"Customizing your Origin in D&D"

[x3n0n]

From page 12 of the "New book on Amazon" thread about Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, rooneg found the new rules in the Adventurers' League rules for the new season. (Good find, rooneg!)

"CUSTOMIZING YOUR ORIGIN IN D&D

The D&D Adventurers League now uses this variant system from Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything since it allows for a greater degree of customization. For ease of reference, the relevant information is included as an appendix to this document and doesn’t count against the PH + 1 rule."

And in the appendix itself:


At 1st level, you choose various aspects of your character, including ability scores, race, class, and background. Together these elements help paint a picture of your character’s origin and give you the ability to create many different types of characters. Despite that versatility, a typical character race in D&D includes little or no choice—a lack that can make it difficult to realize certain character concepts. The following subsections address that lack by adding choice to your character’s race, allowing you to customize your ability scores, languages, and certain proficiencies to fit the origin you have in mind for your character. Character race in the game represents your character’s fantasy species, combined with certain cultural assumptions. The following options step outside those assumptions to pave the way for truly unique characters.

ABILITY SCORE INCREASES
Whatever D&D race you choose for your character, you get a trait called Ability Score Increase. This increase reflects an archetypal bit of excellence in the adventurers of this kind in D&D’s past. For example, if you’re a dwarf, your Constitution increases by 2, because dwarf heroes in D&D are often exceptionally tough. This increase doesn’t apply to every dwarf, just to dwarf adventurers, and it exists to reinforce an archetype. That reinforcement is appropriate if you want to lean into the archetype, but it’s unhelpful if your character doesn’t conform to the archetype.
If you’d like your character to follow their own path, you may ignore your Ability Score Increase trait and assign ability score increases tailored to your character. Here’s how to do it: take any ability score increase you gain in your race or subrace and apply it to an ability score of your choice. If you gain more than one increase, you can’t apply those increases to the same ability score, and you can’t increase a score above 20.
For example, if the Ability Score Increase trait of your race or subrace increases your Constitution by 2 and your Wisdom by 1, you could instead increase your Intelligence by 2 and your Charisma by 1.

LANGUAGES
Your character’s race includes languages that your character is assumed to know, usually Common and the language of your ancestors. For example, a halfling adventurer is assumed to know Common and Halfling. Here’s the thing: D&D adventurers are extraordinary, and your character might have grown up speaking languages different from the ones in your Languages trait.
To customize the languages you know, you may replace each language in your Languages trait with a language from the following list: Abyssal, Celestial, Common, Deep Speech, Draconic, Dwarvish, Elvish, Giant, Gnomish, Goblin, Halfling, Infernal, Orc, Primordial, Sylvan, or Undercommon.
Your DM may add or remove languages from that list, depending on what languages are appropriate for your campaign.

PROFICIENCIES
Some races and subraces grant skill, weapon, or tool proficiencies. These proficiencies are usually cultural, but your character might not have any connection to the culture in question or might have pursued different training. You can replace each of those proficiencies with a different one, as shown on the Proficiency Swaps table.

PROFICIENCY SWAPS:
Skill to Skill
Simple weapon to Simple weapon or tool
Martial weapon to Simple/martial weapon or tool
Tool to Tool or simple weapon

For example, high elf adventurers have proficiency with longswords, which are martial weapons. Consulting the Proficiency Swaps table, we see that your high elf can swap that proficiency for proficiency with another weapon or a tool. Your elf might be a musician, who chooses proficiency with a musical instrument—a type of tool—instead of with longswords. Similarly, elves start with proficiency in the Perception skill. Your elf might not have the keen senses associated with your kin and could take proficiency in a different skill, such as Performance.
The “Equipment” chapter of the PH includes weapons and tools suitable for these swaps, and your DM might allow additional options.

PERSONALITY
The description of a race might suggest various things about the behavior and personality of that people’s archetypal adventurers. You may ignore those suggestions, whether they’re about alignment, moods, interests, or any other personality trait. Your character’s personality and behavior are entirely yours to determine.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Seems reasonable.

So you get "+2/+1" (etc) instead of a "+2 X/+1 Y". Does make a lot of races stronger, but :shrug:

And you can trade down, but not up for proficiencies. No trading a simple weapon for a martial weapon. No trading out armor from what I saw. Tools and weapons are treated equally.

Languages & personality I've always basically treated free-form, so nbd for me.

[Segev]

Said this in the other thread, but as it's topical here: I don't like the floating stats. They give some paeans here to "because most Dwarves are really tough. Not NPCs, just PCs, but still," right before explaining the rules that actually make that statement an utter lie. Because unless +2 Con becomes a very common thing to see on all PCs, there's no reason to assume Dwarves will see +2 Con any more than any other race. In fact, I expect an explosion in Mountain Dwarf Wizards with +2 Dex and +2 Int. :smalltongue:

This makes the stat bonuses utterly meaningless as attached to race. They'd have been better served giving everybody a +2 and a +1 to distribute as they liked, and then giving some racial perks to the races that are hurt by this (e.g. the Mountain Dwarf, or the Vuman and Half-Elf, both of which lose something of an advantage with everybody getting floaters, IIRC).

I also like the fact that it's a choice to play against type that has meaning if you, for instance, play a half-orc wizard. Now, it's no more playing against type than playing an elf with +2 Strength and +1 Constitution who's a wizard. Because any half-orc can be just great at wizardry. Any halfling can be a small, muscle-bound powerhouse with +2 Strength.

It's not a well-thought-out design choice.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Said this in the other thread, but as it's topical here: I don't like the floating stats. They give some paeans here to "because most Dwarves are really tough. Not NPCs, just PCs, but still," right before explaining the rules that actually make that statement an utter lie. Because unless +2 Con becomes a very common thing to see on all PCs, there's no reason to assume Dwarves will see +2 Con any more than any other race. In fact, I expect an explosion in Mountain Dwarf Wizards with +2 Dex and +2 Int. :smalltongue:

This makes the stat bonuses utterly meaningless as attached to race. They'd have been better served giving everybody a +2 and a +1 to distribute as they liked, and then giving some racial perks to the races that are hurt by this (e.g. the Mountain Dwarf, or the Vuman and Half-Elf, both of which lose something of an advantage with everybody getting floaters, IIRC).

I also like the fact that it's a choice to play against type that has meaning if you, for instance, play a half-orc wizard. Now, it's no more playing against type than playing an elf with +2 Strength and +1 Constitution who's a wizard. Because any half-orc can be just great at wizardry. Any halfling can be a small, muscle-bound powerhouse with +2 Strength.

It's not a well-thought-out design choice.

IMO, the best solution (and one I've tried to implement for my setting) is cultural sub-races. The base race represents the biology, while the sub-race reflects the culture. And different cultures are different. It does require significant rework.

But honestly, I don't care much about ability scores. They're just...meh to me. Don't have much thematic resonance.

[Segev]

IMO, the best solution (and one I've tried to implement for my setting) is cultural sub-races. The base race represents the biology, while the sub-race reflects the culture. And different cultures are different. It does require significant rework.

But honestly, I don't care much about ability scores. They're just...meh to me. Don't have much thematic resonance.

I could get behind that.

Though I do care about the ability scores. If they don't have resonance, why bother having ASIs at chargen to begin with? To me, they are one of the strongest tools for shaping the "leaning" of the race, class-wise.

[firelistener]

I agree I'm not a huge fan of the floating stats, but I don't find it surprising given that 5e is mostly designed to let you do whatever without imposing a mechanical penalty for anything. The only part that really worries me is how I predict that making characters will become even more confusing for first-time players, as they will likely see this in AL rules or online resources and attempt to do it incorrectly. Which means more DM-hand-holding during character creation.

Interestingly, the languages part seems to be the only one that explicitly specifies allowance for DM fiat. I think it would probably be just as easy to say the DM gets final say on all of this stuff, so I wonder why language proficiency is singled out?

[Segev]

I agree I'm not a huge fan of the floating stats, but I don't find it surprising given that 5e is mostly designed to let you do whatever without imposing a mechanical penalty for anything. The only part that really worries me is how I predict that making characters will become even more confusing for first-time players, as they will likely see this in AL rules or online resources and attempt to do it incorrectly. Which means more DM-hand-holding during character creation.

Interestingly, the languages part seems to be the only one that explicitly specifies allowance for DM fiat. I think it would probably be just as easy to say the DM gets final say on all of this stuff, so I wonder why language proficiency is singled out?

I think because the languages part says the DM might add to the list. It calls out "for campaigns," which suggests to me they have that there to remind the DM to include campaign-specific languages that he deems appropriate.

But I agree, "DM gets final approval" would be a good thing to mention. Of course, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything is a supplement, so everything in the book is subject to DM approval, so that might be why they don't bother mentioning it specifically.

[x3n0n]

Interestingly, the languages part seems to be the only one that explicitly specifies allowance for DM fiat. I think it would probably be just as easy to say the DM gets final say on all of this stuff, so I wonder why language proficiency is singled out?

I think that's intended to be DM fiat to allow extra setting-specific languages, not to disallow any of the "core" languages listed.

Giving AL DMs fiat to disallow anything in this document seems bad to me. (That is, build a character using these rules, play it at one table, then have it be rejected at the next.) Am I missing something?

Edit: ninja'ed

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think that's intended to be DM fiat to allow extra setting-specific languages, not to disallow any of the "core" languages listed.

Giving AL DMs fiat to disallow anything in this document seems bad to me. (That is, build a character using these rules, play it at one table, then have it be rejected at the next.) Am I missing something?

Edit: ninja'ed

The solution is not to play AL

AL DMs won't have discretion. If this is AL legal, they have to allow it. Other DMs can and should decide for themselves (in conference with their tables)s.

More seriously, AL gives up a lot of thematic consistency in exchange for table-to-table consistency. So flexible ability scores is just one more drop in the bucket of powergaming that you'll see at AL tables, without much of a loss.

[KorvinStarmast]

making characters will become even more confusing for first-time players Seconded

The solution is not to play AL How about a nice game of chess? :smallcool:


More seriously, AL gives up a lot of thematic consistency in exchange for table-to-table consistency. So flexible ability scores is just one more drop in the bucket of powergaming that you'll see at AL tables, without much of a loss. The public play aspect of this and other games is a part of a marketing strategy ... AL seems to be fairly successful.

[firelistener]

I think that's intended to be DM fiat to allow extra setting-specific languages, not to disallow any of the "core" languages listed.

Giving AL DMs fiat to disallow anything in this document seems bad to me. (That is, build a character using these rules, play it at one table, then have it be rejected at the next.) Am I missing something?

Edit: ninja'ed

I just meant it seemed inconsistent, but your reply makes the most sense in it being there to allow extras. Normally you get PHB plus a single supplement like XGE. Since these are included on their own outside of the new book, it seems odd that the languages part gets DM fiat at all. The process is mostly designed, after all, to protect players from DMs that want to ban characters they just don't like in the AL games.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Seconded
How about a nice game of chess? :smallcool:

The public play aspect of this and other games is a part of a marketing strategy ... AL seems to be fairly successful.

Oh absolutely. I just personally don't like it. Hence my disdain.

[x3n0n]

The solution is not to play AL

AL DMs won't have discretion. If this is AL legal, they have to allow it. Other DMs can and should decide for themselves (in conference with their tables)s.

More seriously, AL gives up a lot of thematic consistency in exchange for table-to-table consistency. So flexible ability scores is just one more drop in the bucket of powergaming that you'll see at AL tables, without much of a loss.

Ah, I see the issue. I was reading this through the lens of "AL document appendix", not "Tasha's" and home games, where "rule 0" of DM fiat is assumed to apply.

However, sanctioning it in the book gives the same kind of presumption we were talking about in another thread earlier today: if it's in a core-ish rulebook (Xanathar, Tasha), players will assume it's ok unless the DM warns them in advance.

[Segev]

Ah, I see the issue. I was reading this through the lens of "AL document appendix", not "Tasha's" and home games, where "rule 0" of DM fiat is assumed to apply.

However, sanctioning it in the book gives the same kind of presumption we were talking about in another thread earlier today: if it's in a core-ish rulebook (Xanathar, Tasha), players will assume it's ok unless the DM warns them in advance.

I think this is one of those things that's "big" enough that most players and DMs experienced enough to know of them will also know to mention them one way or the other.

[JackPhoenix]

On the one hand, there's the powergaming potential of picking the race according to traits instead of what ASI they give to optimize the characters. Yay. There's gonna be a lot more dwarf whatevers now.
On the other hand, it weakens the racial archetypes... the reason why I hate 5e playable hobgoblins... and makes the races blend together. Boo.

As a player, sounds great, as a GM, meh. Overall, not a fan.

[jaappleton]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong

But essentially

1. You can elect to have your racial bonuses be floating bonuses, and you can’t double up on them (+2 and +1 can’t be a +3 in something)

2. You can swap skill proficiencies, and weapon proficiencies. But it has to be equal or trading back (Assuming Martial Weapons are top tier, followed by simple weapons, then skills and tools)

3. Change your language to whatever applicable on the list

Is that basically it?

[Segev]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong

But essentially

1. You can elect to have your racial bonuses be floating bonuses, and you can’t double up on them (+2 and +1 can’t be a +3 in something)

2. You can swap skill proficiencies, and weapon proficiencies. But it has to be equal or trading back (Assuming Martial Weapons are top tier, followed by simple weapons, then skills and tools)

3. Change your language to whatever applicable on the list

Is that basically it?

That's basically it, yeah.

[KorvinStarmast]

Overall, not a fan. Me either, but I can live with it.

1. You can elect to have your racial bonuses be floating bonuses, and you can’t double up on them (+2 and +1 can’t be a +3 in something)
2. You can swap skill proficiencies, and weapon proficiencies. But it has to be equal or trading back (Assuming Martial Weapons are top tier, followed by simple weapons, then skills and tools)

3. Change your language to whatever applicable on the list

Is that basically it? Is your insider info source not sharing? :smallconfused:

[8wGremlin]

Move over Iron Hobgoblin Wizard.
there is a new kid in town...

Mountain Dwarf Wizard +2 INT, +2 Dex

Proficiency with Light and Medium Armour

Dwarven Combat Training
You have proficiency with the battleaxe (Martial), handaxe (Simple), light hammer (Simple), and warhammer (Martial).

is now pick any 2 Martial Weapons, and 2 Tools or simple weapons.


Tool Proficiency
You gain proficiency with the artisan’s tools of your choice: smith’s tools, brewer’s supplies, or mason’s tools.

is now Pick any 3 Tools or simple weapons

Example:

Medium armour + Longbow, Rapier
+ 5 tools.

[Damon_Tor]

Is it the intention of this rule to make all other races strictly inferior to the mountain dwarf ubermensch?

The should be a tradeoff: a +2 should become a +1 if it floats.

[jaappleton]

That's basically it, yeah.

I like it overall.

It allows people to go against the grain for their character race. Half Orc Wizard, for example. I really like that.

I really like the proficiency swaps. Dwarves don’t get Maul proficiency but they get pretty much every other hammer for some reason, so I like that. If you want to be a Cleric that doesn’t get Martial Weapons and want a Maul, now you can do that.

Now.... Does it allow for some cheese? Oh, absolutely. 100%. Anything with some sort of martial proficiency, like Elves with long swords, now can take Glaives or Hand Crossbows and cheese it with the appropriate feat.

Im sure I can find some ways to mess around with it for some bull crap levels of amusement.

[Segev]

I like it overall.

It allows people to go against the grain for their character race. Half Orc Wizard, for example. I really like that.

See, to me, it makes it impossible to go against the grain for your race. Your race no longer has a grain. There is absolutely no reason why elven wizards should be more common than half-orc wizards, now.

[KorvinStarmast]

It allows people to go against the grain for their character race. Half Orc Wizard, for example. I really like that.
Ghosts of Salt Marsh have a half orc druid NPC who was a hoot to Dm. (The party captured him ...)

We then ran into the old conundrum: how the heck do you keep a druid confined when he/she can wild shape? The answer they came up with was semi innovative.

[verbatim]

Excited to finally be able to play a rogue that starts with a whip right out the gate (that isn't a hobgoblin).

[jaappleton]

Is your insider info source not sharing? :smallconfused:

Bold of you to think I have only one source. :smalltongue:

I can, and have, often gotten info early. I have passed along that info to the forum whenever possible.

I get the info I can. It’s far from everything, I’m not able to call up Crawford and ask what’s going on.

But I get what I can.

