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 literally looked at the PHB and UA's when I wrote that reply. You're wrong. They're literally called ASI's at first level. Go read chapter 2 of the PHB and the first couple pages of the first 5.5e (calling it that because I feel like it) UAs. Also, the lore is not deprecated, because WotC is still using those settings.
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...
How are they different, they are still you Ability Scores. Ability Scores are Ability Scores. A newborn baby who can't even walk or talk or even see in focus doesn't have 16 Strength, nor 14 Dexterity, nor 15 Intelligence, nor 14 Wisdom.
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.
Nah, I actually like change, I just don't like when it feels as if no effort is put into directing that change for the better.
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...
How are they different, they are still you Ability Scores. Ability Scores are Ability Scores. A newborn baby who can't even walk or talk or even see in focus doesn't have 16 Strength, nor 14 Dexterity, nor 15 Intelligence, nor 14 Wisdom.
Newborn babies aren't player characters, lmao. Weird comparison that has no relation. And yes, they are different. One is a class feature/feat (PHB vs UA), one is a racial/background trait. Also, the I stands for something different in both. 1st level ASI is Increase, later ones are Improvement. They are different. If they were the same, they'd give the same improvement, but they don't. One gives a total 3 point boost and the other gives 2 points. Like... Regardless of how you feel about racial ASIs, at least know what you're talking about.
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.
The fact that the subraces fit into a neat little table compared to the page+ in 2014 doesn't necessarily mean they're simpler. Just better designed. The choice is even more important than it was before.
Maybe because not both are equal? And it would be pretty weird to have just one species out of all of them with a variant. Like I said, the only reason it happened in 5e was because of the situation feats were in.
An overall template might not suck. An overall template is also not even close to what 2014 has, so I also don't really see how it's relevant.
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)
Ability scores previously had racial factors in 1E through 5E: bonuses, penalties, limits, minimums, maximums, and some limitations based on gender. The racial factors are often explained as affecting the probability distribution. For example, each Dwarf character gains a +1 CON and -1 CHA in 1E because their race, on average, has a higher constitution and a lower charisma. However, there can still be one dwarf with an exceptionally low constitution and an extremely high charisma, one dwarf who is rare but still exists. Our table explains the new UA methods as a simpler way of building the characters you want while balancing the game issues. Designing the ability scores of your character now affects a character's effectiveness in the game rather than trying to explain how rare or unique your character is compared to every other person in your race or the world.
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.
The fact that the subraces fit into a neat little table compared to the page+ in 2014 doesn't necessarily mean they're simpler. Just better designed. The choice is even more important than it was before.
Maybe because not both are equal? And it would be pretty weird to have just one species out of all of them with a variant. Like I said, the only reason it happened in 5e was because of the situation feats were in.
An overall template might not suck. An overall template is also not even close to what 2014 has, so I also don't really see how it's relevant.
The math is from the dandd wiki, which is notorious for being flat out wrong.
Really? Because the choice feels less important now. No matter what, I just get spells that I might or might not already get through my class/subclass. Also, my issue isn't the fact that it fits into a ******* table. It's the fact that it's quite literally just "they're all magical and have different spells." It's definitely more bland than before. If you can't see the issue with that, stop arguing.
I mean, other races had variants before too, and others might end up getting them in the UAs for all we know. Eberron had all of the Dragonmarked variants. SCAG had Tiefling and Half-Elf variants. And honestly, the only reason Variant Human was more powerful than regular Human was because feats in regular 5e don't have the level prerequisites they should. So, there's no reason to make the regular Human not official other than WotC being weirdo's about ASI's.
It's relevant because I'm saying that we needed progression from what we had in 2014, and what we got is regression.
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.
The current playtest background rules are roll-your-own. The ones they give are just examples. You can trivially have a wizard who started as an urchin. You just put the +2 in intelligence, and say "I was an urchin".
Really, all the background rules are is: "You get a package of these ability bumps, languages, proficiencies, all of your choice. Make up a little story about how you got them."
