This UA is pretty disappointing honestly. ASI traits are not cultural. Like a Kobold barbarian should totally have a harder time in an arm wrestle with a goliath barbarian, thus their strength differences. I was just going to leave this rule in tasha's and move on, so it's sad to see it looks like their direction for the franchise as a whole moving forward. I'm a DM, so I suppose I can just house rule in the racial ASIs :/
A goliath is still thematically stronger than a kobold. Firstly, because a goliath is medium and a kobold is small, a goliath can wield heavy weapons without disadvantage. It doesn't matter if they both have a 20 in Strength, the kobold still can't wield that weapon as effectively as the goliath. Similarly, the goliath has the "powerful build" feature which means they count as Large for carrying capacity and how much they can pull, drag, or lift.
So while, yes, a kobold barbarian could potentially beat a goliath barbarian in arm wrestling (a contested Athletics check, presumably) there are plenty of other aspects to their race that aren't tied to ASIs (size and racial features) that will make the goliath still stand out as the stronger of the two barbarians, both with potential DPS in combat using great weapons and with being able to move heavy objects with apparent ease.
Not to mention, even with traditional ASI assignment, a kobold barbarian could still eventually have a score of 20 in strength and beat that goliath in arm wrestling. It would just take an extra ASI level to do it. What you are describing being a problem was already completely possible using the traditional rules, it just took a few extra levels.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
To be fair, you could deal with 99% of the "But clearly stats aren't just cultural" examples by making reduced strength a feature of size: if you choose to play a Small PC, you get -2 Strength (or go with the 3e version: you have reduced carry but also reduced equipment weight). You would need something to compensate for this, but small characters having low strength is not going to offend significant numbers of people.
This UA is pretty disappointing honestly. ASI traits are not cultural. Like a Kobold barbarian should totally have a harder time in an arm wrestle with a goliath barbarian, thus their strength differences. I was just going to leave this rule in tasha's and move on, so it's sad to see it looks like their direction for the franchise as a whole moving forward. I'm a DM, so I suppose I can just house rule in the racial ASIs :/
Hi, before this thread continues to devolve into the usual who moved my cheese broadsides the above linked threads largely follow, maybe we can direct this to the actual discussion of the UA and not "where D&D is going" globally?
If you were to house rule specific ASI's to lineages presented in the UA, where do you think they essentially need to go for Dhamphyr, Hexblood and Reborn? Regardless of what you may think of the new ASI rules applied to beings game-wide, in these instances I see no need to bind the ASIs to particular stats. The ASI mobility in the context of these lineages actually works really well and can be used to mechanically illustrate aspects of the variety of gothic origins each lineage could represent, most particularly with the reborn.
I mean, kobold vs Goliath was just an example, I could just have easily used Orc intelligence instead. And the fact that it could be overcome with "just a few levels" is ironically the same argument I make. It's a nice flavor, and with a little more work your character could match one that's more naturally attuned to the trait in question, so why remove it?
Also, it was made a point way earlier in the thread that this particular UA makes some bold comments on what the future of the game will bring globally, and it was a perfectly acceptable line of conversation then, and I think my comment was on point for both accounts anyway.
I'd probably give less bonus to dex for a reborn, being undead and all, maybe the bonus there should be con? Etc.
Also not entirely onboard with a "blanket" over race concept, that just overcomplcates things, players have enough trouble remembering the rules as is, I like that 5e has been streamlined. I like that these races overwrite the original class traits, but then I think they should be full races, and not missing ASIs.
Also not entirely onboard with a "blanket" over race concept, that just overcomplcates things,
What, Tasha's race rules? No dude. It makes it dead simple. It basically makes every race the same. "Two to one ability, one to one ability, and whatever your race's powers are."
Also not entirely onboard with a "blanket" over race concept, that just overcomplcates things,
What, Tasha's race rules? No dude. It makes it dead simple. It basically makes every race the same. "Two to one ability, one to one ability, and whatever your race's powers are."