[jaappleton]

See, to me, it makes it impossible to go against the grain for your race. Your race no longer has a grain. There is absolutely no reason why elven wizards should be more common than half-orc wizards, now.

The players aren’t NPCs. The NPC Wizard has a solid change to be an elf, sure. But players often play extraordinary characters, so they go against the grain.

[KorvinStarmast]

Bold of you to think I have only one source. :smalltongue: Sorry, "inside sources" :smallwink:
(And your sharing here is appreciated by more than me, I am sure)

[x3n0n]

I'm looking forward to building point-buy Monks in races that didn't natively bump both Dex and Wis. MAD classes in general get more usable as a result of this.

It does seem like we will see a rash of characters converting race ribbons into useful tools, as mentioned several times already. Who knew dwarves and elves were all so interested in lock-picking instead of brewing or aiming a shortbow?

Edit: good call on the rogue Whip above. Even harder to imagine someone taking the Weapon Master feat now.

[Damon_Tor]

Mountain Dwarves are top tier rogues now too. +2 to dex and +2 to con, free longbow proficiency.

Half elves are even more competitive now than they used to be, since their +2 floats too now. They can have +2 to dex so elvish accuracy can get them 18 dex at level 4, while still putting the two +1s wherever they want. I can't think of any reason you would take a full elf over a half elf now, they are strictly superior.

It's just not well thought out.

[Cicciograna]

I like it overall.

It allows people to go against the grain for their character race. Half Orc Wizard, for example. I really like that.

You can already do that. You can play a Half Orc Wizard that dumps Strength and puts the highest rolled scored in Int.

[Evaar]

Optimization-minded folks will need to remember that we are deeply in the minority of D&D players. For the majority of D&D games, this will be fine.

But wow they didn't even try to balance this, huh? I honestly think we'd be better off doing away with racial stat bonuses entirely, instead offer more flavorful options that realize the fantasy of a race and potentially synergize with certain class options. But that's basically going to require a new edition.

[da newt]

Seems to me this makes everything more power gamey. It will be hard to beat a Dwarf w/ floating +2/+2 and armor, or 1/2 Elf for floating +2/+1/+1 unless you are looking to capitalize on a specific race's other capabilities and a floating +2/+1 (YuanTi for example).

It's just a bit more power creep.

If I were creating this adjustment, I'd limit all races to a floating +2/+1 or the specific ASI's as written. For my simple mind, this would be more fair and still plenty customizable.

[LudicSavant]

Move over Iron Hobgoblin Wizard.
there is a new kid in town...

Mountain Dwarf Wizard +2 INT, +2 Dex

Proficiency with Light and Medium Armour

When I did my own version of a 'racial attribute swap' rule, I had a line about how if you got more than +2 / +1, and you decided to swap, you got +2/+1 instead, precisely to cover cases like this.

That said, Mountain Dwarves probably aren't going to break the game right in half. Remember that Githyanki already got an Intelligence bonus, Medium Armor, and arguably better racial features than a Mountain Dwarf. They just had an unwanted Strength bonus to go with that Intelligence bonus.

Mountain Dwarves will still lack shield proficiency, which means they'll only have 17 AC without spending a feat -- a fairly narrow gain over the 16 AC of 16 Dex+Mage Armor, or 14 Dex+Warforged or Simic Hybrid.

Ultimately, the new rule is going to create a little power creep, but not so much that I think it outweighs the benefits of letting people finally play orc wizards without feeling like they're getting kicked in the shins for it.


If I were creating this adjustment, I'd limit all races to a floating +2/+1 or the specific ASI's as written. For my simple mind, this would be more fair and still plenty customizable.

Hey, that's exactly what I did! :smallsmile:

The exact wording of my houserule was "Any race other than Variant Human or Yuan-Ti may exchange their racial stat bonuses for +2 / +1 any."

Been using it for a long time now.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Really, all this does is add Mountain Dwarf and Half-Elf to the list of races that are good for each class. It does open up multiple concepts, of course, but with the exception of certain very MAD classes very little power is gained here. Ultimately, this is a unilaterally good change: it broadens viable concepts while causing negligible power increase.


You can already do that. You can play a Half Orc Wizard that dumps Strength and puts the highest rolled scored in Int.

Only if you are playing with the rolling variant rule, which is extremely bad for interparty balance and should not be used. If you are playing by normal rules, without this method a Half Orc cannot start with an Intelligence higher than 15. The game is balanced around that being too low for viability.

[da newt]

Just for the record, the above means I'm just as smart as Ludic.

[OldTrees1]

These rules accomplish their goal.

Do they accomplish my goals? No, but I don't fault them for that. Most of the 5E racial modifiers have insufficient reason to exist. Them being mutable is weird but their existence was weird. But it makes me think of things like a Troll's species bonus to Con or a Giant's species bonus to Str. Those also don't exist in 5E because racial options are limited to mostly near-human species.

[Cicciograna]

Only if you are playing with the rolling variant rule, which is extremely bad for interparty balance and should not be used. If you are playing by normal rules, without this method a Half Orc cannot start with an Intelligence higher than 15. The game is balanced around that being too low for viability.

Irrelevant. What jaappleton said is that with the floating +2 he can play a Half Orc Wizard that goes "against the grain". My reply is that he can already do that, dumping Str to 8 (that becomes a 10 owing to the Half Orc racial traits) and putting 15 to Int. Is this going "against the grain" of Half Orcs? yes it is, because his Half Orc Wizard will be weaker and smarter than the average Half Orc (who would have a Strength of 12 or 13 and an Intelligence of 10 or 11, if one wants to use the non-elite array).

In addition to this, your remark about the fact that Half Orcs can't start with an Int higher than 15 applies to a lot of races, the Half Orc here is just a specific example. This doesn't mean that the Half Orcs (or other races) are worse Wizards, but rather that other races are better Wizards...initially. The final score for all the races is still Int 20, this just means that Half Orcs & co. have to invest more resources to reach that objective.

[LudicSavant]

Just for the record, the above means I'm just as smart as Ludic.

:smallbiggrin:

[Lord Vukodlak]

Is it the intention of this rule to make all other races strictly inferior to the mountain dwarf ubermensch?

The should be a tradeoff: a +2 should become a +1 if it floats.

Or maybe turn the +2 Charisma into one of the heritage alternate features.

[Segev]

The players aren’t NPCs. The NPC Wizard has a solid change to be an elf, sure. But players often play extraordinary characters, so they go against the grain.Sure, but now they won't have any trends amongst PCs. Frankly, there's no believable reason elves should be wizards and orcs barbarians when the races have no differences.

There was a Living L5R campaign a decade or so ago. It highlighted something that 3e L5R did well with its not-quite-balanced schools: it caused there to be a preponderance of PCs who fit their clan archetypes. The Isawa Shugenja was one of the most powerful shugenja schools in the game, so a plurality of shugenja were Isawa, and the Phoenix Clan's prominence as "the Shugenja Clan" was upheld. The Doji Courtier was one of the most effective Courtier schools in the game, so the Courtly Crane Clan had a plurality of the Courtiers. The trends in the Clans were that they had a good mix of types of characters, but the schools that were just a bit more powerful at their schtick belonged to the Clans that were supposed to have the most and best of that sort of Samurai.

It's not "going against the grain of your race" if your race has zero reason not to be whatever it is you're playing, and you're at least as good at it in all respects as somebody who comes from a race whose grain you'd be going WITH.


Irrelevant. What jaappleton said is that with the floating +2 he can play a Half Orc Wizard that goes "against the grain". My reply is that he can already do that, dumping Str to 8 (that becomes a 10 owing to the Half Orc racial traits) and putting 15 to Int. Is this going "against the grain" of Half Orcs? yes it is, because his Half Orc Wizard will be weaker and smarter than the average Half Orc (who would have a Strength of 12 or 13 and an Intelligence of 10 or 11, if one wants to use the non-elite array).

In addition to this, your remark about the fact that Half Orcs can't start with an Int higher than 15 applies to a lot of races, the Half Orc here is just a specific example. This doesn't mean that the Half Orcs (or other races) are worse Wizards, but rather that other races are better Wizards...initially. The final score for all the races is still Int 20, this just means that Half Orcs & co. have to invest more resources to reach that objective.

This is how you "go against the grain of your race." You are unusually bright for an orc, or unusually frail for a dwarf. You still have the racial mods in question, and lack the racial boosts to what you ARE good at, but you're only a +1 or so behind the optimal racial choice.

But the fact that you had to make that sacrifice of that +1? That hedges people away from the choice you made. That makes you go against the grain, and makes your character more interesting because you made a choice to sacrifice power for that uniqueness. Not a lot, but it's there.

Now, "oh, a half-orc wizard? That's nice," is the appropriate response. Not, "Wow, a half-orc wizard? How unusual!"

[Dr. Cliché]

Races are now more customisable than ever! Just look at all the variety available:

https://i.imgur.com/U4XURA6l.jpg

[Amnestic]

Now, "oh, a half-orc wizard? That's nice," is the appropriate response. Not, "Wow, a half-orc wizard? How unusual!"

I expect most class/race combos will still be "along the grain" regardless for two reasons:
1) It's a variant rule in a separate book. Some players may not even look at it, it might not be available, maybe the DM doesn't like it.

2) Aesthetic's still a big deal. Even if a mountain dwarf monk is mechanically stronger than a human (which, yes it is) I fully expect that a great deal of players would still want to play a human monk over a dwarf monk because while dwarf monks certainly do exist and yes there's examples of people playing them, when you think "wuxia kung fu master"...you don't think dwarf. You think a tall race, not stout one. And people will want to play something that fits the aesthetics. Half-orc wizards are still going to be rare, not the norm. They'll be *more* common, but I doubt they'll be *common*. Elf wizards though? Dime-a-dozen even after this.

[Dark.Revenant]

Mountain Dwarves are top tier rogues now too. +2 to dex and +2 to con, free longbow proficiency.

Half elves are even more competitive now than they used to be, since their +2 floats too now. They can have +2 to dex so elvish accuracy can get them 18 dex at level 4, while still putting the two +1s wherever they want. I can't think of any reason you would take a full elf over a half elf now, they are strictly superior.

It's just not well thought out.

Think of it this way:

High elves, compared to half-elves, give up a +1 in their tertiary stat and one skill proficiency. In exchange, they receive Trance, a Wizard cantrip, three martial/simple weapon or tool proficiencies, and one simple weapon or tool proficiency.

You can argue that one is a better deal, but it's definitely not a strict superiority.

[Segev]

I expect most class/race combos will still be "along the grain" regardless for two reasons:
1) It's a variant rule in a separate book. Some players may not even look at it, it might not be available, maybe the DM doesn't like it.

2) Aesthetic's still a big deal. Even if a mountain dwarf monk is mechanically stronger than a human (which, yes it is) I fully expect that a great deal of players would still want to play a human monk over a dwarf monk because while dwarf monks certainly do exist and yes there's examples of people playing them, when you think "wuxia kung fu master"...you don't think dwarf. You think a tall race, not stout one. And people will want to play something that fits the aesthetics. Half-orc wizards are still going to be rare, not the norm. They'll be *more* common, but I doubt they'll be *common*. Elf wizards though? Dime-a-dozen even after this.

Only point 1 will matter, I'm pretty sure. If these rules are in play, as long as the stereotypes are in mind at all, we'll see a disproportionate number of "exceptions that go against the grain."

Just like every Drow is Drizz't.

[Amnestic]

Only point 1 will matter, I'm pretty sure. If these rules are in play, as long as the stereotypes are in mind at all, we'll see a disproportionate number of "exceptions that go against the grain."

Just like every Drow is Drizz't.

Who's 'we'? I mean, with how long games can go on for it's what, a half-dozen characters a year maybe? Rough guesstimate. 'cos take your average set of players I doubt more than one or two of those characters would be truly "against the grain". Anecdotal assessment of my experience, of course.

Are all your players the type to go full powerplay? Is your DM going to make any adjustments or just let it fly as is? Assuming the DM's not you, of course, in which case you can just houserule it to how you like.

[Hecuba]

I get the info I can. It’s far from everything, I’m not able to call up Crawford and ask what’s going on.

"Jeremy, I just got finished with a meeting on the internet. The GITP forum randos would like a detailed status update on D&D. All of it.
Please get on that, they're threatening to dress up in Lorraine Williams cosplay and use a flashmob to take over the Renton office."

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I'm kind of afraid to weigh in on this, because it feels to me like the motivation is real world. (And real world discussions are a more serious forum rules matter than thread necromancy and spam combined.) It's the age old "why don't women get a strength penalty?" debate. If you state that orcs, an intelligent and human-like race, all excel in physical matters rather than matters of the mind you sort of leave open the possibility that this could apply to real world groups as well. They had already started removing ability score penalties from races and adding more diverse features rather than steering every race in a single direction, this feels like the next step in that.

I feel like I'm still inside the forum rules lines here, and I will stop here as well. If I make any more posts in this thread it will be to discuss the game play and role playing implications of the change, without any regard to the underlying reasons. But I kind of had to add the disclaimer that I don't think those reasons matter very much for this decision first.

[Dork_Forge]

Who's 'we'? I mean, with how long games can go on for it's what, a half-dozen characters a year maybe? Rough guesstimate. 'cos take your average set of players I doubt more than one or two of those characters would be truly "against the grain". Anecdotal assessment of my experience, of course.

Are all your players the type to go full powerplay? Is your DM going to make any adjustments or just let it fly as is? Assuming the DM's not you, of course, in which case you can just houserule it to how you like.

Something to bear in mind is that you don't have to 'go full powerplay' to put your stats in the most beneficial things for your class. It's a very very basic part of optimising that the majority of players, including new, understand. The only place I can see there actually diversity for the most part is the +1 going to a stat like Cha if the player wants to be social without being a Cha class.

Meanwhile this opens a whole bunch of samey bleh to people that enjoy powergaming, espcially if they're using point buy. Then theirs the wider balance concern, the only thing vaguely entering the balance equation for Wizards was the d6 hit die and lack of armor. Suddenly stat synergistic ways to access armor are clear, want an easy way to tackle that pesky squishiness? Just be a Half Orc and pop back up if you get dropped.

Then there's the whole can of worms this opens with the Dragonmark races, Jorasco Halfling now can give said Wizard a +2 Int and access to healing spells.

This was not thought through in the least in terms of balance, maintaining niches or well any other way.

[Dr. Cliché]

I'm kind of afraid to weigh in on this, because it feels to me like the motivation is real world. (And real world discussions are a more serious forum rules matter than thread necromancy and spam combined.) It's the age old "why don't women get a strength penalty?" debate. If you state that orcs, an intelligent and human-like race, all excel in physical matters rather than matters of the mind you sort of leave open the possibility that this could apply to real world groups as well. They had already started removing ability score penalties from races and adding more diverse features rather than steering every race in a single direction, this feels like the next step in that.

I feel like I'm still inside the forum rules lines here, and I will stop here as well. If I make any more posts in this thread it will be to discuss the game play and role playing implications of the change, without any regard to the underlying reasons. But I kind of had to add the disclaimer that I don't think those reasons matter very much for this decision first.

Oh, the motivation for this drivel is absolutely driven by a desire to cater to the professionally-offended.

Because some absolute cretins on the internet decided that Orcs = PoC. Of course, there was no actual evidence for this beyond the blatant racism of those actually making the accusation.

However, every large company has apparently undergone a mandatory spine-removal, so rather than calling these people out on their racism and absolute nonsense, WotC instead bent the knee, first making orcs no longer evil, just misunderstood; and then removing racial bonuses and penalties altogether. Because why would different species with markedly different appearances also have different characteristics?

And that, children, is how WotC ended racism forever.

Hooray!

[cutlery]

Because some absolute cretins on the internet decided that Orcs = PoC. Of course, there was no actual evidence for this beyond the blatant racism of those actually making the accusation.


There's a long tradition of pointing out the races and cultures Tolkien introduced/modified are more or less traditionally racist in nature; going back to his letters from the 50's. That's not new.

[Stangler]

I generally assume the rules on stats are the way they are because they wanted the rules to be simple. Sometimes when you are trying to write a book simplicity wins out more than it should.

Personally I have always used a house rule where you can move one stat point away from the preset stat points and you can only get a +2 if you started with it. The idea here is that it is really the +2 that makes a certain race unique but allowing a +1 anywhere means that any race can get a 16 main stat with point buy or standard array.