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.
The fact that the subraces fit into a neat little table compared to the page+ in 2014 doesn't necessarily mean they're simpler. Just better designed. The choice is even more important than it was before.
Maybe because not both are equal? And it would be pretty weird to have just one species out of all of them with a variant. Like I said, the only reason it happened in 5e was because of the situation feats were in.
An overall template might not suck. An overall template is also not even close to what 2014 has, so I also don't really see how it's relevant.
The math is from the dandd wiki, which is notorious for being flat out wrong.
Really? Because the choice feels less important now. No matter what, I just get spells that I might or might not already get through my class/subclass. Also, my issue isn't the fact that it fits into a ******* table. It's the fact that it's quite literally just "they're all magical and have different spells." It's definitely more bland than before. If you can't see the issue with that, stop arguing.
I mean, other races had variants before too, and others might end up getting them in the UAs for all we know. Eberron had all of the Dragonmarked variants. SCAG had Tiefling and Half-Elf variants. And honestly, the only reason Variant Human was more powerful than regular Human was because feats in regular 5e don't have the level prerequisites they should. So, there's no reason to make the regular Human not official other than WotC being weirdo's about ASI's.
It's relevant because I'm saying that we needed progression from what we had in 2014, and what we got is regression.
Stop telling me to stop arguing. It's not the undeflectable offense you seem to think.
They're elves. They enter a semiconscious trance instead of sleeping. What's wrong with them being magical? I like elves being magical! And anyways, whether or not you, personally and subjectively, believe that subraces feel less important does not actually make them less important.
If we get two versions of humans, why don't we get variant elves, for people who want them to be more like the Norse elves? And why don't we get variant dragonborns, for people who want them to lean into the mystical side of dragons instead of just the obvious fire breath stuff?
I don't think we really got regression, though. Having only two allowed mixes allowed, both with abilities completely non-present in their respective halves, is about as far (if not further) from your idea as the new system is.
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)
It's relevant because I'm saying that we needed progression from what we had in 2014, and what we got is regression.
You do know that those words have actual meanings don't you, they aren't just synonyms for "good" and "bad". Progression means changing to something new and different, whereas regression is reverted back to something that existed before. To revert to the fixed species ASIs is by definition regression, while changing to a new system - linking them to background rather than species is definitionally progression.
1. Tasha's customizable races rule should be OPTIONAL, not built into every race. Set ASI's should be given for every race, with the Tasha's rule giving players the option not to take them if DMs allow it. Same could be said for spellcasting traits that let you choose your casting trait.
2. A lot of racial features just don't feel good, at least to me. The Elf and Tiefling subraces, for example, feel a bit more bland with all of them having the 1st, 3rd, 5th level spell progression, instead of the racial features they had before. Also, some races are missing their subraces, which means racial features end up missing as well.
3. Humans in particular feel bad with what is basically a new version of the variant human being forced on players. Some of us liked having the +1 to every stat.
4. Hybrid race rules basically becoming "you have to pick one," in terms of game mechanics is kinda dumb. If you're going to do Hybrid race rules, put more effort into it.
NOTE: Not everything about the races is bad. I actually like that Tieflings have subraces for the different alignments of the lower planes and Goliaths having subraces is pretty cool. Stonecunning is MUCH better now. The races also seem to lean a bit less into forcing proficiencies on players, which is nice. However, this leads me to my 5th point.
5. These proficiencies often reflected the lore of these races (NOT their cultures). Instead of forcing proficiencies, other bonuses could be given relating to said proficiencies. Elves, for example, instead of having Perception automatically, can get a +1 (or +2 or +1d4 or whatever) bonus, reflecting their heightened senses.
Essentially, I want races to reflect their lore, fulfill the fantasy of being said race, and feel significant mechanically. The versions in the UA start to do these things, but they fall short.