I think the poster may be speaking to how the UA lineages may well write over racial traits as the UA currently presents their working. I'm fine with it on balance grounds, but I can see that bothering a lot of other players.
I mean, kobold vs Goliath was just an example, I could just have easily used Orc intelligence instead. And the fact that it could be overcome with "just a few levels" is ironically the same argument I make. It's a nice flavor, and with a little more work your character could match one that's more naturally attuned to the trait in question, so why remove it?
I think because essentializing ASIs begs the question of what "naturally attuned" means.
Also, it was made a point way earlier in the thread that this particular UA makes some bold comments on what the future of the game will bring globally, and it was a perfectly acceptable line of conversation then, and I think my comment was on point for both accounts anyway.
I think it just leads to the old rehash of "I don't like Tasha's". Tasha's is out, not UA, and evidently is become the first steps on the path to advancing the game to where the designers want it in terms of character creations.
I'd probably give less bonus to dex for a reborn, being undead and all, maybe the bonus there should be con? Etc.
You could do that. You could also do it for the contstruct nature option (and avoid clerical turning vulnerability). If undead are particularly clumsy (though that's really arguably just zombies, even skeletons actually have a decent DEX in RAW). There's plenty of examples of making "returned from the dead" actually very agile, Eric Draven in The Crow is a prominent one. The original Frankenstein monster in the novel is quite athletic. Again, with these UA there's absolutely no need to lock ASIs and _initial_ character conception in potential RAW (yes, you can work to where you want to be one the game, but 5e seems to want to give players a sense of them driving the character they want right off the lot and can then build on that _initial_ concept).
Also not entirely onboard with a "blanket" over race concept, that just overcomplcates things, players have enough trouble remembering the rules as is, I like that 5e has been streamlined. I like that these races overwrite the original class traits, but then I think they should be full races, and not missing ASIs.
I think it's actually more burdensome for a player to find a race that appeals to them for whatever reason and then have to the additional consideration of the impact of fixed ASIs on their character concept. Whereas unbound ASI's allow the player to pick a lineage or maybe lineage components that appeal, and _then_ they get to do the more imagination friendly move of "now do I want this to be INT or STR or DEX etc favoring?"
I'd argue further that the way you want things with fixed stats should/could be retained in the direction the core rules seem to be leaning for folks who think the quick pick of a package bound to a race/lineage is more their game's cup of tea. But the rules should also be shown how to use RAW to create those lineages so departure can be allowed too. Same with class features, backgrounds etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
just wanted to add my opinion to the ring, missed the survey apparently. So carry on.
I'm sorry you missed it. Again, this is the one thing I don't like about these UA, the so-called "community" feedback that allows a lot of what are going to be a mix of knee-jerk taste tests and highly wrought theory craft opinions; but little actually playtest. I mean my feedback honestly was largely contemplative on the Dhampyr and Hex-Blood and I barely got to play around with Reborn before I saw the survey out and knew those windows aren't open long.
just wanted to add my opinion to the ring, missed the survey apparently. So carry on.
I'm sorry you missed it. Again, this is the one thing I don't like about these UA, the so-called "community" feedback that allows a lot of what are going to be a mix of knee-jerk taste tests and highly wrought theory craft opinions; but little actually playtest. I mean my feedback honestly was largely contemplative on the Dhampyr and Hex-Blood and I barely got to play around with Reborn before I saw the survey out and knew those windows aren't open long.
It's feeling increasingly like Wizards is trying to rig the surveys.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The question is: Will the only two subclasses be the Spirit Bard and Undead Warlock? Or will they find a way to squeeze in the Dragon Monk and Drakewarden?
Also, I can't wait to see what the official Hexblade and Reborn look like. And I'm curious to see what they end up doing with the Dhampir.