The new way is simpler and more generous. /shrug

[137beth]

I like the idea, though I am much less wild about the execution. Any race that was balanced around having good racial features but non-synergistic ability score bonuses is now better than it was before, and vice versa. I would probably have liked it more if this variant were built in to the core rules from the beginning (and if that happens for 6e I'd be happy with that).

[JackalTornMoons]

Just wanted to give my quick first thoughts on each race if unattached to ability score:

I'll bold some standouts


Aarakocra - Now low-level arcanes get to fly
Aasimar (Fallen) - The fear DC is still attached to charisma
Aasimar (Protector) - Flight and radiant damage useful for basically anyone
Aasimar (Scourge) - Barbarian grappler w/ aura damage
Bugbear - Bugbear Hexadin
Centaur - Go Paladin and be a centaur that rides a horse
Changeling - The origin customization rules state that you can't put the +2 and the +1 into the same stat, but I wonder if they want that to apply to Changelings. I assume there'll be a Sage Advice incoming
Dragonborn - Breath Weapon DC being attached to CON was weird since they didn't get CON before. Maybe more Barbs?
Dragonborn (Draconblood) - Forceful presence pretty solid on anybody that wants to talk
Dragonborn (Ravenite) - Rogues will like the free reaction attack
Dwarf (Duergar) - 4 weapon profs and a tool that you can swap around. Free enlarge and invisibility along with all the other dwarf stuff
Dwarf (Hill) - Everybody loves more HP
Dwarf (Mark of Warding) - Seems like a solid Arcane Trickster
Dwarf (Mountain) - I feel like we're gonna see a lot of these guys :) Lots of swap options and of course the +2/+2
Elf (Drow) - Priestess of Lolth
Elf (Eladrin) - Lots of swaps and free misty step mean you could do pretty much anything
Elf (High) - Lots of melee that could use a free booming blade
Elf (Mark of Shadow) - Arcane Trickster
Elf (Pallid) - Artificer maybe?
Elf (Sea) - Having a swim speed and being able to breathe water would be useful for any class in a seafaring campaign
Elf (Shadar-kai) - Necrotic resistance and your resistance to all damage misty step great for everyone
Elf (Wood) - Mobility for everybody
Firbolg - I'm kinda liking ranger for this
Genasi (Air) - Float up and shoot things
Genasi (Earth) - Ranger flavor
Genasi (Fire) - Martials would enjoy the fire resistance and CON-based spells
Genasi (Water) - Grapple and drown 'em. Acid resistance is gravy.
Githyanki - Greatsword prof is less fun now
Githzerai - Artificer/Non-trickster rogues like the mage hand
Gnome (Deep) - Rise of the martial gnomes??? Gnome cunning is so good
Gnome (Forest) - Gloomgnomer
Gnome (Mark of Scribing) - I'm starting to realize I like Artificer/EK/AT for all of the marked races
Gnome (Rock) - I like the other gnomes better
Goblin - All sorts of classes would like to disengage/hide as a BA
Goliath - Probably not much of a change but they do get a skill prof and stone's endurance is useful on anyone
Half-Elf - Swarm of half-elf builds incoming buckle up. +2/+1/+1, 2x skill prof, 3x languages
Half-Elf (Aqua) - Swim speed situationally great
Half-Elf (Drow) - Shadow monk
Half-Elf (Mark of Detection) - Arti/AT/EK
Half-Elf (Mark of Storm) - Pirate Arti/AT/EK
Half-Elf (Moon/Sun) - Gotta love that free cantrip
Half-Elf (Wood) - Zoom zoom
Half-Orc - Probably not going to change much
Half-Orc (Mark of Finding) - Free Hunter's Mark. +d4 to Perception. Free spells! Great choice for all sorts of stuff
Halfling (Ghostwise) - Gotta love Lucky and advantage v frightened
Halfling (Lightfoot) - Hiding behind your medium buddies is amazing
Halfling (Lotusden) - Free control spells for martials
Halfling (Mark of Healing) - Who needs DSS? Other sorcs/wizards going to love this one
Halfling (Mark of Hospitality) - So much flavor in this one along with all the other amazing halfling goodies. I hope the Cooking feat comes in TCoE too :)
Halfling (Stout) - Poison advantage and resistance is gravy
Hobgoblin - Fun things to swap. Can go sorc now
Human - Uh... swap some languages?
Human (Mark of Finding) - Half-Orc probably better but its a human with darkvision
Human (Mark of Handling) - Conjure Animals for any spell list! Paladins can yap with their horsie
Human (Mark of Making) - Concentrationless Magic Weapon at lvl 1 is fun
Human (Mark of Passage) - Zoom zoom and Misty step are loved by everyone. Phantom Speed for any caster is fun
Human (Mark of Sentinel) - Seems tailor made for a tanky EK. Vigilant guardian, free shield, d4 to perception, shield of faith/warding bond
Human (Variant) - Probably still the optimancers choice for anybody who wants CBE/PAM
Kalashtar - WIS save adv and resistance to psychic can be super useful in some campaigns
Kenku - Two skill swaps is nice but probably still only being this for the flavor
Kobold - Depends on if we get to keep Pack Tactics or not :)
Leonin - Probably not much of a change although I guess squishies might like the con mod pbaoe frightened
Lizardfolk - Gloomstalker yes please fits them to a T. Flavorful artificers too :). Dip monk for BA bites?
Loxodon - Grapple build inc
Minotaur - Probably not going to change much. Skill swap
Orc - BA dash toward baddies and 2 skill swaps
Satyr - 35 ft speed, magic resistance, and 2 skill swaps. Puckswarm incoming
Shifter (Beasthide) - Skill swap, temp hp, and +1 ac are useful for anybody
Shifter (Longtooth) - skill swap, temp hp, Let's you get a BA attack without investing a feat.
Shifter (Swiftstride) - Skill swap, temp hp, temp zoomies and staying away from baddies. Solid on casters
Shifter (Wildhunt) - No disadvantages on attack rolls against you = BARBARIAN
Simic Hybrid - Grapple Drowner
Tabaxi - 2 swaps, climb speed, and zoomies
Tiefling (Various) - Fire resistance and free spells are both great for martials.
Tortle - Wizards/Sorcs/Bards all going to have fun with this
Triton - +1/+1/+1 is interesting but probably not all that useful?
Vedalken - Tireless Precision on anything is cool.
Verdan - Skill swap, advantage on wis/cha saves is cool
Warforged - +1 AC and all the other warforged stuff make these fun for basically anyone
Yuan-Ti - Magic resistance, poison immunity, unlimited snake friendship, and free Suggestion. Gonna be a popular one (although I think it's banned in AL).

[Theoboldi]

I'm kind of afraid to weigh in on this, because it feels to me like the motivation is real world. (And real world discussions are a more serious forum rules matter than thread necromancy and spam combined.) It's the age old "why don't women get a strength penalty?" debate. If you state that orcs, an intelligent and human-like race, all excel in physical matters rather than matters of the mind you sort of leave open the possibility that this could apply to real world groups as well. They had already started removing ability score penalties from races and adding more diverse features rather than steering every race in a single direction, this feels like the next step in that.

I feel like I'm still inside the forum rules lines here, and I will stop here as well. If I make any more posts in this thread it will be to discuss the game play and role playing implications of the change, without any regard to the underlying reasons. But I kind of had to add the disclaimer that I don't think those reasons matter very much for this decision first.

So, let me get this straight. You commented on this, giving the implication that anyone who disagrees with these changes for thematic reasons leaves their games open to real life racist ideology. But then at the same time, you say that you can't really talk about these things and that nobody should start a conversation about it here?

That strikes me as though you want to have your cake and eat it too. It's a cowardly way of putting forward your ideas, stating what you believe with authority but forbidding any reprieval, even if you did not intend it as such. I do believe we're within forum rules either way right now, I just do despise dishonest discourse of any sort.


As for these changes, they are less than ideal. Even without racial ability modifiers, you still have loads of 'savage' abilities on orcs, emphasizing their 'brutish nature', while elves get loads of cantrips to signify how 'learned' they are. They still are defined as being distinctly different from humans. I just don't see any way to achieve the underlying goal of changes like these without removing races entirely.

[Mikal]

Yeah. Gotta say these are gonna get a big no from me. Not a fan.

[Hellpyre]

I feel like this entire system would have been better served (at least for non-AL play) by being replaced with a couple page section on discourse with your DM about making minor mechanical changes to serve roleplaying goals. In decades of play, I've almost never had trouble in any edtion convincing a DM to let me swap out languages to better fit a backstory, and I've often been able to get 'cultural' stats changed to something that better fit the fluff of a particular game. Certainly, this is something that should have at the very leasy been put out into the wild as UA for a bit so the worst abuse cases (like Mountain Dwarf) could pop up and be evaluated before commiting the rules to an official product.

[rooneg]

Certainly, this is something that should have at the very leasy been put out into the wild as UA for a bit so the worst abuse cases (like Mountain Dwarf) could pop up and be evaluated before commiting the rules to an official product.
I am 100% sure that the authors of this system are aware of what you can do with Mountain Dwarf. Something like 95% of the people who look at these rules immediately start talking about Mountain Dwarf Wizards. This was quite clearly published with the knowledge that people would do this with Mountain Dwarf PCs and that it was an acceptable price to pay for having an exceedingly simple system that still lets people do pretty reasonable amounts of customization.

[Miele]

I'm not excited one bit, honestly. It doesn't make much sense, but it is what it is. I don't play in AL, so in the end... who cares?

I guess I'll allow things that make sense (but I was already doing it), more than anticlimatic, ridicolous race/class combinations: raging barbarian... gnome. 20 Kgs (45 pounds) of cute fury: very World of Warcraft, but I like my D&D table to be more traditional.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Unpopular opinion: Mountain Dwarfs are fine. Good Lord, +1 ability score point and medium armor aren't the end of the damn world.

[Pex]

The floating racial modifiers make Human even more useless. Variant Human is still palpable because the feat is that good.

[Edea]

Optimization-minded folks will need to remember that we are deeply in the minority of D&D players. For the majority of D&D games, this will be fine.

This is true.

Also, to be perfectly frank, one can just take the half-elf 'mechanics set', rip the half-elf flavor-skin off of it, and put whatever other skin they want on in its place so long as it's Medium-sized. You'd just qualify for feats as if you were a 'half-elf', even though you're an orc or dragonborn or whatever in-game.

[Cicciograna]

If you state that orcs, an intelligent and human-like race, all excel in physical matters rather than matters of the mind you sort of leave open the possibility that this could apply to real world groups as well.

I think there are two mistakes here.
The first one is that you say that orcs are human-like.
No they're not. They are orcs. A different race. You are classifying them under a "different variant of human being", meaning that by design they can't stride further from what humans could do. Why would you do that? They are stated as a different race, they are bound to be different from humans - and I am stating this in the most neutral way possible.

Also, for some reason all of these considerations always, ALWAYS, orbit around orcs and their kin. Nobody seems to have any concern at all seeing tabaxi or catfolk in general as more dexterous and gracious than humans. It's NEVER hard to imagine CATfolk being as dexterous as a cat, but when someone mention orcs everybody loses their.

The second mistake that you make is that you say that all orcs excel in physical matters rather than the matters of the mind. I want you to start creating a Half Orc Wizard. Elite array. Now, put 8 to Strength. Then put 15 to Intelligence.
Is this a Half Orc that "excels in physical matters"? Wouldn't think so.
Now I have another thought excercise for you. Imagine an awakened gorilla. An average one, though, not an adventurer or anything like that. Then imagine an average human. Not an adventurer, a regular average human. Am I wrong in saying that you would imagine the awakened average gorilla as being way stronger than the average human?

At the end of the day, however, in the framework of a game that still revolves around superhuman beings, both the awakened adventurer gorilla and the adventurer human can improve themselves, up to a point where they have the same Strength. That's a key point there: they can arrive to the same Strength. The difference, however, is that the gorilla has to train a lot less compared to the human to get to that high Strength. Spend less resources. Is this so far-fetched?
Don't like the gorilla, feel it is somewhat demeaning? Cool, let's bring in the catfolks and dexterity. Same argument.

Racial modifiers represent a natural disposition that different RACES - mind, not different aspect of human beings, different RACES, with different physiologies and stuff - have towards certain capabilities. The individual can be whatever they want, and this is represented into putting whatever scores you want into whatever characteristic, physical or mental, and with the Elite array everybody has the possibility to have at least one 20, with a certain expenditure of resources.

[Hael]

Unpopular opinion: Mountain Dwarfs are fine. Good Lord, +1 ability score point and medium armor aren't the end of the damn world.

It’s a pretty big deal. Many people give up an entire lvl to multi class to get the benefits here. Now we can swap out a few martial proficiences, and get a specific weapon, shield and medium armor.

Now there is very little reason to dip anymore, and indeed the avoided feat tax can now be transferred into a potential heavy armor feat, which is frankly broken on a wizard.

You’re essentially adding many points of AC, an extra +1 somewhere, removing the need for mage armor, getting your capstone instead of mcing and opening up new feat options.

All this for the best class in the game.

[Tanarii]

And this right here is the problem with poorly balanced optional rules presented as official word.

[x3n0n]

It’s a pretty big deal. Many people give up an entire lvl to multi class to get the benefits here. Now we can swap out a few martial proficiences, and get a specific weapon, shield and medium armor.

Now there is very little reason to dip anymore, and indeed the avoided feat tax can now be transferred into a potential heavy armor feat, which is frankly broken on a wizard.

You’re essentially adding many points of AC, an extra +1 somewhere, removing the need for mage armor, getting your capstone instead of mcing and opening up new feat options.

All this for the best class in the game.

Where is the shield coming from? Mountain Dwarf doesn't get shield proficiency, and none of the new trades provide it either, as far as I can see. (No particular argument about the rest. This is a nice short path to Heavily Armored without multiclassing if you're looking for it.)

[MaxWilson]

Also, for some reason all of these considerations always, ALWAYS, orbit around orcs and their kin. Nobody seems to have any concern at all seeing tabaxi or catfolk in general as more dexterous and gracious than humans. It's NEVER hard to imagine CATfolk being as dexterous as a cat, but when someone mention orcs everybody loses their.

Not always. Sometimes it's about halflings being as strong as Goliaths instead.

Do y'all realize that under these new rules, halflings are actually stronger than humans? +2 Str FTW baby.

[rooneg]

It’s a pretty big deal. Many people give up an entire lvl to multi class to get the benefits here. Now we can swap out a few martial proficiences, and get a specific weapon, shield and medium armor.
I’m pretty sure you can’t actually get a shield this way. Mountain Dwarf doesn’t give it to you and none of the legal proficiency swaps lets you pick up armor or shield proficiency. Not saying it isn’t good, but it’s not the same sort of armor you’d get from MCing into Hexblade or Cleric.

[137beth]

Racial modifiers represent a natural disposition that different RACES - mind, not different aspect of human beings, different RACES,

The problem comes from the fact that anyone who doesn't live entirely in the D&D bubble hears the word "race" used to refer to different groups of humans more than they hear it used to distinguish humans from nonhumans. Even casual D&D players likely hear the D&D meaning of "race" less than they hear another meaning of "race." If WotC instead said that humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, halflings, and gnomes were different species, then there wouldn't be nearly as much confusion.
EDIT: Although, I think to some extent the race vs species argument is a distraction. I've been in favor of eventually getting rid of racial species ASIs among the core PC species because I don't think it's an interesting way to mechanically distinguish them or to encourage a variety of species and class combinations. I'd rather species be distinguished by non-numerical traits that are potentially useful to characters of any class.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And this right here is the problem with poorly balanced optional rules presented as official word.

All thanks to the Orc Moral Panic. The Satanic Panic brought us Tanar'ri and Baatezu. And now we have this. :smallyuk:

I'm just glad it's only mandatory for AL, which I don't play.

My own games are going to have the following standards:
* Changes to languages and proficiencies can follow the guidelines without consultation (although I have lots of custom languages, so you might want to ask what's going to be important).
* Changes to ability scores, no. You can use one of my racial variants if you want--if you do you can even have a free cultural proficiency (language, tool, or weapon) as a thanks for play-testing and telling me more about your character.

I already did away with the whole "orcs are brutish and evil" thing long ago. Same for all the races. Non-evil yuan-ti? Sure. They're called ophidians, and they live in the Jungle of Fangs. Heck, even outsiders often have non-standard alignments, with only very slight leanings at the racial level (Angels tend to be lawful. Devils tend to be evil, but only slightly and there are lots of good ones. Demons tend more strongly to evil, and slightly toward chaos. But that's because they all chose to be that way, and it's hard to be a good guy when you consume souls to stay "alive").