1. Tasha's customizable races rule should be OPTIONAL, not built into every race. Set ASI's should be given for every race, with the Tasha's rule giving players the option not to take them if DMs allow it. Same could be said for spellcasting traits that let you choose your casting trait.
2. A lot of racial features just don't feel good, at least to me. The Elf and Tiefling subraces, for example, feel a bit more bland with all of them having the 1st, 3rd, 5th level spell progression, instead of the racial features they had before. Also, some races are missing their subraces, which means racial features end up missing as well.
3. Humans in particular feel bad with what is basically a new version of the variant human being forced on players. Some of us liked having the +1 to every stat.
4. Hybrid race rules basically becoming "you have to pick one," in terms of game mechanics is kinda dumb. If you're going to do Hybrid race rules, put more effort into it.
NOTE: Not everything about the races is bad. I actually like that Tieflings have subraces for the different alignments of the lower planes and Goliaths having subraces is pretty cool. Stonecunning is MUCH better now. The races also seem to lean a bit less into forcing proficiencies on players, which is nice. However, this leads me to my 5th point.
5. These proficiencies often reflected the lore of these races (NOT their cultures). Instead of forcing proficiencies, other bonuses could be given relating to said proficiencies. Elves, for example, instead of having Perception automatically, can get a +1 (or +2 or +1d4 or whatever) bonus, reflecting their heightened senses.
Essentially, I want races to reflect their lore, fulfill the fantasy of being said race, and feel significant mechanically. The versions in the UA start to do these things, but they fall short.
Are there no small weak orcs. Are there no super intelligent dwarves. ASI had no reason to be tied to race. It was a silly mechanic and it’s good that they are moving away from it. Orcs are bigger than other races, powerful build. Dwarves are s naturally sturdy compared to other races, dwarven toughness. You can define the differences in races without ASI which defines the difference in player options. Playing the original Orc as a Wizard is literally a bad choice. It should not be that way.
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.
The fact that the subraces fit into a neat little table compared to the page+ in 2014 doesn't necessarily mean they're simpler. Just better designed. The choice is even more important than it was before.
Maybe because not both are equal? And it would be pretty weird to have just one species out of all of them with a variant. Like I said, the only reason it happened in 5e was because of the situation feats were in.
An overall template might not suck. An overall template is also not even close to what 2014 has, so I also don't really see how it's relevant.
The math is from the dandd wiki, which is notorious for being flat out wrong.
Really? Because the choice feels less important now. No matter what, I just get spells that I might or might not already get through my class/subclass. Also, my issue isn't the fact that it fits into a ******* table. It's the fact that it's quite literally just "they're all magical and have different spells." It's definitely more bland than before. If you can't see the issue with that, stop arguing.
I mean, other races had variants before too, and others might end up getting them in the UAs for all we know. Eberron had all of the Dragonmarked variants. SCAG had Tiefling and Half-Elf variants. And honestly, the only reason Variant Human was more powerful than regular Human was because feats in regular 5e don't have the level prerequisites they should. So, there's no reason to make the regular Human not official other than WotC being weirdo's about ASI's.
It's relevant because I'm saying that we needed progression from what we had in 2014, and what we got is regression.
Stop telling me to stop arguing. It's not the undeflectable offense you seem to think.
They're elves. They enter a semiconscious trance instead of sleeping. What's wrong with them being magical? I like elves being magical! And anyways, whether or not you, personally and subjectively, believe that subraces feel less important does not actually make them less important.
If we get two versions of humans, why don't we get variant elves, for people who want them to be more like the Norse elves? And why don't we get variant dragonborns, for people who want them to lean into the mystical side of dragons instead of just the obvious fire breath stuff?
I don't think we really got regression, though. Having only two allowed mixes allowed, both with abilities completely non-present in their respective halves, is about as far (if not further) from your idea as the new system is.
I read that and again, none of that is math that explains how having a +2 instead of a +3 at level 1 is somehow a punishment.