I don't think dragon Monk or Ranger make much sense unless there's a Domain of Dread that's dragon-flavored. The Bard and Warlock would seem to be shoe-ins, but I have to wonder if there's one or two more subs in there that haven't been released as UA.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This UA is pretty disappointing honestly. ASI traits are not cultural. Like a Kobold barbarian should totally have a harder time in an arm wrestle with a goliath barbarian, thus their strength differences. I was just going to leave this rule in tasha's and move on, so it's sad to see it looks like their direction for the franchise as a whole moving forward. I'm a DM, so I suppose I can just house rule in the racial ASIs :/
Time to Juice!
A goliath is still thematically stronger than a kobold. Firstly, because a goliath is medium and a kobold is small, a goliath can wield heavy weapons without disadvantage. It doesn't matter if they both have a 20 in Strength, the kobold still can't wield that weapon as effectively as the goliath. Similarly, the goliath has the "powerful build" feature which means they count as Large for carrying capacity and how much they can pull, drag, or lift.
So while, yes, a kobold barbarian could potentially beat a goliath barbarian in arm wrestling (a contested Athletics check, presumably) there are plenty of other aspects to their race that aren't tied to ASIs (size and racial features) that will make the goliath still stand out as the stronger of the two barbarians, both with potential DPS in combat using great weapons and with being able to move heavy objects with apparent ease.
Not to mention, even with traditional ASI assignment, a kobold barbarian could still eventually have a score of 20 in strength and beat that goliath in arm wrestling. It would just take an extra ASI level to do it. What you are describing being a problem was already completely possible using the traditional rules, it just took a few extra levels.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Before this turns into a flame war, this discussion has been had. Here are some threads to read that discuss the argument in extreme detail.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/96326-no-more-normal-races
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/95854-design-direction-changes-for-race-in-d-d-5e
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/87895-are-there-better-terms-for-dwarf-or-halfling
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/89377-sparing-goblins-and-other-humanoids-is-perfectly
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/89363-sparing-goblins-and-other-humanoids-is-idiotic
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/88161-tashas-art-drow-are-silver-now
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/57787-racial-tension-in-d-d
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/79185-tashas-cauldron-of-everything-and-d-d-celebration
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/82006-is-d-d-really-going-woke
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/76800-racism-in-dnd-games
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/79302-dungeons-dragons-next-book-will-offer-an
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/73103-races-and-species
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/77195-dungeons-and-dragons-to-remove-the-term-race
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/72612-venting-about-d-d-and-diversity-controversy
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/72763-dear-wotc-maybe-you-might-start-with-your
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
To be fair, you could deal with 99% of the "But clearly stats aren't just cultural" examples by making reduced strength a feature of size: if you choose to play a Small PC, you get -2 Strength (or go with the 3e version: you have reduced carry but also reduced equipment weight). You would need something to compensate for this, but small characters having low strength is not going to offend significant numbers of people.
Hi, before this thread continues to devolve into the usual who moved my cheese broadsides the above linked threads largely follow, maybe we can direct this to the actual discussion of the UA and not "where D&D is going" globally?
If you were to house rule specific ASI's to lineages presented in the UA, where do you think they essentially need to go for Dhamphyr, Hexblood and Reborn? Regardless of what you may think of the new ASI rules applied to beings game-wide, in these instances I see no need to bind the ASIs to particular stats. The ASI mobility in the context of these lineages actually works really well and can be used to mechanically illustrate aspects of the variety of gothic origins each lineage could represent, most particularly with the reborn.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think they are interesting as they kind of blanket over the race....its actually a lot like how PF2e does it and its pretty slick.
I am kind of hoping they do lineage feats as well! Dhamphir specific feats would be cool.
I mean, kobold vs Goliath was just an example, I could just have easily used Orc intelligence instead. And the fact that it could be overcome with "just a few levels" is ironically the same argument I make. It's a nice flavor, and with a little more work your character could match one that's more naturally attuned to the trait in question, so why remove it?