[Hael]

I’m pretty sure you can’t actually get a shield this way. Mountain Dwarf doesn’t give it to you and none of the legal proficiency swaps lets you pick up armor or shield proficiency. Not saying it isn’t good, but it’s not the same sort of armor you’d get from MCing into Hexblade or Cleric.

I’d have to look up the legalese about shield weapons, like spiked shields. Those could be considered martial weapons, and it would remain to be seen whether you could get the ac bonus.

[LudicSavant]

It’s a pretty big deal. Many people give up an entire lvl to multi class to get the benefits here. Now we can swap out a few martial proficiences, and get a specific weapon, shield and medium armor.

The shield proficiency is arguably more important than the medium armor proficiency, and you still don't get that part.

[jas61292]

I generally have no interest in these rules and probably will not be using most of them. I despise the ability score ones, which just eviscerate racial balance, and racial flavor, in my opinion. And I'm not a huge fan of the proficiency ones either. I might allow some of those on a case by case basis, but I think I would really want some good justification for them, especially if a player wants to do something like turn brewer's supplies proficiency into a thieves' tools one. Like... I get it, not all racial features are genetic. Some are cultural. But if you are going to swap things around, I am going to want a cultural reason. Not one just about the character specifically, because that is what your background is for.

Honestly, speaking of backgrounds, their existence really only intensifies my dislike of these rules. Maybe back in 3.5 I would have appreciated these more, when you just had your race and class. But we already have a mechanical representation of something non-racial, and non-class related, so I really don't need races to be changed to get the feeling that a character is distinct from a generic member of their race.

The only thing here I really don't mind is the languages. That makes sense. If you were not raised by people who speak one language, you should not know that language. Make it something else. That's cool by me.

[rooneg]

I’d have to look up the legalese about shield weapons, like spiked shields. Those could be considered martial weapons, and it would remain to be seen whether you could get the ac bonus.

The legalese on shield weapons in 5e (at least as applied to PCs under the current rules) is they don’t exist. There are monsters that have them as a special attack mode, but nowhere I can find them statted up as PC equipment. In effect using your shield as a weapon would be an improvised weapon. Regardless, even if they did exist proficiency in a shield (as a weapon) is not the same a proficiency in a shield (as armor).

[Luccan]

I'm not excited one bit, honestly. It doesn't make much sense, but it is what it is. I don't play in AL, so in the end... who cares?

I guess I'll allow things that make sense (but I was already doing it), more than anticlimatic, ridicolous race/class combinations: raging barbarian... gnome. 20 Kgs (45 pounds) of cute fury: very World of Warcraft, but I like my D&D table to be more traditional.

You could already do that. Now you can just do it in point buy. You could even do it in point buy before, you just weren't going to be very good at being a barbarian at low levels (though you'd make more mental saves). Niche races being more appealing outside their niche is like the least concerning thing about this change.

[micahaphone]

I'm excited. I know my players, they're not going to cheese the farm with this. It'll allow us to play nonconventional character combos, explore that story, without being 5% worse at everything as a penalty. Orcs who were shunned by their clan, learn arcane secrets, and try to bring that back to their people. Goliaths that reject the traditions of honorable combat and sneak and stab in the dark. Or giant soul sorcerer goliath seems very on-theme. Dwarven monk who uses elbows knees, getting in close, grabbing enemies into anchored hits.

[Edea]

Might want to try an aarakocra warlock now, myself...

[heavyfuel]

And this right here is the problem with poorly balanced optional rules presented as official word.

Unlike those poorly balanced non-optional rules that are actually offical word :smallbiggrin:

[jas61292]

Unlike those poorly balanced non-optional rules that are actually offical word :smallbiggrin:

Not going to say other stuff is necessarily balanced. But at least they tried. This is just simply a case of "screw it, do whatever you want" but in official rules parlance. There is not even an attempt at balance.

[heavyfuel]

Not going to say other stuff is necessarily balanced. But at least they tried. This is just simply a case of "screw it, do whatever you want" but in official rules parlance. There is not even an attempt at balance.

Meh. Give it time, I say.

I remember back when the PHB came out and people were complaining about feats and multiclassing being so definitely broken that no one with a mind for balance should ever allow them.

Now it's 6 years later and I don't remember the last time I saw someone running a feat-less game. Multiclassing seems to be slightly less common, but still widely accepted.

As someone else said, it's not like a +1 to a secondary score and Medium Armor makes Mountain Dwarf the be all and end all of races. If anything this makes the VHuman and the Half-elf less of completely obvious choices.

[Mikal]

Meh. Give it time, I say.

I remember back when the PHB came out and people were complaining about feats and multiclassing being so definitely broken that no one with a mind for balance should ever allow them.

Yeah who exactly said this... seeing as how feats have been around since 1999, and multiclass for decades longer than that? Cause anyone who did probably never actually played before or knew what they were talking about.

[heavyfuel]

Yeah who exactly said this... seeing as how feats have been around since 1999, and multiclass for decades longer than that? Cause anyone who did probably never actually played before or knew what they were talking about.

Do you seriously expect me to remember the username of some random posters I saw somewhere on the internet back in 2014?

[OldTrees1]

As someone else said, it's not like a +1 to a secondary score and Medium Armor makes Mountain Dwarf the be all and end all of races. If anything this makes the VHuman and the Half-elf less of completely obvious choices.

I think Half-Elves are a more obvious choice now than before since they got the same versatility bump Mountain Dwarf did:
1) +2/+1/+1 is a very strong stat line
2) +2 Skills is really nice for more character RP
3) Darkvision is quite a prized feature

[Mikal]

Do you seriously expect me to remember the username of some random posters I saw somewhere on the internet back in 2014?

Seeing as how you apparently remember what they said...? Yeah I’d think you’d have more than vague Statements of “this was said six years ago though I have no evidence to that” if you want to be taken seriously.

[micahaphone]

I'm glad that I memorize usernames when taking in general thoughts from a group of people online, just in case I need to prove my recollection to be true 5-10 years later

[JackPhoenix]

Only if you are playing with the rolling variant rule, which is extremely bad for interparty balance and should not be used. If you are playing by normal rules, without this method a Half Orc cannot start with an Intelligence higher than 15. The game is balanced around that being too low for viability.

You mean the default rule. Rolling is the standard, point buy is the variant.

[Mikal]

I'm glad that I memorize usernames when taking in general thoughts from a group of people online, just in case I need to prove my recollection to be true 5-10 years later

Yeah I know, it’s a real pain to actually have to provide evidence something actually occurred instead of just being able to pull whatever you want outta your butt, ain’t it?

[sandmote]

They really should have just waited until a new edition. Then just replace "race," in the terminology and if you still like add features granting benefits for particular balance that don't include ASIs at all. Instead of stripping out upbringing based abilities along with innate physiology between the things currently labeled "races."

Orcs get brought up specifically because of Tolkien, who specified he was talking about European views on the IRL humans in question, but did label orcs as looking as a negative modification of IRL humans. Contrast Tabaxi's lack of a history or how Dwarves went through three phases: direct mythological rip off, influence of an IRL group, and then significant change to remove harmful IRL implications. The orc resemblance was very light but never stripped out. Along with the "they're inferior versions of the thing that's good," they're the ones slapped the the stereotypes.

My question is the reasoning here. Are they panicking over the response to Bright's shambolic world building? It would be completely unnecessary (even Wizards isn't that incompetent), but its the only thing I can come up with where skipping a UA release sounds remotely reasonable.


Yeah I know, it’s a real pain to actually have to provide evidence something actually occurred instead of just being able to pull whatever you want outta your butt, ain’t it? You're talking about people in d&d looking at an option granting more power and instantly labeling it broken. Congratulations on joining the hobby, maybe talk to some other people about it?

[Hellpyre]

I mean, realistically the biggest thing this does is reduce variance between different races. Whether or not that's a good thing is divisive (I happen to think homogenizing them both is bad design in general, and kick poor non-variant Human even harder while it's down), but it is what it is. I don't think it should have been thrown out in the way it was, and I don't care for the backpeddling on societies having attribute differences as a whole that they included as an aside.

But how bad it is really remains to be seen. I think that while floating ASIs are the part I most dislike, mechanically the most impactful change will almost certainly be trading around proficiencies. Some edge cases get worse from having a bump to class attributes they wouldn't have had as early before, but picking up whip on a rogue or other hard to get proficiencies without dipping or taking feats is probably stronger for most builds.


(That being said, getting free ASIs to pair unorthodox classes will get at least a little silly. I imagine a Yuan-Ti Pureblood or Saytr barbarian with Bear totem and magic resistance would be very hard to hurt significantly)

[Lavaeolus]

This is mostly for funsies, but wanted to check I was reading right. Let's say I make a Hill Dwarf Fighter and these rules are in effect, or maybe I'm an Artificer and I feel like pushing Tool Expertise to its limits. Dwarves would normally get proficiency in four weapons, and of course for most martials that's redundant.

Ignoring backgrounds but taking into account dwarf already gets a tool proficiency, could I start with five tool proficiencies from my race?

[Hellpyre]

This is mostly for funsies, but wanted to check I was reading right. Let's say I make a Hill Dwarf Fighter and these rules are in effect, or maybe I'm an Artificer and I feel like pushing Tool Expertise to its limits. Dwarves would normally get proficiency in four weapons, and of course for most martials that's redundant.

Ignoring backgrounds but taking into account dwarf already gets a tool proficiency, could I start with five tool proficiencies from my race?

Yes, explicitly yes.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Only if you are playing with the rolling variant rule, which is extremely bad for interparty balance and should not be used. If you are playing by normal rules, without this method a Half Orc cannot start with an Intelligence higher than 15. The game is balanced around that being too low for viability.

Bit of a late reply, but this often irks me: Unless we're talking about AL (I'm fairly sure we're not as rolling stats is a 100% no go for AL) Rolling stats is not the variant option, it's the standard rule. Standard Array is a simple option (also described as a "standard" or non variant option) and Point Buy is entirely a variant rule in its own separate section of the character creation chapter.

Your interparty balance will not be significantly impacted by rolling stats.

On topic: Now that we some more detailed information, I can say that I'm not surprised but I am a bit disappointed. This was clearly the easiest (and by extension, laziest) way to make this idea work. I still don't think it's the cataclysmic "races are all the same now" situation that some are suggesting but I was hoping at least something would be done to curtail the opportunities to game the system out of it.

It leaves a bit of a bad taste but with that said I believe the amount of people who would be looking to directly abuse the system is significantly smaller than the amount of people who simply want to use it for its intended purpose of making diverse player characters. Time will tell, we'll have to keep posted with frequent AL players to see how its impacted their experience since I feel they'd be most likely to see a wide variety of characters.

[P. G. Macer]

I’m also left with a bad taste with these new rules, and I am futilely hoping that the actual version in Tasha’s is more robust. I feel the people suspicious about the lack of public playtesting for these rules were justified, though (for reasons beyond the scope of the forum rules) WotC probably was going to go ahead with it no matter what people said. I had assumed they were working on it before the diversity statement back in June, but if they were, I’d have expected more nuance in their approach.

Everyone has discussed Mountain Dwarves and Half-Elves to death here already, but I’ve seen some but not much about some other ones. I’ve seen quite a bit about Aarakocra casters, but only one or two mentions of the Satyr and Yuan-Ti Pureblood (Though it looks like neither are AL legal this season), and I’ve seen only a single mention of Vedalken, and not on this thread.

I also foresee many more PCs now having thieves’ tools proficiency, along with non-elf rogues having longbows.

I will not be using these rules in my games, due to how poorly thought-out they are. If a player comes to me wanting to break the mold with their PC’s racial features, they can do that individually working with me on a case-by-case basis.

[Fnissalot]

Mountain dwarfs are not that much better than anything else. It is the shield proficiency not the medium armor one that is strong, and +2/+2 will just leave them with 17 16 13 12 10 8. Which will just end up as another half feat in the end.

If I would be worried, I would be more worried for all the new gnomes that will come. Having gnomish cunning without the +2 to int is huge (or at least worth more in my eyes).

Overall though, I think it is good. It prevents players from being punished for playing to their character's concepts. You want to be a dwarfen rogue locksmith, even if most dwarfs aren't that good at it, you are a PC, go for it. If your halforc was the hamlet's priest, of course it can have + in wisdom to allow it to be a cleric instead of being punished for the concept. While some of you think we will see more mountain dwarfs, I think we will see less v.humans and half-elves and more of everything else. Isn't that a good thing?

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

This is a good change, because it allows players to express themselves creatively by starting with a race/class combo and not being punished numerically for picking the "wrong" race for a class. I see a lot of newcomers get introduced to DnD and get extremely let down when they look through the races and classes, pick some combo that appeals to them on a creative level, and are immediately told "Uhhh, yeah, that race isn't very good at that, actually". Introducing this new rule reduces that factor and makes any race/class combo viable, which is really nice to see. Also gets rid of a lot of very unfortunate racist implications, which is pretty good, too. The power gaming concerns seem pretty minor, and will mostly result in...the sorts of people who would only play variant humans and half elves sometimes playing dwarves. This seems fine to me in exchange for getting cool stuff like tortle wizards, orcish artificers, and kobold barbarians.

Thinking about it, I honestly would not play at any table not allowing this rule, going forward. It's a pretty good way for me to instantly tell a table is definitely gonna be a no-fun-zone for me personally.

[Segev]

This new rule doesn’t really reduce the races being not so good at things, though, and the “play any race/class combo without penalty” argument sounds like a statement that either race or class is meaningless.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

Thinking about it, I honestly would not play at any table not allowing this rule, going forward. It's a pretty good way for me to instantly tell a table is definitely gonna be a no-fun-zone for me personally.

All of your post is correct, but this times a million. People are throwing fits around one more race getting on the helf/vuman level while simultaneously insisting that creative combinations take a mechanical penalty simply because they're creative. Those aren't the kind of people you'd want to game with.

[Lyracian]

When I did my own version of a 'racial attribute swap' rule, I had a line about how if you got more than +2 / +1, and you decided to swap, you got +2/+1 instead, precisely to cover cases like this.
That was also the rule I was expecting them to give us. Everyone can have a +2/+1 floating. That would seem to a fair exchange to go against your racial type. I do not think I will adopting this part of the rule.


The floating racial modifiers make Human even more useless. Variant Human is still palpable because the feat is that good.
Completely agree. Standard Human has a very niche fit if you rolls lots of odd number but its value goes down even further. I have had one character play as Standard Human in my games.

I like the proficiency swaps will have to see how it actually plays out though. Elfs and Dwarfs can now actually pick weapons or tools they will use and the trait is not wasted if you get all Martial Weapons from your class. All these Dex based Elven Clerics and Druids will be replacing Long Sword with Rapier Rogues can pick up Scimitar and Whip those Finesse weapons they do not normally have.

[Yakmala]

With all this optimization discussion, it occurred to me that you could go in the opposite direction.

Kobold Wizard, +2 Int, -2 to Con, would start at 4 HP at Level 1 and, assuming no Con ASI's and average HP from Level 2 onward, 42 HP at level 20.

It's almost like playing 1st Edition again!

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Okay, I'll reply as short as I can because I seem to have rubbed some people the wrong way. So I'll just clear up what I meant before this somehow comes back to me getting ban points for starting something again. I'm quoting a bit that I feel summarizes the wrong way rubbing the best:


So, let me get this straight. You commented on this, giving the implication that anyone who disagrees with these changes for thematic reasons leaves their games open to real life racist ideology. But then at the same time, you say that you can't really talk about these things and that nobody should start a conversation about it here?

That strikes me as though you want to have your cake and eat it too. It's a cowardly way of putting forward your ideas, stating what you believe with authority but forbidding any reprieval, even if you did not intend it as such. I do believe we're within forum rules either way right now, I just do despise dishonest discourse of any sort.

I wasn't stating my opinion here, I was speculating at the reasons that the game designers have for this change. I'm also not the one saying you can't discuss any sensitive real world matters here, the forum rules are. I got maximum ban points just a few weeks ago for making three mentions of a real world religion in a thread dedicated to another (historic) real world religion. It's a big big biggity big nono. If you want to discuss what I think of the nuances of the present day race and identity debate you can shoot me a PM with your email address. I wouldn't do that if I were you, because it's mostly a lot of "on the other hand, I get the argument that etc etc..." But I'll leave that up to any takers.