I'm not saying it doesn't make them important. And I'm saying to stop arguing because we're going in ******* circles, because you're not understanding what I'm saying. It's like I'm talking to a wall when it comes to this issue.
Why not?! Hey! Subraces are already like variants anyway!
Yes, it was regression. Instead of unique mechanics for hybrid races, it basically turned into "just pick one." In terms of complexity, it regressed.
It's relevant because I'm saying that we needed progression from what we had in 2014, and what we got is regression.
You do know that those words have actual meanings don't you, they aren't just synonyms for "good" and "bad". Progression means changing to something new and different, whereas regression is reverted back to something that existed before. To revert to the fixed species ASIs is by definition regression, while changing to a new system - linking them to background rather than species is definitionally progression.
Once again, someone is misunderstanding what I'm saying... I NEVER said players and DMs had to be forced into using those scores. I'm saying they should be provided as options. OPTIONS.
"regression" would imply that we somehow moved back and in the context carries the connotation of negativity -- that doing so is bad.
That is wholly a matter of perspective. Indeed, by that measure, all the OSR efforts are regressive, and it would be really hard to say anything about Pathfinder without having to admit that it is intentionally regressive.
But I don't find any of that regressive -- and indeed, having played the game through all its iterations, I can say that all of these changes are entirely progressive, objectively, since they serve to expand and continue the tradition of expanding the racial options and the racial capabilities while also moving away from some of the more overt flat out pastiches from well known works that are not RPG based.
I mean, originally there were Elves, Dwarves, Humans, Gnomes, and Halflings. That was it. Regressive would be reducing the number of PC races, not increasing them. Regressive would be limiting them, not increasing their capability sets.
So perhaps word choice was poor, as it isn't regressive -- if anything, it is the antithesis of regressive unless you have an investment in the idea and notion that some beings are inherently better than others as opposed to merely different. Which seems to be the crux of the issue, really...
"Better" in a game system is something that is quantified -- a number is assigned. Different is not. Special abilities are not something that makes someone better or worse, it makes them different. ASIs make someone better or worse at something.
To think of "special abilities" as making someone better or worse, (again, in a game system) requires quantifying those things in a comparative way to whatever the default basis is. Do that among the races themselves and, well, yes, you have racism.
Do that among the larger setting as a scaled endeavor and you have a different degree of calculus involved, as now it becomes about what might be more or less useful in a broader world against unknown challenges. That makes the challenge of choosing a race more important, not less, and makes the decisions that follow more important, not less.
It suddenly becomes about teamwork and survival instead of just about "oh, I am the bestest and mostest", and that means it undercuts the min-max ideals of a lot of folks (and that the game designers have encouraged over the last three editions) and that, in turn, renders most of the readily found advice on builds somewhat useless.
So less creative min-max types have to come up with new ways of figuring out how to do it. I can see that making them upset -- my own rather large group of players has more than a few min-max types, but they tend to take the changes in stride because they enjoy the challenge and don't rely too much on outside advice. But as we have worked on the new setting for my next campaign, they have put in several requests, many of which I have taken and many I have turned down or used in a different way.
They are how Monks managed to stay in the game, and how I added a construct to the races, and why they giggle when I talk about how parties will appear (humans, by and large, are about a foot taller than the other peoples of my world at the minimum, excepting one -- and that one is generally about six inches taller than them). But I have PC peoples who can range from 20" tall (50cm) to 8 feet (250 cm) -- just most of them are under 5 feet (150cm) -- Humans being the ones most likely to be taller.
of course, I also don't use race or species. I use "peoples" and "heritage". And all of them are part of The Whole of Humanity, so even the phrase "non-human" has zero meaning and would get someone using it laughed at unless they were talking about a nonsentient being or maybe dragons.
Ah, well.
It isn't regressive, though. At no point has any of this made anything more like it "used to be". And in all cases, it has all made things more open, more expansive, more interesting --- unless you have a hard time escaping a certain kind of mindset, of course.
