already knew all of this stuff way back in the early 80's, before I began working in that area (as I just explained in a different thread, I am a sociologist and psychologist who works in human rights. Diversity and anti-racism, et al are literally my job).
You want ASI's in your world setting, despite their being based in racist ideas, cool -- do so. But they don't belong in a game that is played by as many different and diverse people who would see haat and be turned away from it -- and especially not when their presence is just one of the reasons why WotC doesn't have me spending more money on generic fantasy world starting with an F or an E. It was a business decision, and it had to do with money, and they were removed, and it only took a little over 40 years to do it, even though people raised the issue in 1977.
Lastly, I will point out a bit of humor you might find if, like me, you can laugh at yourself. I laugh at myself all the time -- I am an old lady who spends her free time making up a fantasy land for other people to prance around in. Violently. Ain't funnier than that.
This humor is that you say you think it is because it allows them to spend less time working on races, making it easier for them to skip over it. Well, as someone who has been doing the creation of races for damn near as long as the game exists, allow me to point out that it makes it a lot harder. And part of the reason why it is harder is because it is super easy to just lean into that idea that they should have different Ability scores. That idea has been around in the real world for 700 years. it is in our language, our laws, our habits, our idioms. We swim in it.
It is harder because it means you have to put more thought into what makes these races special, what gives them those special abilities, who do they have them, how does that impact and effect the other elements of their culture?
My new setting has Elfs who were created to be the shock troops -- the SEALs, the Green Berets, the Rangers -- of the Armies of the Gods during a 500 year long war. They have a tendency to lose their shit. Generational trauma. And Rage, the Berserker fit? That's present in all the peoples. Elfs are just more likely to fall into it. They are nt light footed, far seeing, sorts. They are deadly, dangerous, and the thought of an Elfin Ranger in my world gives me nightmares from a min/maxer standpoint (rangers got wildshape, plus they can craft weapons and armor out of nature, and then they are still fighters, so they can learn sword feats like chop someone behind a tree ten yards away but leave the tree alone).
Want me to go down a list of just some of the stuff that is still linked to racism that is extant in the game? Racial homelands, Druids, Barbarians, a bunch of the sub-classes, Clerics, racial languages, the presumption of default of humans, magic as a whole (it tends towards only a very western approach to it), -- you worry about "changing so much", and yet the ASI's? They are a compromise of the least reductive sort.
Now for the hilarity of it all, I should point out that the Goblins of my world live in a patriarchal, fascist military state that is very much xenophobic, and that they were bred for the same war before the Elfs, and one of the things done for them was that they are able to scavenge off the battlefield for survival and are strictly carnivorous. Well, most of them. Some get away from all of that and find out that the "good lands" are pretty darn racist towards them.
In game.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The reality of racial ASIs is: if people want to play a stereotypical X, they're going to assign their ASIs in the stereotypical manner anyway, so it really doesn't matter unless people want to play outside of the stereotype.
People discriminate against real life orcs and goblins all the time, don't you know?
Then again, ASI on races limit the options. When features became mostly defensive and utility-focused, they also became pretty agnostic to class choice, which is good. Who has ever played a tiefling wizard or a half-orc sorcerer? A small minority of players. Let's be real here, in 5e and all editions before it, races were picked for their ability score bonuses that complemented the chosen classes. So it was an illusion of choice for the most part.
As much as I agree, I want the +1/+2 to be just given for you to do on your own.
Moving to backgrounds is just as bad, as it funnels the rogue to take an urchin background, for example and it reinforces the idea of a caste system, as those who are urchins are naturally inclined to be thieves, or acolytes are naturally predisposed to priesthood.
And even if you want to argue that it doesn't do so, it still railroads you into those choices just as it does the orc barbarian.
Tasha's is a bit of a double edged sword in that regard: it removes some of the more controversial race analogies but it makes a player choice a bit less meaningful. (the background aspect is just making the same mistake if not a bit worse).
No, it really doesn't. The default assumption for One D&D appears to be that you'll define your own background, and even if you're using the prebuilt backgrounds it's really only a medium choice.
I disagree. They could have just left Tasha's +1/+2 and left it be.
They instead tied it to background. I initially thought it was a brilliant move, as it would emphasize the choice of a background rather than something you took for a random skill/language and an extra proficiency.
HOWEVER, the problem with race is that the the +1/+2 forces certain classes, and emphasizes certain stereotypes, the background ASI's do the same, but saying that you come from a crappy background you get the ASI's that will predetermine your job later on in life. An urchin wizard isn't going to be likely because the ASI for urchin isn't necessarily good for a wizard, though maybe I want it for the sleight of hand to do "magic tricks" or because my wizard has skills that give him flavor and uniqueness. This being just one example.
How about a charlatan that ends sub being chosen by a god to be its cleric? HELL of a story with that concept, but ASI to class just might not work as you'd like...Especially when they gave only enough backgrounds that each class had one MAYBE two backgrounds that had ASI's that aligned with what the class would seek.
Honestly, the best place to put it would be just as part of attribute generation -- "generate your attributes in whatever way you like, then add +2 to one, +1 to another". Or just make it only applicable to die rolling, and point build becomes 34 points with the ability to buy up to 17.
Xenophobia has been used MANY times to refer to prejudices of all sorts, by many people. It's a catch-all term, because just saying "prejudices" can be inaccurate and saying the "ists and phobes" is even more inaccurate. I'm not just referring to racism. I'm also referring to religious xenophobia. The fact you're getting hung up on this says a lot.
Honestly, after reading your blurb, the main thing I have to say is this: publish your stuff and make a new system for it if you want. Because yeah, if you think racial ASI's are racist, then the races inherently having magic and whatnot has gotta be even more racist. Think about it. Ever hear of the "magical PoC" trope, based in older stereotypes that non-whites have magical powers or whatever? If you publish your own stuff, you can get away from these issues. I'm not giving you shite or being sarcastic, by the way. I'm encouraging you to stick up for what you believe in in a way that doesn't make you a hypocrite. Just as I'm sticking for what I believe in. Ya know?
I'm also encouraging this because I genuinely think WotC doesn't care. I mean, they tried changing the lore for some races in MotM to supposedly feel less racist, but they fudged that up bad. Goblinoids went from being servants of an evil god to servants of an evil fey. Orcs are still inherently connected to a god that is for some reason inherently evil. Sure, some people there might actually care, but as a company, their end goal is making money for less effort.
One last thing, just so you understand my perspective. Yes, SOME racial ASIs were originally based in racist ideas (Orcs used to have a -2 in INT even in 5e, reflecting ideas of various non-whites), but not all of them are based in that. Many are simply based on in game lore and outside mythology in some cases. The reason I enforce them in my games is because I like giving my players an extra thing to cement that their character isn't human and that they're part of a group of people that isn't human. It adds to the fantasy when you've got inherent abilities, even if those abilities are different from those which your class would use.
Present the math to me then. You're the one arguing about the math.
Let me use a more objective word for my issue with Elves... The 1,3,5 spell progression being used for all of them is simple compared to the PHB versions. The simplicity feels bland to me.
I'm not resisting it because it's different, I'm saying what's bad is that both aren't there as options. We had both options in regular 5e. Why can't they both be there in 5.5?
I'm not saying they should do that for every race, but they could do an overall template, or a couple overall templates. Half-human would be the most simple, probably.
1st level ASI and level up ASI are different things, bub...