[Dr. Cliché]

I feel like this entire system would have been better served (at least for non-AL play) by being replaced with a couple page section on discourse with your DM about making minor mechanical changes to serve roleplaying goals. In decades of play, I've almost never had trouble in any edtion convincing a DM to let me swap out languages to better fit a backstory, and I've often been able to get 'cultural' stats changed to something that better fit the fluff of a particular game. Certainly, this is something that should have at the very leasy been put out into the wild as UA for a bit so the worst abuse cases (like Mountain Dwarf) could pop up and be evaluated before commiting the rules to an official product.

So much this.

But no, instead races are now nothing more than a buffet table where people pick and choose whatever traits they want.

Why even bother with races at all?

[LudicSavant]

That was also the rule I was expecting them to give us. Everyone can have a +2/+1 floating. That would seem to a fair exchange to go against your racial type. I do not think I will adopting this part of the rule.

Yeah... I think this is a downgrade from that house rule; it wouldn't have been difficult for them to both keep the rule simple and intuitive, and account for edge cases like Mountain Dwarf, as demonstrated by the above.

On the bright side, it could have been worse (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/563-reimagining-racial-ability-scores). (Oh my goodness if you think Mountain Dwarves are trouble now, look at James Haeck's version... what the heck...)

[Sindal]

My thoughts:

Overall I don't mind at all.

"Everyone will just play the most optimal thing"

In all likelihood, they won't. I've dm'd for roughly 10 different groups so far of varying levels of players and experience. Dwarf was chosen once.

And in almost all of those players, people started their character with "i want to be an x."

"I want to be a bird and fly around. I want to be a tiefling. I want to be a halfling and be a cheerful small person"

Most of the time, people care about how their character looks like and how they come across in the world first. They wanna be sneaky changing with secrets. They wanna be big dudes that are walking mountains. They wanna be a furry race because that interests them. They want to project themselves into a world the way they wish to be.

Optimization is always going to happen. No matter what you do, the people who are into numbers more than the race will still do what they planned to do. So just let them, while everyone else also gets access to the race and class they want to be with a bit more ease.

"It removes what makes races unique."

As a race, it doesn't. Everyone else in your race , in the world they inhabit, has the default. They still have the grain. . This change just gives you the actual permission to go against the grain. You could before, but from a game play perspective you did so knowing you applied a stat tax to yourself and sometimes as a player that sucks in the game about 'having fun. Races also have other factors that lead them away from certain professions.

Small races still can't use heavy weapons no matter how strong they are.

Aaracokra still can't wear heavy or medium armour if they want to use their flight. Stremgth builds will have to decide if they want to fly or have ac. And I applaud the arracorka who choses not to fly to protect his comrade on the ground. Good for them

Both a centaur wizard or a centaur barbarian still can't climb well (the wizard can learn a spell that let's him fly but that isn't affected by stats)

A half orc wizard still will have no use for their savagery perk because they wont be hitting things in melee probably.

Dragonborn breath weapons have the same range and still use their constitution so that that's not as useful for a sniping dex archer.

A Goliath bard can be intimidating as all heck and it would make sense because he's got charisma while being a big dude. He's still a big dude who can carry more than most people ,but not as much as other people of his race. He might even be considered a weakling to his race and isn't welcome home who knows but hey the stigma is there.

Races that have built in spells won't always have the stats they run on, and be less efficient casters for it. They may never choose to cast the spells because its a waste of time compared to what their class letd them do with the stats they care for.

Stats leaning is one part of a race. Everything else about it is still there. And hey. You can still pick the stat leanining. Because you probably have racials thay support it, and support why your race is known for "doing this"

"Preference for some stat archetypes"

Just make them, if that's what you need. If you can change your stats around any way you want, the archetypes are just suggestions in this regard. I wouldn't want to ask wizards to unload a bunch of racial subclasses for every single race when you can just pick the stats yourself and give it a justification.

TLDR:
I'm trying to find a scenario where this is going to negatively impact my dnd and I just can't see it.

Its highly possibly that I'm missing something but currently I see no harm

-Choice is promoted
-jerry powergamer is going to powergame no matter what anyone does.
The grain is still there, amount your race (against other players maybe not but they don't count.) And can be played with.

[rlc]

Mountain dwarfs are not that much better than anything else. It is the shield proficiency not the medium armor one that is strong, and +2/+2 will just leave them with 17 16 13 12 10 8. Which will just end up as another half feat in the end.

If I would be worried, I would be more worried for all the new gnomes that will come. Having gnomish cunning without the +2 to int is huge (or at least worth more in my eyes).

Overall though, I think it is good. It prevents players from being punished for playing to their character's concepts. You want to be a dwarfen rogue locksmith, even if most dwarfs aren't that good at it, you are a PC, go for it. If your halforc was the hamlet's priest, of course it can have + in wisdom to allow it to be a cleric instead of being punished for the concept. While some of you think we will see more mountain dwarfs, I think we will see less v.humans and half-elves and more of everything else. Isn't that a good thing?

The funny thing is that the Eberron half-orc house does have +2 to wisdom, so it isn't even like that's unheard of in this edition, nevermind older editions and games not called D&D.

[heavyfuel]

Seeing as how you apparently remember what they said...? Yeah I’d think you’d have more than vague Statements of “this was said six years ago though I have no evidence to that” if you want to be taken seriously.

Well, there is this thing called Source Amnesia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_amnesia) which is a pretty common phenomenon, so I don't know why you're surprised.

I'm equally confused at your surprise that someone somewhere finds feats broken. Like, this is the internet. There are groups of people with the most insanely absurd beliefs (D&D related or otherwise). To imagine that a few people have, at some point, complained about feats and multiclassing in their game is almost a given.

[Xervous]

Optimizer and customizer in me appreciate it. Game dev facepalms. The timing of it simply begs an exhausted sigh.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Optimizer and customizer in me appreciate it. Game dev facepalms. The timing of it simply begs an exhausted sigh.

Yeah, I'm not bothered so much mechanically but the timing and knowledge now that it isn't a very creative solution has swayed my opinion into the fact that this was simply the quickest way to add something as a reaction to the times.

I was optimistic that this would be an actual new system of character creation that was well developed with thought put into potential outliers. This has let me down in that aspect. In retrospect, it might have been naive of me to have expected any different.

[Tanarii]

Your interparty balance will not be significantly impacted by rolling stats.

I agree that rolling stats is the standard rule, and I'm a fan of it, but in the average 4 person party the odds are very likely that using rolled stats will fairly significantly affect party balance. Both in regards to each other and in regards to the default expected math.

The variance (and typical size of deviation) when rolling stats is rather significant.

Edit: relevant to the topic, IMO it's going to be far more than the extremes between the best allowing floating stat bonuses race and the worst race without it (standard human probably). And far more than the best optimized feat/Multiclassing build and the worst single class no feat build.



I wasn't stating my opinion here, I was speculating at the reasons that the game designers have for this change. I'm also not the one saying you can't discuss any sensitive real world matters here, the forum rules are.Ive removed comments I've made referring to the fully explained by the devs in a published statement root cause for this change, because I'm worried about getting dinged for real world references (probably not) and flaming (likely given my very negative opinion of the justification the devs have explicitly provided). It's definitely a sensitive topic area.

[Theoboldi]

I wasn't stating my opinion here, I was speculating at the reasons that the game designers have for this change. I'm also not the one saying you can't discuss any sensitive real world matters here, the forum rules are. I got maximum ban points just a few weeks ago for making three mentions of a real world religion in a thread dedicated to another (historic) real world religion. It's a big big biggity big nono. If you want to discuss what I think of the nuances of the present day race and identity debate you can shoot me a PM with your email address. I wouldn't do that if I were you, because it's mostly a lot of "on the other hand, I get the argument that etc etc..." But I'll leave that up to any takers.

That's fair enough, but you gotta be aware of how you come across to others. If you imply in one sentence that the people you are talking to are creating harmful repercussions in real life, even if only from the perspective of the game devs, and then in the next say that actually talking about it would be a bad idea, that just ends up putting blame on people without really giving them a possibility of defending themselves.

[LudicSavant]

Some standouts besides the obvious ones everyone's been mentioning (Mountain Dwarf and Satyr/Yuan-Ti):

Goblins synergize well enough with many casters that they were actually taken before this rule was in effect, despite their lack of a mental score bonus. Now they're definitely a top tier caster race.

Wildhunt Shifters, previously Dex/Wis, have an ability that prevents enemies from getting Advantage against you. Reckless Attack is an obvious combo.

Tortles have 17 AC just like a Mountain Dwarf.

Loxodon opens up a number of grapple build possibilities.

All the dragonmarked races opens up more spell options for casters who don't have the matching stat. Healing Halfling becomes even better, since it gets all the healing spells you want without needing to take a Wis bonus.

Aasimar have great features tied to not-ideal statlines. Scourge Aasimar for example have a Cha-caster statline, but their self-damage forces Con checks on themselves. On a Barbarian, the self-damage is actually helpful in some ways since it makes your rage harder to interrupt. Protector Aasimar will find it easy to improve on a dual mental statline. Fallen still care about Cha for their DC, but are more free to take Dex or Con instead of Str.

Elves can now bump up odd (17) mental stats with Elven Accuracy when using Point Buy, instead of just Dexterity. Mind, you could already do this with half-elves, but just for Charisma. But half-elves won't give you the features of an eladrin or a shadar-kai.

Aarakocra People have been talking about this one for flying casters, but you could basically already do that with Winged Tieflings (and the various statline variants they already have). Aarakocra just do it faster because Aarakocra are silly.

Elves can now do things like take +2 Int or Wis and bump up their 17 to 18 while taking Elven Accuracy. They can also bump up Int from 17 with Fey Teleportation.

Tieflings can do something similar with Flames of Phlegethos on Int or Infernal Constitution on Cha.

Halflings can do something similar with Second Chance on Cha.

Half-Orcs (but stupidly, not orcs) can do something similar with Orcish Fury on Con.

The other racial feat instances seem less noteworthy.

[TIPOT]

My main problem with this is I don't think it goes far enough with regards to customisation.

Why let asi's float but not other racial traits? What if I want to play a dwarf who was raised by gnomes? Never learnt anything about stone but learnt artificery things instead.

They could make races be a point buy type thing. Pick x things from a list of features, pick some stat increases you have Y points to spend. Then you fluff your race, upbringing and background how you want. This just seems like a half-hearted effort if you really want to make races customisable.

[Xervous]

My main problem with this is I don't think it goes far enough with regards to customisation.

Why let asi's float but not other racial traits? What if I want to play a dwarf who was raised by gnomes? Never learnt anything about stone but learnt artificery things instead.

They could make races be a point buy type thing. Pick x things from a list of features, pick some stat increases you have Y points to spend. Then you fluff your race, upbringing and background how you want. This just seems like a half-hearted effort if you really want to make races customisable.

At what point do we roll 3d6 instead of 1d20?

[x3n0n]

Yeah... I think this is a downgrade from that house rule; it wouldn't have been difficult for them to both keep the rule simple and intuitive, and account for edge cases like Mountain Dwarf, as demonstrated by the above.

On the bright side, it could have been worse (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/563-reimagining-racial-ability-scores). (Oh my goodness if you think Mountain Dwarves are trouble now, look at James Haeck's version... what the heck...)

To be fair, I think the article you cited was trying to solve a very specific set of "problems" via house rule:
* Total commitment to decoupling ability scores from race (that is, the "new" version of each race has no feature connected to ability scores) and
* Avoid "feel-bad" from "lost" ability score points that would have come from the PHB version of any race.

By that logic, Mountain Dwarf and Half-Elf "need" compensating buffs for "losing" a point of increase.

Human actually has my vote for the strangest story in that article: Standard Human doesn't exist, and Variant Human gets +2/+1 along with the feat and skill.

As you said, the compensating buffs themselves aren't appropriately balanced, but at least the motivations are understandable.

[jaappleton]

"Jeremy, I just got finished with a meeting on the internet. The GITP forum randos would like a detailed status update on D&D. All of it.
Please get on that, they're threatening to dress up in Lorraine Williams cosplay and use a flashmob to take over the Renton office."

Actually I have been angling myself as someone that should be in that “inner circle” of people that gets books early for previews. Many bloggers and people with Twitch streams get them. And I’m talking bloggers that only get maybe 100 views. I brought up the fact that they’re focusing on people with a social media presence, which is fine, but tons of people don’t have a Twitter and many don’t care for Facebook. They’re missing out on the message board crowd. Let me be the person to get them hyped. I’d be happy to do it :smalltongue:

Pretty sure I’m going to be told to pound sand, but I’m taking my shot.

[Tanarii]

I brought up the fact that they’re focusing on people with a social media presence, which is fine, but tons of people don’t have a Twitter and many don’t care for Facebook. They’re missing out on the message board crowd. Let me be the person to get them hyped. I’d be happy to do it :smalltongue:
You're right there. I don't use twitch, I sure as heck don't follow D&D stuff on FB, and I only read one blog who doesn't really focus on WotC news. Pre-covid I got almost all my WotC news by word of mouth in game stores, and now it's pretty much exclusively forums. Even though I don't necessarily dig in unless I've got a bone to pick (ie this thread), I do usually open your threads and glance at the OP. Ditto for others that are passing on WotC news of some kind.

The only downside I can see in your plan is you don't own forums, and unless they're legitimately promotional and advertising platforms in disguise (looking at you En World) that's a potential issue.

[cutlery]

I also foresee many more PCs now having thieves’ tools proficiency,

This was already possible with custom backgrounds.

[Telwar]

My main problem with this is I don't think it goes far enough with regards to customisation.

Why let asi's float but not other racial traits? What if I want to play a dwarf who was raised by gnomes? Never learnt anything about stone but learnt artificery things instead.

They could make races be a point buy type thing. Pick x things from a list of features, pick some stat increases you have Y points to spend. Then you fluff your race, upbringing and background how you want. This just seems like a half-hearted effort if you really want to make races customisable.

That would require them to do, like, actual work, and probably at least a 5.5 or maybe a 6e, and neither of those is in the cards. I think the EnWorld Level Up 5e spent more time on character creation backgrounds than this did.

[Theoboldi]

Just a quick aside to Lv 2 Expert that has nothing really to do with the ongoing discussion anymore...


That's fair enough, but you gotta be aware of how you come across to others. If you imply in one sentence that the people you are talking to are creating harmful repercussions in real life, even if only from the perspective of the game devs, and then in the next say that actually talking about it would be a bad idea, that just ends up putting blame on people without really giving them a possibility of defending themselves.

I cannot answer to the PM you sent me in response to this, since your Inbox is full. That would also prevent people who are interested in discussing the more real world part of this topic with you from messaging you. Just figured you should know that.

I'm good with leaving things at that either way.

[Klorox]

Optimization-minded folks will need to remember that we are deeply in the minority of D&D players. For the majority of D&D games, this will be fine.

But wow they didn't even try to balance this, huh? I honestly think we'd be better off doing away with racial stat bonuses entirely, instead offer more flavorful options that realize the fantasy of a race and potentially synergize with certain class options. But that's basically going to require a new edition.

But are we?

I see more optimizers now than I ever have, and I started in the mid 80's.


Some standouts besides the obvious ones everyone's been mentioning (Mountain Dwarf and Satyr/Yuan-Ti):

Goblins synergize well enough with many casters that they were actually taken before this rule was in effect, despite their lack of a mental score bonus. Now they're definitely a top tier caster race.

Wildhunt Shifters, previously Dex/Wis, have an ability that prevents enemies from getting Advantage against you. Reckless Attack is an obvious combo.

Tortles have 17 AC just like a Mountain Dwarf.

Loxodon opens up a number of grapple build possibilities.

All the dragonmarked races opens up more spell options for casters who don't have the matching stat. Healing Halfling becomes even better, since it gets all the healing spells you want without needing to take a Wis bonus.

Aasimar have great features tied to not-ideal statlines. Scourge Aasimar for example have a Cha-caster statline, but their self-damage forces Con checks on themselves. On a Barbarian, the self-damage is actually helpful in some ways since it makes your rage harder to interrupt. Protector Aasimar will find it easy to improve on a dual mental statline. Fallen still care about Cha for their DC, but are more free to take Dex or Con instead of Str.

Elves can now bump up odd (17) mental stats with Elven Accuracy when using Point Buy, instead of just Dexterity. Mind, you could already do this with half-elves, but just for Charisma. But half-elves won't give you the features of an eladrin or a shadar-kai.