I use the word regressive specifically to refer to hybrid race mechanics, which did regress in a way. If you actually look at 0e documents, hybrid races didn't exist until Supplement 1 - Greyhawk, iirc.
1. Tasha's customizable races rule should be OPTIONAL, not built into every race. Set ASI's should be given for every race, with the Tasha's rule giving players the option not to take them if DMs allow it. Same could be said for spellcasting traits that let you choose your casting trait.
2. A lot of racial features just don't feel good, at least to me. The Elf and Tiefling subraces, for example, feel a bit more bland with all of them having the 1st, 3rd, 5th level spell progression, instead of the racial features they had before. Also, some races are missing their subraces, which means racial features end up missing as well.
3. Humans in particular feel bad with what is basically a new version of the variant human being forced on players. Some of us liked having the +1 to every stat.
4. Hybrid race rules basically becoming "you have to pick one," in terms of game mechanics is kinda dumb. If you're going to do Hybrid race rules, put more effort into it.
NOTE: Not everything about the races is bad. I actually like that Tieflings have subraces for the different alignments of the lower planes and Goliaths having subraces is pretty cool. Stonecunning is MUCH better now. The races also seem to lean a bit less into forcing proficiencies on players, which is nice. However, this leads me to my 5th point.
5. These proficiencies often reflected the lore of these races (NOT their cultures). Instead of forcing proficiencies, other bonuses could be given relating to said proficiencies. Elves, for example, instead of having Perception automatically, can get a +1 (or +2 or +1d4 or whatever) bonus, reflecting their heightened senses.
Essentially, I want races to reflect their lore, fulfill the fantasy of being said race, and feel significant mechanically. The versions in the UA start to do these things, but they fall short.
1. Tasha's customizable races rule should be OPTIONAL, not built into every race. Set ASI's should be given for every race, with the Tasha's rule giving players the option not to take them if DMs allow it. Same could be said for spellcasting traits that let you choose your casting trait.
2. A lot of racial features just don't feel good, at least to me. The Elf and Tiefling subraces, for example, feel a bit more bland with all of them having the 1st, 3rd, 5th level spell progression, instead of the racial features they had before. Also, some races are missing their subraces, which means racial features end up missing as well.
3. Humans in particular feel bad with what is basically a new version of the variant human being forced on players. Some of us liked having the +1 to every stat.
4. Hybrid race rules basically becoming "you have to pick one," in terms of game mechanics is kinda dumb. If you're going to do Hybrid race rules, put more effort into it.
NOTE: Not everything about the races is bad. I actually like that Tieflings have subraces for the different alignments of the lower planes and Goliaths having subraces is pretty cool. Stonecunning is MUCH better now. The races also seem to lean a bit less into forcing proficiencies on players, which is nice. However, this leads me to my 5th point.
5. These proficiencies often reflected the lore of these races (NOT their cultures). Instead of forcing proficiencies, other bonuses could be given relating to said proficiencies. Elves, for example, instead of having Perception automatically, can get a +1 (or +2 or +1d4 or whatever) bonus, reflecting their heightened senses.
Essentially, I want races to reflect their lore, fulfill the fantasy of being said race, and feel significant mechanically. The versions in the UA start to do these things, but they fall short.
Are there no small weak orcs. Are there no super intelligent dwarves. ASI had no reason to be tied to race. It was a silly mechanic and it’s good that they are moving away from it. Orcs are bigger than other races, powerful build. Dwarves are s naturally sturdy compared to other races, dwarven toughness. You can define the differences in races without ASI which defines the difference in player options. Playing the original Orc as a Wizard is literally a bad choice. It should not be that way.
It was tied to race because of lore stuff. And again, I'm fine with the Tasha's rule existing, but racial ASI's should still be an OPTION for tables to use.
The way I see it, pre-Tasha's minimum for a regular humanoid NPC tended to be was 6, without ASIs. So, a weak Orc would exist, they'd just have an 8 in STR instead of a 6. And a Dwarf could be highly intelligent, at the cost of other stats being lower, but their Con would never go below 8.