Also, it was made a point way earlier in the thread that this particular UA makes some bold comments on what the future of the game will bring globally, and it was a perfectly acceptable line of conversation then, and I think my comment was on point for both accounts anyway.
I'd probably give less bonus to dex for a reborn, being undead and all, maybe the bonus there should be con? Etc.
Also not entirely onboard with a "blanket" over race concept, that just overcomplcates things, players have enough trouble remembering the rules as is, I like that 5e has been streamlined. I like that these races overwrite the original class traits, but then I think they should be full races, and not missing ASIs.
Time to Juice!
Anyway, I don't wanna ensite flame war stuff either, just wanted to add my opinion to the ring, missed the survey apparently. So carry on.
Time to Juice!
What, Tasha's race rules? No dude. It makes it dead simple. It basically makes every race the same. "Two to one ability, one to one ability, and whatever your race's powers are."
I think the poster may be speaking to how the UA lineages may well write over racial traits as the UA currently presents their working. I'm fine with it on balance grounds, but I can see that bothering a lot of other players.
I think because essentializing ASIs begs the question of what "naturally attuned" means.
I think it just leads to the old rehash of "I don't like Tasha's". Tasha's is out, not UA, and evidently is become the first steps on the path to advancing the game to where the designers want it in terms of character creations.
You could do that. You could also do it for the contstruct nature option (and avoid clerical turning vulnerability). If undead are particularly clumsy (though that's really arguably just zombies, even skeletons actually have a decent DEX in RAW). There's plenty of examples of making "returned from the dead" actually very agile, Eric Draven in The Crow is a prominent one. The original Frankenstein monster in the novel is quite athletic. Again, with these UA there's absolutely no need to lock ASIs and _initial_ character conception in potential RAW (yes, you can work to where you want to be one the game, but 5e seems to want to give players a sense of them driving the character they want right off the lot and can then build on that _initial_ concept).
I think it's actually more burdensome for a player to find a race that appeals to them for whatever reason and then have to the additional consideration of the impact of fixed ASIs on their character concept. Whereas unbound ASI's allow the player to pick a lineage or maybe lineage components that appeal, and _then_ they get to do the more imagination friendly move of "now do I want this to be INT or STR or DEX etc favoring?"
I'd argue further that the way you want things with fixed stats should/could be retained in the direction the core rules seem to be leaning for folks who think the quick pick of a package bound to a race/lineage is more their game's cup of tea. But the rules should also be shown how to use RAW to create those lineages so departure can be allowed too. Same with class features, backgrounds etc.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm sorry you missed it. Again, this is the one thing I don't like about these UA, the so-called "community" feedback that allows a lot of what are going to be a mix of knee-jerk taste tests and highly wrought theory craft opinions; but little actually playtest. I mean my feedback honestly was largely contemplative on the Dhampyr and Hex-Blood and I barely got to play around with Reborn before I saw the survey out and knew those windows aren't open long.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
All I know is with this UA the Reborn make a better Warforged then the Warforged race
It's feeling increasingly like Wizards is trying to rig the surveys.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I fully expect the next survey to be in a locked filing cabinet in the cellar behind the sign that says "Beware of the Leopard".
I'm guessing that you're someone who never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Not even once.
I just wanted to bump this now that Amazon done leaked the title of the May book.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0786967250/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0786967250
Well, this just made my day.
The promise of spooky subclasses, more Domains of Dread, more monsters...all delivered in the style of a professional monster hunter?
I must be dreaming...and it's a NIGHTMARE.
The question is: Will the only two subclasses be the Spirit Bard and Undead Warlock? Or will they find a way to squeeze in the Dragon Monk and Drakewarden?
Also, I can't wait to see what the official Hexblade and Reborn look like. And I'm curious to see what they end up doing with the Dhampir.
I don't think dragon Monk or Ranger make much sense unless there's a Domain of Dread that's dragon-flavored. The Bard and Warlock would seem to be shoe-ins, but I have to wonder if there's one or two more subs in there that haven't been released as UA.