Aarakocra People have been talking about this one for flying casters, but you could basically already do that with Winged Tieflings (and the various statline variants they already have). Aarakocra just do it faster because Aarakocra are silly.

Elves can now do things like take +2 Int or Wis and bump up their 17 to 18 while taking Elven Accuracy. They can also bump up Int from 17 with Fey Teleportation.

Tieflings can do something similar with Flames of Phlegethos on Int or Infernal Constitution on Cha.

Halflings can do something similar with Second Chance on Cha.

Half-Orcs (but stupidly, not orcs) can do something similar with Orcish Fury on Con.

The other racial feat instances seem less noteworthy.

I'd like to add in lizard folk. Natural armor + stats that didn't used to synergize well now do.

A lot of people are mentioning the mountain dwarf, and saying they're missing out of shield proficiency, and they are (and that's not insignificant).

That being said, now you can start wizard, and with scale mail (and 14 DEX) have a 16 AC. When you can afford half plate, that's a 17 AC. Sure, its better with a shield, but you never need to worry about war caster since you'll have a free hand, and this is all without ever using a feat or anything. Level 8, you'll have your 20 INT, without ever slowing down for medium armor master like the iron wizard featured on this site (and I *love* that build).

I see the argument of being able to start 16 DEX with any other race and (with mage armor) having a 16 AC at level 1. But that costs a spell slot and the dwarf isn't taxed with that. It also never gets better, while the medium armor wearing dwarf can get the same magical protections as any other wizard, in addition to the possibility of enchanted armor.

So, yes, if you want to spend a feat or multiclass out of wizard, you can get a better AC. If you want to concentrate on just being a wizard, I think the mountain dwarf is the best race for the class in D&D 5e.

Does that feel right to you? Maybe it's my grognard status, which this book is apparently throwing on the floor and pissing all over, but it was a very long time in this game before a dwarf could even cast arcane magic.

To be clear: I think it's great that dwarves can cast arcane spells now. But to make them the default optimal wizard is kinda weird to me.

[Segev]

All of your post is correct, but this times a million. People are throwing fits around one more race getting on the helf/vuman level while simultaneously insisting that creative combinations take a mechanical penalty simply because they're creative. Those aren't the kind of people you'd want to game with.

I think this is an unfair characterization of this argument.

The argument isn't, "creative combinations must take a mechanical penalty because they're creative." In fact, "creative" didn't enter into the argument at all.

The argument is about combinations of race and class that "go against the grain" for one or the other. The half-orc wizard or the gnome barbarian. When they only "go against the grain" because of informed attributes, rather than real mechanical distinctions, the combination that "goes against the grain" is not really creative or unique at all. Why wouldn't there be just as many half-orc wizards and gnome barbarians as there are dragonborn barbarians and elf wizards? You can exclaim about how player characters are outliers all you like, but there still are "average adventurers." That is, for the group from which player characters are selected, there are trends, averages, variances, etc. And those are what are being thrown out entirely.

Your "creative" combination isn't creative, unique, or special, now, because there's no reason why any PC would be pressured not to choose that race/class combination. Your goliath rogue isn't anything special or unique for working around some admittedly-minor limitations to achieve an inobvious combination of race and class; there's nothing inobvious about it, since there's no reason not to do it. In fact, he's a better rogue than any sort of human, at least by a small margin!

[KorvinStarmast]

"Please get on that, they're threatening to dress up in Lorraine Williams cosplay and use a flashmob to take over the Renton office." Now that's funny, I don't care who you are. :smallsmile:

I am 100% sure that the authors of this system are aware of what you can do with Mountain Dwarf. Yeah, and not everyone wants to be a dwarf.

It’s a pretty big deal. Many people give up an entire lvl to multi class to get the benefits here.
I wonder at that, based on the groups I have played in. Almost zero multiclassing.

You’re essentially adding many points of AC, an extra +1 somewhere, removing the need for mage armor, Yeah, I expect to see more dwarf wizards. Look at hill dwarf too with that + to HP per level tossed in. ;)

And this right here is the problem with poorly balanced optional rules presented as official word. Yeah.

Look, for AL I think this is fine, but in aggregate, could have used a bit more play testing to find the holes/loopholes.


They really should have just waited until a new edition.
Please: no.

You're talking about people in d&d looking at an option granting more power and instantly labeling it broken. Congratulations on joining the hobby, maybe talk to some other people about it? Yeah, game breaking features in 5e are very rare.


I feel the people suspicious about the lack of public playtesting for these rules were justified
I frequently take the Criminal/Spy background for thieves tools proficiency. And because the idea of being someone's secret agent appeals to me.


"Everyone will just play the most optimal thing"

In all likelihood, they won't.
{snip}
A Goliath bard can be intimidating as all heck and it would make sense because he's got charisma while being a big dude.
Yeah, and I like that. Kind of a Toby Keith, or a Meatloaf, or one of those big-boned rapper guys ... let's have more of our bards be big and bluff and loud! Heck yeah!


-Choice is promoted
-jerry powergamer is going to powergame no matter what anyone does. That too.

[Segev]

Yeah, and not everyone wants to be a dwarf.

I think you're stifling creativity with this statement. Why can't my tall, lithe, pointy-eared mountain dwarf be an armor-wearing wizard? It's far more creative to play such a non-standard dwarf than to play a bog-standard bearded, short, broad-shouldered humanoid!

[AttilatheYeon]

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are. :smallsmile:
Yeah, and not everyone wants to be a dwarf.
Yeah, I expect to see more dwarf wizards. Look at hill dwarf too with that + to HP per level tossed in. ;)
Yeah.

Look, for AL I think this is fine, but in aggregate, could have used a bit more play testing to find the holes/loopholes.


Please: no.
Yeah, game breaking features in 5e are very rare.

I frequently take the Criminal/Spy background for thieves tools proficiency. And because the idea of being someone's secret agent appeals to me.
Yeah, and I like that. Kind of a Toby Keith, or a Meatloaf, or one of those big-boned rapper guys ... let's have more of our bards be big and bluff and loud! Heck yeah!
That too.

And now i wanna make a goliath valor bard named Meatloaf!

[Anonymouswizard]

As a quickly thrown together diversity encouraging move that doesn't require a new edition it's not terrible. I don't personally like it, bit it technically sets out to do what it intends to do, consequences or no consequences. It's not something I'd overly like to use in a game, but I've also come around to the idea that stats aren't rolled out bought but agreed between the player and GM to fit the character.

Now if there was a 6e, would I want to see this change? Yes, I'd like to see Races and Backgrounds replaced with a Lifepath system where you begin by picking your species/stock, pick your culture, your social standing, your profession, and some sort of defining event and get a feature or bonus at each step. I might try writing one of those for 5e at some point, but it'll require a lot of work (I'm thinking you get a +1 from your race and +2 from profession or the other way round? Then split up a bunch of features and proficiencies between the various steps).

But doing that would be a massive change to the way 5e character creation works.

[KorvinStarmast]

And now i wanna make a goliath valor bard named Meatloaf! Please, as play progesses, regale us with Meatloaf's exploits. I can just see you getting into a very tough combat moment and then say to your Fighter companion "I would do anything for you, but I won't do that!" :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

As a quickly thrown together diversity encouraging move that doesn't require a new edition it's not terrible. I don't personally like it, bit it technically sets out to do what it intends to do, consequences or no consequences. It's not something I'd overly like to use in a game, but I've also come around to the idea that stats aren't rolled out bought but agreed between the player and GM to fit the character.

Now if there was a 6e, would I want to see this change? Yes, I'd like to see Races and Backgrounds replaced with a Lifepath system where you begin by picking your species/stock, pick your culture, your social standing, your profession, and some sort of defining event and get a feature or bonus at each step. I might try writing one of those for 5e at some point, but it'll require a lot of work (I'm thinking you get a +1 from your race and +2 from profession or the other way round? Then split up a bunch of features and proficiencies between the various steps).

But doing that would be a massive change to the way 5e character creation works.
Well, it might encourage diversity in that you'll have just as many half-orc wizards as elven wizards. Or it might encourage even more homogeneity as the non-shiftable racial features start to be all that matter, and players pick a narrower subset of races to play based on the best features since there's never incentive from stats to do anything else.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

When they only "go against the grain" because of informed attributes, rather than real mechanical distinctions, the combination that "goes against the grain" is not really creative or unique at all.

Builds are only creative when they take an actual stat penalty?

Campaign world cultural norms are determined purely by some races having measurable biological differences and not any other factors?

:confused:

[Segev]

Builds are only creative when they take an actual stat penalty?

Campaign world cultural norms are determined purely by some races having measurable biological differences and not any other factors?

:confused:

No, it's just that there's nothing "creative" about "going against the grain" when there's no grain to go against.

[Zhorn]

Builds are only creative when they take an actual stat penalty?
A penalty would be a negative.
Not getting a positive on two specific stats and getting a positive in two other specific stats is not a penalty.

[Boci]

Builds are only creative when they take an actual stat penalty?

Campaign world cultural norms are determined purely by some races having measurable biological differences and not any other factors?

:confused:

I don't personally think its required, but I can certainly see how going against the grain benefits from having a mechanical drawback. If I make a wood-elf cleric who is pro industry and thinks nature is overrated, what have I actually given up? Sure, other wood-elves probably don't like me, but I'm adventurer I wasn't living with them anyway. Its certainly game specific, some will have ample opportunities to explore the cost of betrayal a central tenent of my race's belief, but in others it not really going to come up.

[Edea]

A warforged wizard also looks kinda fun, being able to get that +2 out of Con and into Int is cool.

[clash]

I like this.

Honestly as an optimizer I am far more likely to just play the race I want to be if I can assign the ability scores. I would never have played a half orc wizard or a dragon born monk etc in the old system. Now I can without being penalized. It doesn't make only a few builds optimal from an optimization standpoint, rather it makes every race optimal for your class(barring standard human, but I have never actually seen those played). So you can play the character you want and still be optimized. It's fantastic!

[Segev]

I like this.

Honestly as an optimizer I am far more likely to just play the race I want to be if I can assign the ability scores. I would never have played a half orc wizard or a dragon born monk etc in the old system. Now I can without being penalized. It doesn't make only a few builds optimal from an optimization standpoint, rather it makes every race optimal for your class(barring standard human, but I have never actually seen those played). So you can play the character you want and still be optimized. It's fantastic!

Sure, but at that rate, why not play a half-orc wizard who has training in longswords and bows and knows an extra cantrip instead of having the ability to go to 1 hp instead of 0 hp and add an extra die of damage to a critical hit?

[LudicSavant]

Half-Elf I think is fine; it's just other classes getting to enjoy what Cha-based classes have always been able to.

The problem is the races that explicitly used anti-synergistic statlines as a balancing feature. There are only a couple of those, so it would have been pretty easy for them to have accounted for all of them in their rules, but they didn't.

Mountain Dwarf is the iconic example of that -- every class that doesn't already have medium armor proficiency also doesn't care much about Strength. So being able to switch that stat is a significant buff for them that frankly should have been accounted for by the design team.


Does that feel right to you?

Nope. That's why when I did my own version of the rule for 5e (long before Tasha's was a thing) it took care of cases like Mountain Dwarf.

Basically under my version, if you opted to swap a stat, and you had more than +2/+1, you got +2/+1 instead. In which case Mountain Dwarf doesn't end up much better off than a Githyanki when swapping.

[Boci]

Sure, but at that rate, why not play a half-orc wizard who has training in longswords and bows and knows an extra cantrip instead of having the ability to go to 1 hp instead of 0 hp and add an extra die of damage to a critical hit?

Probably because the half-orc who has the ability to be reduced to 1hp instead of 0 hp is better than the extra cantrip half-orc. That ability was always more useful for not wizards.

[jaappleton]

There's a solid argument to be made here.

Optimizers are gonna optimize. That's it, end of story. That's what they do.

But now they won't feel restricted by racial selection. This means more options. Prime time Wizards are no longer racial which innately get +INT, now they can be anything.

Arguably, this could encourages optimizers (myself included) to really expand the races they play and encourage more role playing.

[Hael]

Well, it might encourage diversity in that you'll have just as many half-orc wizards as elven wizards. Or it might encourage even more homogeneity as the non-shiftable racial features start to be all that matter, and players pick a narrower subset of races to play based on the best features since there's never incentive from stats to do anything else.

Well if their goal was to encourage dwarf fortress, then they can’t do much better than these changes. Strike the earth!

[Xervous]

I don't personally think its required, but I can certainly see how going against the grain benefits from having a mechanical drawback. If I make a wood-elf cleric who is pro industry and thinks nature is overrated, what have I actually given up? Sure, other wood-elves probably don't like me, but I'm adventurer I wasn't living with them anyway. Its certainly game specific, some will have ample opportunities to explore the cost of betrayal a central tenent of my race's belief, but in others it not really going to come up.

As many people will leap to tell you flavor is highly malleable. The rules on the other hand are the rules until the GM says otherwise (and they do remain rules even when that gets the players to leave). Observing that descriptions and RP can be divorced from mechanics to a large extent the rules are the main addressable constant, they’re what makes for the relatable jargon of Nat 20, advantage, and so forth.

Creativity in terms of character is unbounded and hard to measure as that is fluff. Creativity in terms of builds is an expression of mechanics with respect to common trends. (Insert popular race) Hexblade / paladin is not creative because it has been done to death. Picking an oddball race for the above with the default ability score mods would be bucking trends and by our criteria is more creative. Eliminate the statistical nudges and it will matter a whole lot less which race is picked. There will either still be all the minmax races crowding the party ranks, or we see a shift to a random sampling of races. And when everyone is not the norm, no one is creative.

[GlenSmash!]

And now i wanna make a goliath valor bard named Meatloaf!

That sounds awesome!

Ironically the actual Meat Loaf is only 6' tall.

[Friv]

Now if there was a 6e, would I want to see this change? Yes, I'd like to see Races and Backgrounds replaced with a Lifepath system where you begin by picking your species/stock, pick your culture, your social standing, your profession, and some sort of defining event and get a feature or bonus at each step. I might try writing one of those for 5e at some point, but it'll require a lot of work (I'm thinking you get a +1 from your race and +2 from profession or the other way round? Then split up a bunch of features and proficiencies between the various steps).

But doing that would be a massive change to the way 5e character creation works.

If I really wanted to do a short-and-dirty modification that encourages certain approaches without rewriting anything, I'd do the following:

Each race has a Favored Ability, each subrace has a Favored Ability. When you pick your race and subrace, you get +1 in one of your two Favored Abilities.

Each Background has two Favored Abilities. When you pick your Background, you get +1 in one of the two.

Each Class has two Favored Abilities. When you pick your Class, you get +1 in one of the two.

You can't take the same Ability more than twice.

The result of that would be that there's still a tendency towards certain things, but you can always get a +1 in your prime stat by being a member of that class, which is all you really need with standard array or point buy to start with a 16, and you can always get the full +2 by either playing a race that favors it or taking a background that favors it. On the flip side, each group still tends towards certain traits based on their cultural upbringing or physicality.

(If I were going pure 6e and redesigning everything I would remove direct racial attribute bonuses entirely and replace them with interesting ribbon abilities that might be a bit more valuable for some classes, but aren't required.)

[Boci]

As many people will leap to tell you flavor is highly malleable. The rules on the other hand are the rules until the GM says otherwise (and they do remain rules even when that gets the players to leave). Observing that descriptions and RP can be divorced from mechanics to a large extent the rules are the main addressable constant, they’re what makes for the relatable jargon of Nat 20, advantage, and so forth.

Creativity in terms of character is unbounded and hard to measure as that is fluff. Creativity in terms of builds is an expression of mechanics with respect to common trends. (Insert popular race) Hexblade / paladin is not creative because it has been done to death. Picking an oddball race for the above with the default ability score mods would be bucking trends and by our criteria is more creative. Eliminate the statistical nudges and it will matter a whole lot less which race is picked. There will either still be all the minmax races crowding the party ranks, or we see a shift to a random sampling of races. And when everyone is not the norm, no one is creative.

Not sure why you quoted me to say that...

[Segev]

Probably because the half-orc who has the ability to be reduced to 1hp instead of 0 hp is better than the extra cantrip half-orc. That ability was always more useful for not wizards.


There's a solid argument to be made here.

Optimizers are gonna optimize. That's it, end of story. That's what they do.

But now they won't feel restricted by racial selection. This means more options. Prime time Wizards are no longer racial which innately get +INT, now they can be anything.

Arguably, this could encourages optimizers (myself included) to really expand the races they play and encourage more role playing.