Once again, someone is misunderstanding what I'm saying... I NEVER said players and DMs had to be forced into using those scores. I'm saying they should be provided as options. OPTIONS.
They are options. There's absolutely nothing preventing the DM from telling people how to use their ASIs. What they aren't is printed options.
Once again, someone is misunderstanding what I'm saying... I NEVER said players and DMs had to be forced into using those scores. I'm saying they should be provided as options. OPTIONS.
They are options. There's absolutely nothing preventing the DM from telling people how to use their ASIs. What they aren't is printed options.
Fair point, but... The refusal to print them and tie them to Backgrounds instead feels a bit tacky.
"regression" would imply that we somehow moved back and in the context carries the connotation of negativity -- that doing so is bad.
I use the word regressive specifically to refer to hybrid race mechanics, which did regress in a way. If you actually look at 0e documents, hybrid races didn't exist until Supplement 1 - Greyhawk, iirc.
No, you did not.
But, that aside, hybrid races didn't go away, either. So there still was no regression.
Your argument continues to boil down to "The Official Rules should add back in overt racism."
It ain't happening.
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
It's relevant because I'm saying that we needed progression from what we had in 2014, and what we got is regression.
You do know that those words have actual meanings don't you, they aren't just synonyms for "good" and "bad". Progression means changing to something new and different, whereas regression is reverted back to something that existed before. To revert to the fixed species ASIs is by definition regression, while changing to a new system - linking them to background rather than species is definitionally progression.
Once again, someone is misunderstanding what I'm saying... I NEVER said players and DMs had to be forced into using those scores. I'm saying they should be provided as options. OPTIONS.
If it’s just options then you can make all your Orcs strong and all your Elves dexterous
"regression" would imply that we somehow moved back and in the context carries the connotation of negativity -- that doing so is bad.
I use the word regressive specifically to refer to hybrid race mechanics, which did regress in a way. If you actually look at 0e documents, hybrid races didn't exist until Supplement 1 - Greyhawk, iirc.
No, you did not.
But, that aside, hybrid races didn't go away, either. So there still was no regression.
Your argument continues to boil down to "The Official Rules should add back in overt racism."
It ain't happening.
"No, you did not." The Hell do you mean? Because I didn't use the word "regressive" until hybrid race rules came up. If you're going to continue arguing, don't presume to understand what I'm saying when it's clear you don't.
And hybrid races didn't explicitly go away, but in terms of game mechanics, they might as well not exist...
My argument does not boil down to "the official rules should add back overt racism," because: 1. My entire argument is about races in the UAs in general, not just the ASIs, and a lot of the stuff I'm arguing for doesn't have anything to do with the racist ideas certain D&D concepts were based on. 2. Even if my issue was only with ASIs, it's STILL not overt racism. A good majority of the ASIs are based on in-lore creations that have nothing to do with that. For example, Aasimar and Tieflings had a CHA bonus because of their outer plane ancestry and how it supernaturally empowers them. Dragonborn have a bonus to STR and CHA because they're DRAGONborn... I'll admit, some of them were ORIGINALLY intended to reinforce certain racist tropes. Orcs, for example had their -2 INT even in 5e, to reflect racist ideas of non-white people. However, they got rid of that -2 and kept the bonuses not just for the sake of game balance, but also because with the cap for every ability score being at 20 anyway, no race is truly superior to any other. The Racial ASI as it is in 5e is there not to reinforce racist tropes, but to show that while some people might have natural abilities, everyone has the potential to grow to a maximum that is the same as everyone else's maximum. Is tying it to race a weird way to do that? A bit, yeah, but it flows better with the fantasy of living in a world with non-human humanoids.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I literally looked at the PHB and UA's when I wrote that reply. You're wrong. They're literally called ASI's at first level. Go read chapter 2 of the PHB and the first couple pages of the first 5.5e (calling it that because I feel like it) UAs. Also, the lore is not deprecated, because WotC is still using those settings.