In case my point was missed - and I don't know if it was or not - what I'm saying is, "If you want to play a half-orc wizard, but don't care that mechanics represent him being a half-orc at all, why not pick literally any race you want for your mechanics and describe the physical appearance of a half-orc?"

If the only reason mountain dwarf wizards aren't now going to be the norm is "some people don't want to play dwarves," then why can't they instead play halflings or humans or elves that have the mountain dwarf rules in place of their own? PCs are "outliers" and "exceptional," after all. And if you don't care that half-orcs are typically stronger than humans sufficiently to want to have that represented by their racial ASIs, why should you care that half-orcs are typically harder to kill and do more damage on criticals, when you could get a bonus feat instead and still call yourself a half-orc?

[AHF]

There's a solid argument to be made here.

Optimizers are gonna optimize. That's it, end of story. That's what they do.

But now they won't feel restricted by racial selection. This means more options. Prime time Wizards are no longer racial which innately get +INT, now they can be anything.

Arguably, this could encourages optimizers (myself included) to really expand the races they play and encourage more role playing.

I think this will make it more difficult to balance parties made up of optimizer and non-optimizer players because the optimizers will wring disproportionate benefit out of this flexibility. We all know that casual players can get frustrated seeing their contributions dwarfed by an optimized character. I expect that gap will grow with this.

Just puts more responsibility on the DM to try to manage their table, imo. Like if I’m an optimizer going Moon Druid I’m thinking really hard about getting Magic Resistance and Poison Immunity that benefits me while wildshaped to go with my +2 wisdom.

[Boci]

In case my point was missed - and I don't know if it was or not - what I'm saying is, "If you want to play a half-orc wizard, but don't care that mechanics represent him being a half-orc at all, why not pick literally any race you want for your mechanics and describe the physical appearance of a half-orc?"

If the only reason mountain dwarf wizards aren't now going to be the norm is "some people don't want to play dwarves," then why can't they instead play halflings or humans or elves that have the mountain dwarf rules in place of their own? PCs are "outliers" and "exceptional," after all. And if you don't care that half-orcs are typically stronger than humans sufficiently to want to have that represented by their racial ASIs, why should you care that half-orcs are typically harder to kill and do more damage on criticals, when you could get a bonus feat instead and still call yourself a half-orc?


I generally agree with you, but you have to accept that there are degrees, its not all or nothing. Many people didn't like orcs getting a penalty to int, even though it fits with D&D fluff. At the same time, most of these people probably didn't want all stats thrown out of the window. There are degrees to which someone can want racial mechanics to matter, and the stat adjustments aren't everything.

[Amnestic]

No, it's just that there's nothing "creative" about "going against the grain" when there's no grain to go against.

Thankfully there's still a grain, since these are specifically variant rules and not baseline, and the underlying cultures of the races remains the same.

I don't know why you think that every group is now going to be nothing but mountain dwarf wizards and gnome fighters or whatever but I just don't see that happening. I expect that for most groups these variants will have very little impact on going 'against the grain' except helping out those who were already planning on doing so.

[jaappleton]

To everyone saying "Mountain Dwarf everything! SO BAD!"

I mean... Yeah its the obvious thing to say. You're right about that.

Its also not exactly an amazing pick, though. You still don't get shield proficiency. Many classes already get medium armor and shields. And I know of no class which gets Light Armor only, but also gets shields. So you're not getting shield proficiency unless you take a feat, or its granted by your class (or in rare cases, subclass). And even then, most of those already grant you medium armor to begin with.

So essentially we're left with Druids who want to be able to wear metal (And even then, your DM might argue your class restricts it). And d6 classes.

Considering that leaves Sorcerer (Which has one subclass giving base AC of 13+Dex) and Wizard (Its gish subclass giving Light Armor already), its good for... What, exactly? Most Wizards, and some Sorcs. And even still, Medium Armor caps at +2. So with half plate and 14 Dex, you're at AC 17. And not even at first level because nobody is giving you half plate to start with.

Or be a Warforged and be more flexible in how it helps your AC, since its a flat bonus and not dependent on armor.

Or be a Tortle and get AC 17 with no issues and no stealth penalty, nevermind having to actually find half plate somewhere.

Or any other number of races which grant excellent racial abilities like Fire Resistance, or Flight, etc.

Its a fine pick to go Mountain Dwarf but its far from this super amazing pick everyone is making it out to be.

How am I so sure of that? Ask @DracoKnight, because he and I spent a lot of time on Twitter chatting totally broken builds. :smallbiggrin: This Mountain Dwarf thing isn't all that big.

[clash]

I think this will make it more difficult to balance parties made up of optimizer and non-optimizer players because the optimizers will wring disproportionate benefit out of this flexibility. We all know that casual players can get frustrated seeing their contributions dwarfed by an optimized character. I expect that gap will grow with this.

Just puts more responsibility on the DM to try to manage their table, imo. Like if I’m an optimizer going Moon Druid I’m thinking really hard about getting Magic Resistance and Poison Immunity that benefits me while wildshaped to go with my +2 wisdom.

See, I would argue the opposite. The PHB tells you what you want for you primary stat and what you want for secondary. Now the non-optimizers can always have optimal stats by simply following the instructions in the class. Whereas it was quite common for non-optimzers to start with their core stat 1-2 points behind the optimizers. Now everyone is going to at the very least have basically the same stat-line for their primary and secondary stats.

[Stangler]

I know a lot of people are not liking the change but I gotta say I am happy they are doing it even though it messes with race balance.

I think it really helps people who want to create characters against type which encourages creativity and therefor player ownership of their character. It drastically increases the number of class race combinations that work. Definitely makes the monster races more attractive IMO. Orc fighter is kind of boring, Orc Wizard on the other hand has a hook. Clumsy and kind of dumb High Elf Cleric suddenly a really solid option.

The bottom line is that there is A LOT more room for creativity now. Did it come at a cost of balance? Yes The players who like doing that now have more options and will be happy. Their table will be as annoyed at them as much as they always have been. ;)

[jaappleton]

I think this will make it more difficult to balance parties made up of optimizer and non-optimizer players because the optimizers will wring disproportionate benefit out of this flexibility. We all know that casual players can get frustrated seeing their contributions dwarfed by an optimized character. I expect that gap will grow with this.

Just puts more responsibility on the DM to try to manage their table, imo. Like if I’m an optimizer going Moon Druid I’m thinking really hard about getting Magic Resistance and Poison Immunity that benefits me while wildshaped to go with my +2 wisdom.

DM can still ban this if they want to. Its an optional rule.

And also, any DM should ban any race with innate magic resistance. Yuan Ti and Satyr shouldn't see play outside of fun level 20 one-shots, IMO.

Those are the only two races I have issue with. If you want to make an argument against winged races, I certainly understand it and I won't argue against it. But I've seen more issues where the Winged Tiefling player is cheered for having wings and able to fly up and attach a rope for the party to climb, saving the mages spell slots on healing up failed climbing checks and on uses of Fly and Dimension Door.

[Dork_Forge]

To everyone saying "Mountain Dwarf everything! SO BAD!"

I mean... Yeah its the obvious thing to say. You're right about that.

Its also not exactly an amazing pick, though. You still don't get shield proficiency. Many classes already get medium armor and shields. And I know of no class which gets Light Armor only, but also gets shields. So you're not getting shield proficiency unless you take a feat, or its granted by your class (or in rare cases, subclass). And even then, most of those already grant you medium armor to begin with.

So essentially we're left with Druids who want to be able to wear metal (And even then, your DM might argue your class restricts it). And d6 classes.

Considering that leaves Sorcerer (Which has one subclass giving base AC of 13+Dex) and Wizard (Its gish subclass giving Light Armor already), its good for... What, exactly? Most Wizards, and some Sorcs. And even still, Medium Armor caps at +2. So with half plate and 14 Dex, you're at AC 17. And not even at first level because nobody is giving you half plate to start with.

Or be a Warforged and be more flexible in how it helps your AC, since its a flat bonus and not dependent on armor.

Or be a Tortle and get AC 17 with no issues and no stealth penalty, nevermind having to actually find half plate somewhere.

Or any other number of races which grant excellent racial abilities like Fire Resistance, or Flight, etc.

Its a fine pick to go Mountain Dwarf but its far from this super amazing pick everyone is making it out to be.

How am I so sure of that? Ask @DracoKnight, because he and I spent a lot of time on Twitter chatting totally broken builds. :smallbiggrin: This Mountain Dwarf thing isn't all that big.

You seem to think that for the most part you need a shield to make medium armor worth it, it's still a straight upgrade for anyone that got light or no armor that isn't Dex based (so every one of those classes but Rogue then). Non Hexblade Warlocks and non gishing Bards will all benefit from this in addition to most Sorcerers and Wizards (free mage armor is nice, but still requires high dex to get better than medium armor).

Armor is only one facet of things though, with a Mountain Dwarf you're geting two +2s, that's a bigger deal imo especially if you're using point buy or just playing a two stat class in general. Then there's the actual Dwarf abiltiies, you know those excellent abilities you mention like a resistance (poison), Darkvision or how about a heap of proficiencies you can now chop and change to whatever you like?

Lots of people are saying Mountain Dwarf, but I don't think anyone is saying it just because of starting with medium armor.

[jaappleton]

You seem to think that for the most part you need a shield to make medium armor worth it, it's still a straight upgrade for anyone that got light or no armor that isn't Dex based (so every one of those classes but Rogue then). Non Hexblade Warlocks and non gishing Bards will all benefit from this in addition to most Sorcerers and Wizards (free mage armor is nice, but still requires high dex to get better than medium armor).

Armor is only one facet of things though, with a Mountain Dwarf you're geting two +2s, that's a bigger deal imo especially if you're using point buy or just playing a two stat class in general. Then there's the actual Dwarf abiltiies, you know those excellent abilities you mention like a resistance (poison), Darkvision or how about a heap of proficiencies you can now chop and change to whatever you like?

Lots of people are saying Mountain Dwarf, but I don't think anyone is saying it just because of starting with medium armor.

If the MD is able to trade down each weapon proficiency it gets for a skill, I can certainly see your argument. Trading away three weapons to get three skills is borderline insane. Is that how it works? I thought it was trading all weapon proficiencies granted by race for one skill. Is it Warhammer, Light Hammer, etc each for a skill or tool?

[Dork_Forge]

If the MD is able to trade down each weapon proficiency it gets for a skill, I can certainly see your argument. Trading away three weapons to get three skills is borderline insane. Is that how it works? I thought it was trading all weapon proficiencies granted by race for one skill. Is it Warhammer, Light Hammer, etc each for a skill or tool?

You have to trade skill for skill, but otherwise you can trade any weapon prof for a tool or just a weapon that you'd rather have. So you can trade all your weapons away for tools if you're getting martial weapons from somewhere.

[Amnestic]

If the MD is able to trade down each weapon proficiency it gets for a skill, I can certainly see your argument. Trading away three weapons to get three skills is borderline insane. Is that how it works? I thought it was trading all weapon proficiencies granted by race for one skill. Is it Warhammer, Light Hammer, etc each for a skill or tool?

From the OP:


PROFICIENCY SWAPS:
Skill to Skill
Simple weapon to Simple weapon or tool
Martial weapon to Simple/martial weapon or tool
Tool to Tool or simple weapon


You can't trade weapon profs for skills, just tools. It's rare for tools to really be that used, and people could already pick the 'important one' (thieves) freely via backgrounds. If a High Elf wants to trade their four weapon proficiencies for four tools then...go nuts honestly?

[Evaar]

Meh. Give it time, I say.

I remember back when the PHB came out and people were complaining about feats and multiclassing being so definitely broken that no one with a mind for balance should ever allow them.

Now it's 6 years later and I don't remember the last time I saw someone running a feat-less game. Multiclassing seems to be slightly less common, but still widely accepted.

As someone else said, it's not like a +1 to a secondary score and Medium Armor makes Mountain Dwarf the be all and end all of races. If anything this makes the VHuman and the Half-elf less of completely obvious choices.

More recently, you can look at people throwing tantrums over the Dragonmarked race options adding spells to spell lists. Plenty of folks on this very forum argued that these options were massive power creep, truly broken. I think I've seen one or two builds that actually utilize the additional options effectively since then.

Many armchair designers have knee-jerk, pearl-clutching reactions to any kind of shift in the paradigm.

These changes aren't balanced, but they don't break the game. We're gonna get through this, everyone. Deep breaths.

[jaappleton]

Ok that does clarify a few things.

I can see why so many argue the MDwarf is so good now.

I personally still wouldn't pick them (They're still at 25' speed, right?), but I understand why everything is saying it. They're among the top tier now, for sure.

[Boci]

More recently, you can look at people throwing tantrums over the Dragonmarked race options adding spells to spell lists. Plenty of folks on this very forum argued that these options were massive power creep, truly broken. I think I've seen one or two builds that actually utilize the additional options effectively since then.

Many armchair designers have knee-jerk, pearl-clutching reactions to any kind of shift in the paradigm.

These changes aren't balanced, but they don't break the game. We're gonna get through this, everyone. Deep breaths.

I feel "I don't like these changes that aren't balanced" isn't automatically knee-jerk, pearl clutching. Most posters against the idea seem to think it will not be a good edition to the game, which is a valid opinion to have about a new varient rule.

[OldTrees1]

I feel "I don't like these changes that aren't balanced" isn't automatically knee-jerk, pearl clutching. Most posters against the idea seem to think it will not be a good edition to the game, which is a valid opinion to have about a new varient rule.

I am not sure about that 2nd half. I think a decent fraction of those criticizing the change think is is imperfect but positive.

[Boci]

I am not sure about that 2nd half. I think a decent fraction of those criticizing the change think is is imperfect but positive.

Some people certain;y seem to think there is more for more flexibility but this system is not the way to do it, which I would still tally as this version being not good for the game. Just because you don't like a rule doesn't mean you don't like what the rule is trying to do.

[Amechra]

More recently, you can look at people throwing tantrums over the Dragonmarked race options adding spells to spell lists. Plenty of folks on this very forum argued that these options were massive power creep, truly broken. I think I've seen one or two builds that actually utilize the additional options effectively since then.

Arguably, the reason that you haven't seen more builds using them is because they're Eberron specific. And, on top of that, people might actually be avoiding them - kinda like how some people avoid Hexblade dips because they're gauche.

[jaappleton]

I also read (You can see it in my first response in the Tasha's topic on page 1) that some races were being re-written and having stat penalties removed. This specifically mentioned races from Volo's which IIRC have two races with penalties: Kobold and Orc. Now, it could be they're just removing Orc altogether and going with Orcs of Eberron or Wildemount as their base, vanilla Orc now. Which I'd be fine with.

But Kobold. Kobold getting Pack Tactics and a floating bonus... Would make them excellent, excellent Barbarians. Spear, shield, PAM and +2 Str with Pack Tactics? Wolf Totem so them and everybody around 'em gets Advantage? Swolebold for the win, indeed.

I'm more curious if they remove Sunlight Sensitivity. It sucks, honestly just get rid of it. Worse yet is that by RAW there's only one singular item I know of which negates it, and it belongs to Jarlaxle and is available only by taking it from him in Waterdeep: Dragon Heist.

[Dork_Forge]

More recently, you can look at people throwing tantrums over the Dragonmarked race options adding spells to spell lists. Plenty of folks on this very forum argued that these options were massive power creep, truly broken. I think I've seen one or two builds that actually utilize the additional options effectively since then.

Many armchair designers have knee-jerk, pearl-clutching reactions to any kind of shift in the paradigm.

These changes aren't balanced, but they don't break the game. We're gonna get through this, everyone. Deep breaths.

That would all be well and good if these changes existed in a vacuum, but they don't. Let's take your specific example, now you can stack GGTR backgrounds, with your Dragonmark of choice and basically disregard the spell lists and the balance/sense of identity they're meant to give. With this new change you can do that but still get + to your most valuable stats.

Powercreep effects the entire game, especially if it's the common direction for new rules, before you know it we end up with something that doesn't resemble the balance the game was designed around.

Side note, as someone that didn't like the addition of spells known, it was a worrying direction to be taken. Unnecessary powercreep that broke existing design doctrine that we didn't get the chance to approve through playtest. Lo and behold we've now received more rules with little care for balance that we didn't get to playtest. Not convinced by this example? We didn't get to see the Satyr in playtest either and now we have another race with magic resistance stacked on top of other desirable traits (oh and this new rules makes that unplaytested race even stronger...).