How are they different, they are still you Ability Scores. Ability Scores are Ability Scores. A newborn baby who can't even walk or talk or even see in focus doesn't have 16 Strength, nor 14 Dexterity, nor 15 Intelligence, nor 14 Wisdom.
Nah, I actually like change, I just don't like when it feels as if no effort is put into directing that change for the better.
Newborn babies aren't player characters, lmao. Weird comparison that has no relation. And yes, they are different. One is a class feature/feat (PHB vs UA), one is a racial/background trait. Also, the I stands for something different in both. 1st level ASI is Increase, later ones are Improvement. They are different. If they were the same, they'd give the same improvement, but they don't. One gives a total 3 point boost and the other gives 2 points. Like... Regardless of how you feel about racial ASIs, at least know what you're talking about.
The Math: https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Understanding_Bounded_Accuracy_(5e_Guideline)
The fact that the subraces fit into a neat little table compared to the page+ in 2014 doesn't necessarily mean they're simpler. Just better designed. The choice is even more important than it was before.
Maybe because not both are equal? And it would be pretty weird to have just one species out of all of them with a variant. Like I said, the only reason it happened in 5e was because of the situation feats were in.
An overall template might not suck. An overall template is also not even close to what 2014 has, so I also don't really see how it's relevant.
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)
Ability scores previously had racial factors in 1E through 5E: bonuses, penalties, limits, minimums, maximums, and some limitations based on gender. The racial factors are often explained as affecting the probability distribution. For example, each Dwarf character gains a +1 CON and -1 CHA in 1E because their race, on average, has a higher constitution and a lower charisma. However, there can still be one dwarf with an exceptionally low constitution and an extremely high charisma, one dwarf who is rare but still exists. Our table explains the new UA methods as a simpler way of building the characters you want while balancing the game issues. Designing the ability scores of your character now affects a character's effectiveness in the game rather than trying to explain how rare or unique your character is compared to every other person in your race or the world.
The math is from the dandd wiki, which is notorious for being flat out wrong.
Really? Because the choice feels less important now. No matter what, I just get spells that I might or might not already get through my class/subclass. Also, my issue isn't the fact that it fits into a ******* table. It's the fact that it's quite literally just "they're all magical and have different spells." It's definitely more bland than before. If you can't see the issue with that, stop arguing.
I mean, other races had variants before too, and others might end up getting them in the UAs for all we know. Eberron had all of the Dragonmarked variants. SCAG had Tiefling and Half-Elf variants. And honestly, the only reason Variant Human was more powerful than regular Human was because feats in regular 5e don't have the level prerequisites they should. So, there's no reason to make the regular Human not official other than WotC being weirdo's about ASI's.
It's relevant because I'm saying that we needed progression from what we had in 2014, and what we got is regression.
The current playtest background rules are roll-your-own. The ones they give are just examples. You can trivially have a wizard who started as an urchin. You just put the +2 in intelligence, and say "I was an urchin".
Really, all the background rules are is: "You get a package of these ability bumps, languages, proficiencies, all of your choice. Make up a little story about how you got them."
Stop telling me to stop arguing. It's not the undeflectable offense you seem to think.
It's literally at the top of the page I gave you, but here. The Math 2: https://web.archive.org/web/20140715051206/http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604
They're elves. They enter a semiconscious trance instead of sleeping. What's wrong with them being magical? I like elves being magical! And anyways, whether or not you, personally and subjectively, believe that subraces feel less important does not actually make them less important.
If we get two versions of humans, why don't we get variant elves, for people who want them to be more like the Norse elves? And why don't we get variant dragonborns, for people who want them to lean into the mystical side of dragons instead of just the obvious fire breath stuff?
I don't think we really got regression, though. Having only two allowed mixes allowed, both with abilities completely non-present in their respective halves, is about as far (if not further) from your idea as the new system is.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
You do know that those words have actual meanings don't you, they aren't just synonyms for "good" and "bad". Progression means changing to something new and different, whereas regression is reverted back to something that existed before. To revert to the fixed species ASIs is by definition regression, while changing to a new system - linking them to background rather than species is definitionally progression.
Are there no small weak orcs. Are there no super intelligent dwarves. ASI had no reason to be tied to race. It was a silly mechanic and it’s good that they are moving away from it. Orcs are bigger than other races, powerful build. Dwarves are s naturally sturdy compared to other races, dwarven toughness. You can define the differences in races without ASI which defines the difference in player options. Playing the original Orc as a Wizard is literally a bad choice. It should not be that way.
I read that and again, none of that is math that explains how having a +2 instead of a +3 at level 1 is somehow a punishment.
I'm not saying it doesn't make them important. And I'm saying to stop arguing because we're going in ******* circles, because you're not understanding what I'm saying. It's like I'm talking to a wall when it comes to this issue.
Why not?! Hey! Subraces are already like variants anyway!
Yes, it was regression. Instead of unique mechanics for hybrid races, it basically turned into "just pick one." In terms of complexity, it regressed.
Once again, someone is misunderstanding what I'm saying... I NEVER said players and DMs had to be forced into using those scores. I'm saying they should be provided as options. OPTIONS.
I use the word regressive specifically to refer to hybrid race mechanics, which did regress in a way. If you actually look at 0e documents, hybrid races didn't exist until Supplement 1 - Greyhawk, iirc.
It was tied to race because of lore stuff. And again, I'm fine with the Tasha's rule existing, but racial ASI's should still be an OPTION for tables to use.
The way I see it, pre-Tasha's minimum for a regular humanoid NPC tended to be was 6, without ASIs. So, a weak Orc would exist, they'd just have an 8 in STR instead of a 6. And a Dwarf could be highly intelligent, at the cost of other stats being lower, but their Con would never go below 8.
They are options. There's absolutely nothing preventing the DM from telling people how to use their ASIs. What they aren't is printed options.
Fair point, but... The refusal to print them and tie them to Backgrounds instead feels a bit tacky.
No, you did not.
But, that aside, hybrid races didn't go away, either. So there still was no regression.
Your argument continues to boil down to "The Official Rules should add back in overt racism."
It ain't happening.
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
If it’s just options then you can make all your Orcs strong and all your Elves dexterous
"No, you did not." The Hell do you mean? Because I didn't use the word "regressive" until hybrid race rules came up. If you're going to continue arguing, don't presume to understand what I'm saying when it's clear you don't.
And hybrid races didn't explicitly go away, but in terms of game mechanics, they might as well not exist...
My argument does not boil down to "the official rules should add back overt racism," because: 1. My entire argument is about races in the UAs in general, not just the ASIs, and a lot of the stuff I'm arguing for doesn't have anything to do with the racist ideas certain D&D concepts were based on. 2. Even if my issue was only with ASIs, it's STILL not overt racism. A good majority of the ASIs are based on in-lore creations that have nothing to do with that. For example, Aasimar and Tieflings had a CHA bonus because of their outer plane ancestry and how it supernaturally empowers them. Dragonborn have a bonus to STR and CHA because they're DRAGONborn... I'll admit, some of them were ORIGINALLY intended to reinforce certain racist tropes. Orcs, for example had their -2 INT even in 5e, to reflect racist ideas of non-white people. However, they got rid of that -2 and kept the bonuses not just for the sake of game balance, but also because with the cap for every ability score being at 20 anyway, no race is truly superior to any other. The Racial ASI as it is in 5e is there not to reinforce racist tropes, but to show that while some people might have natural abilities, everyone has the potential to grow to a maximum that is the same as everyone else's maximum. Is tying it to race a weird way to do that? A bit, yeah, but it flows better with the fantasy of living in a world with non-human humanoids.