[Boci]

I'm more curious if they remove Sunlight Sensitivity. It sucks, honestly just get rid of it. Worse yet is that by RAW there's only one singular item I know of which negates it, and it belongs to Jarlaxle and is available only by taking it from him in Waterdeep: Dragon Heist.

If sunlight sensitivity is going, I feel pack tactics are too.

[Dienekes]

If sunlight sensitivity is going, I feel pack tactics are too.

Which would be a bit amusing, getting the fixed kobold as just: Darkvision and Grovel, Cower, and Beg.

[JackPhoenix]

Arguably, this could encourages optimizers (myself included) to really expand the races they play and encourage more role playing.

Does it, though, or does it simply switch the subset of races the optimizers play to a different, just as expansive (i.e. not very), if not less, subset?

[Amechra]

Now, it could be they're just removing Orc altogether and going with Orcs of Eberron or Wildemount as their base, vanilla Orc now. Which I'd be fine with.

Or you could do what a DM I played with once did, and just sharpie over the "Half-" in Half-Orc. There - you're done!

(I'd also be amenable to doing the same thing with Half-Elves, so that they can all be The Prettiest.)

[Boci]

Does it, though, or does it simply switch the subset of races the optimizers play to a different, just as expansive (i.e. not very), if not less, subset?

Short term at least, likely not. Its not like optimizers hate roleplay, and a fair few has wanted to try X race and Y class and have just been turned off by the lack of relevant stats bonuses, so yes short term you will see optimizers finally playing a more diverse set of race and class combinations.

Long term there is maybe a danger as the 3 bests races emerging that you can now use for any class, but that doesn't seem too likely to be a think for that many people.

[Segev]

I generally agree with you, but you have to accept that there are degrees, its not all or nothing. Many people didn't like orcs getting a penalty to int, even though it fits with D&D fluff. At the same time, most of these people probably didn't want all stats thrown out of the window. There are degrees to which someone can want racial mechanics to matter, and the stat adjustments aren't everything.

Of course there are degrees. But defining where those degrees are and WHY one degree is acceptable and another is not is important. Simply saying, "Well, that's going too far, so of course it isn't right," is inviting a similar response to whatever is being proposed, unless a distinction that explains why one is too far and the other is not is provided.

"We will get a better view if we move back," is a valid thing to say about taking in, say, a mountain-backed vista. It remains valid up to a point where either there's no place left to move back to (because falling off a cliff is going to absolutely ruin your view), or your ability to focus and capture detail becomes too small to appreciate the vista. Both of these are conditions you can name that specify when "move back a bit more" becomes bad advice, or at least stops being good advice.

If you can't name some metrics by which your proposed change can be measured that provide a limit to keeping moving the changes further out, you are not properly demonstrating that there is a flaw in asking why not go all the way.


Thus, what is the metric by which you can judge when making this "creative concepts shouldn't be held captive to racial mechanics" adjustment has gone too far? Why is simply using the tiefling mechanics on what you're calling a "human sorcerer" not perfectly fine? Why isn't using the human chassis on a "dragonborn warlock" not perfectly fine? Why can't he be mechanically human but called a dragonborn and described as a dragonborn?

Why is that going too far, when ditching the racial ASIs is not?

[Boci]

If you can't name some metrics by which your proposed change can be measured that provide a limit to keeping moving the changes further out, you are not properly demonstrating that there is a flaw in asking why not go all the way.

It's a game, we play it to have fun. Its great if you can express why you think X enriches the game and Y is ultimatly detracting from the goals most groups are aiming when they play, but its important to remember that "I don't know, I just like it" and "I don't know, but its not for me" are also perfectly valid opinions.

[Segev]

It's a game, we play it to have fun. Its great if you can express why you think X enriches the game and Y is ultimatly detracting from the goals most groups are aiming when they play, but its important to remember that "I don't know, I just like it" and "I don't know, but its not for me" are also perfectly valid opinions.

They are, but you then have to accept it when people say that about what you like.

I don't like the ASI thing they've done here, for reasons I have articulated. Of course any game table can use whatever rules they want.

Ironically, I would be more comfortable with reskinning a complete racial package as a different race than this "flexibility" thing, because this "flexibility" thing reads to me more as homogenizing, rather than diversifying.

[Boci]

They are, but you then have to accept it when people say that about what you like.

Yeah, has anyone on this thread not done that?


Ironically, I would be more comfortable with reskinning a complete racial package as a different race than this "flexibility" thing, because this "flexibility" thing reads to me more as homogenizing, rather than diversifying.

An idea I've been toying with is a while is cutting what races give you in half and then adding an upbringing. Feral, highbred, that short of stuff, and splitting the traints across both. I have some notes for it, but its a far cry from complete.

[jaappleton]

Does it, though, or does it simply switch the subset of races the optimizers play to a different, just as expansive (i.e. not very), if not less, subset?

It does!

For a very long time I'd wanted to play a military commander style Hobgoblin. Like a general on the battlefield.

I always thought Order Domain would be a solid way to do it, but their stats never touched Wisdom. Now I'm able to make this character to their fullest potential!

[x3n0n]

Does it, though, or does it simply switch the subset of races the optimizers play to a different, just as expansive (i.e. not very), if not less, subset?

Coming from an Magic: the Gathering background, this rhythm feels familiar.
* New tools are added to the pool, then
* there is a frenzy of white-room building, then
* people discover at the table what is most fun and/or effective, then
* the mechanical part of the game gets "stale" and
* new tools are added, restarting the cycle.

In competitive M:tG, this usually leads to "winnowing" down to a small number of high-tier archetypes because there are very few options that are mechanically optimized.

I think "Tasha's" is going to trigger a similar building frenzy, which is honestly pretty fun for as long as it lasts, exploring a modified possibility space. However, there will be some "best" builds, which may become new folklore, until the system shifts again.

(I'd like to think that D&D, especially at home, does not have the same level of pressure to force everyone to exclusively play characters on the frontier of high-performance builds.)

[Boci]

Coming from an Magic: the Gathering background, this rhythm feels familiar.
* New tools are added to the pool, then
* there is a frenzy of white-room building, then
* people discover at the table what is most fun and/or effective, then
* the mechanical part of the game gets "stale" and
* new tools are added, restarting the cycle.

In competitive M:tG, this usually leads to "winnowing" down to a small number of high-tier archetypes because there are very few options that are mechanically optimized.

I think "Tasha's" is going to trigger a similar building frenzy, which is honestly pretty fun for as long as it lasts, exploring a modified possibility space. However, there will be some "best" builds, which may become new folklore, until the system shifts again.

(I'd like to think that D&D, especially at home, does not have the same level of pressure to force everyone to exclusively play characters on the frontier of high-performance builds.)

Even in MtG though some people roleplay. One of my friends only run Avacyn in a deck if they have a way to return a creature from exile. And D&D players, even optimizers, presumably have more reason to roleplay.

[LudicSavant]

Does it, though, or does it simply switch the subset of races the optimizers play to a different, just as expansive (i.e. not very), if not less, subset?

There are still absolutely going to be 'best races.' But I suspect that the gap will be narrowed; e.g. a Half-Orc Wizard will still not be the best Wizard, but the best Wizard won't be as far ahead of the Half-Orc Wizard as they used to be.

[Segev]

There are still absolutely going to be 'best races.' But I suspect that the gap will be narrowed; e.g. a Half-Orc Wizard will still not be the best Wizard, but the best Wizard won't be as far ahead of the Half-Orc Wizard as they used to be.

I would contend that the half-orc wizard is actually a better wizard than the high elf wizard, now.

That 1/long rest "get out of 0 hp free" card is particularly powerful for low-hp squishies.

[jaappleton]

There are still absolutely going to be 'best races.' But I suspect that the gap will be narrowed; e.g. a Half-Orc Wizard will still not be the best Wizard, but the best Wizard won't be as far ahead of the Half-Orc Wizard as they used to be.

^This.

Its part of why I love your posts, Ludic.

Also, lets not forget the Stormwind Fallacy. The TL;DR is that "Optimization does not negate roleplay".

What could have prevented someone from being that Half Orc Wizard is that they didn't want to be 'ineffective' at their job. Being able to start with only a +2 Intelligence could have nagged at someone in the back of their mind that they won't be very effective, so they'd shelve the idea.

[Boci]

I would contend that the half-orc wizard is actually a better wizard than the high elf wizard, now.

That 1/long rest "get out of 0 hp free" card is particularly powerful for low-hp squishies.

I think I agree. +1 cantrip isn't very useful for a wizard, a skill proficienct is a skill proficiency, and a language whilst okay is rarely going to matter. The big thing the high elf has is passive advantage on saves vs. charm (and the situational immunity to sleep), which does trigger all the time, but HP is the much more common threat.

[KorvinStarmast]

But Kobold. Kobold getting Pack Tactics and a floating bonus... PC's getting pack tactics was a bad idea to start with ... unless you picked it as a Totem Barbarian. One of many sins Volo's committed, IMO.
(PS: keep sunlight sensitivity, or you'll get nothing but drow PCs. :smallyuk:)

[jaappleton]

PC's getting pack tactics was a bad idea to start with ... unless you picked it as a Totem Barbarian. One of many sins Volo's committed, IMO.

I mean... For DMs, yes. Its bad.

As a player? Kobold Wolf Totem is fun for the whole team :smalltongue:

[LudicSavant]

I would contend that the half-orc wizard is actually a better wizard than the high elf wizard, now.

That 1/long rest "get out of 0 hp free" card is particularly powerful for low-hp squishies.

It also synergizes with abilities like, say, the Evoker's ability to Overchannel. And Savage Attacks will work with things like Shadow Bladesingers or whatever.

So it's decent.

And that's what I expect the result is going to be. There's going to be a new lineup of 'best' races, but there's going a lot more races that fall into the 'decent for every class' range.

[KorvinStarmast]

As a player? Kobold Wolf Totem is fun for the whole team :smalltongue: Yeah, that's one way to look at it, sure. :smallcool:

[Boci]

The TL;DR is that "Optimization does not negate roleplay".

Except you just admitted an example of when it did. You weren't playing a character concept, despite liking the sound of it, because hobgoblins don't get wisdom. Optimization doesn't maker you roleplay your character worse, I believe that part, but it does negate roleplaying if it prevents you from choosing the character to begin with.


And that's what I expect the result is going to be. There's going to be a new lineup of 'best' races, but there's going a lot more races that fall into the 'decent for every class' range.

And it won't feel wierd that half-orcs will make better wizards than high elves? Its fine if it won't for you, I'm just checking.

[Segev]

It also synergizes with abilities like, say, the Evoker's ability to Overchannel. And Savage Attacks will work with things like Shadow Bladesingers or whatever.

So it's decent.

And that's what I expect the result is going to be. There's going to be a new lineup of 'best' races, but there's going a lot more races that fall into the 'decent for every class' range.

My issue is that this new lineup of "best races" is going to have a fair number of formerly "against the grain" races, making the meta of the game run to cross-purposes with the flavor of the settings. This sort of thing always bothers me.

For this reason, I won't be using it in my games.

I am, however, enough of a power-gamer that I absolutely will exploit it if it's in the rules.

[LudicSavant]

(PS: keep sunlight sensitivity, or you'll get nothing but drow PCs. :smallyuk:)

Personally I'd rather get a bunch of drow PCs than a bunch of half-drow PCs, which is what we get from the mechanical incentives right now.

But then again, I like drow. Possibly because I completely rewrote their lore (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?480130-Lolth-Lady-Luck).

[x3n0n]

Even in MtG though some people roleplay. One of my friends only run Avacyn in a deck if they have a way to return a creature from exile. And D&D players, even optimizers, presumably have more reason to roleplay.

Oh definitely! I'd like to think that "normal D&D" is more like kitchen table Commander than it is like tournament Standard.

The risk that we seem to discuss pretty frequently here is the analog of having a Power-9-stacked deck that reliably kills an unbounded number of opponents in 4 turns at the same table with decks built to attack with creatures that can't even be played that early. That's where we count on player sensitivity, not playing things that prevent the other players' fun.


Tying back in: I think there is some risk of discovering that the "best" builds "abuse" mechanics that weren't intended when a race was initially defined. However, I also expect the vast majority of players and tables to just deal with it, and now we can all have fun building effective characters that don't have much precedent in normal fantasy.

[Dienekes]

It also synergizes with abilities like, say, the Evoker's ability to Overchannel. And Savage Attacks will work with things like Shadow Bladesingers or whatever.

So it's decent.

And that's what I expect the result is going to be. There's going to be a new lineup of 'best' races, but there's going a lot more races that fall into the 'decent for every class' range.

Definitely, I just suspect there’s going to be a lot of weirdness where the fluff of the races will be like the hobgoblin. Everything says they make such great and fearsome fighters. But all the mechanics say to make it an Int focused class that doesn’t get armor proficiency or weapon proficiencies.

[x3n0n]

There's going to be a new lineup of 'best' races, but there's going a lot more races that fall into the 'decent for every class' range.

Thank you! That's what I have been struggling to elucidate for the past day.

[MaxWilson]

And it won't feel wierd that half-orcs will make better wizards than high elves? Its fine if it won't for you, I'm just checking.

It weirds me out that halflings and gnomes are stronger than humans in featless games.

But in an AL context this move makes sense for WotC. I can view this as an AL-specific workaround for AL's mandatory point buy, which artificially narrowed the range of viable class/race combos, and this is opening it back up again. In an AL context it doesn't matter if halflings are stronger than humans because there's no AL-relevant difference between Str 17 and Str 16.

If you're rolling stats anyway though, this is a solution in search of a problem. You could already play that half-orc wizard with no loss of effectiveness, as soon as you rolled a 16+ for your stats, which is more than 50% of the time.

[jaappleton]

Except you just admitted an example of when it did. You weren't playing a character concept, despite liking the sound of it, because hobgoblins don't get wisdom. Optimization doesn't maker you roleplay your character worse, I believe that part, but it does negate roleplaying if it prevents you from choosing the character to begin with.


Ah, but you assume that's the only character I am waiting to build.

No lie, I have a witness to prove it (Paging DracoKnight), I've workshopped well over... Goodness, a hundred would be a conservative estimation... Over a hundred different builds. The military commander Hobgoblin was class and subclass agnostic. There'd be a few ways to do that, among them are Order Domain Cleric, Dirgesinger (From Exploring Eberron) Bard, and you can argue Chronurgist Wizard. Battlemaster Fighter is arguable, but IMO doesn't fit the bill for what I'm looking to do. If I don't have something which is perfect for a build, I shelve it, typically waiting until the perfect one comes along.

Now I don't have to wait.

And while those builds were shelved, I would workshop other builds. And play them. Like my current PC, a Kobold Ranger, the Outlaw Josey Scales.

And I have played many, many characters which were 'suboptimal'. My Eladrin Tempest Cleric named Serge saw a lot of play during our CoS campaign until he sacrificed himself to save a party member. As a Spring Eladrin, he left off a cliff a party member fell off of, and grabbed their hand before triggering his Fey Step, teleporting to safety before plummeting to his demise.

Eladrins get no sort of bonus to Wisdom or Con (Since they can use Heavy Armor, I assume we agree those would be the most optimal stats?) and I played him for... Hm... Roughly six months or so of weekly sessions.

[LudicSavant]

And it won't feel wierd that half-orcs will make better wizards than high elves? Its fine if it won't for you, I'm just checking.

High Elves were never a particularly great Wizard race to begin with, because +1 Wizard cantrip is better for races that aren't already Wizards. And of course people would just go Half-High Elf SCAG variant.

High Elves were already one of the 'below curve so people don't really play them for mechanical reasons' races. If anything, they'll probably see more play now that they can ditch their Int stat.

If anything I expect to see more High Elves post-change than I expected to see High Elf Wizards chosen for mechanical reasons pre-change.

If anything, what really felt weird to me was that High Elves are iconically supposed to be longsword-users and boy did they suck at it. A High-Elf has no reason to ever use a longsword without the new rule.

By contrast, orc wizards don't feel weird to me at all. A lot of iconic orc characters in fantasy are wizards or Wizard-like characters. For example basically the main character of Warcraft 3 is more or less an orc Wizard.

[Boci]

Ah, but you assume that's the only character I am waiting to build.

No I don't. I figured you didn't turn a game because of you couldn't make hobgoblin military commander work, and that you rather played another character instead. Nor does it particularly matter that you have played other suboptimal characters.

Ther fact remains you didn't play a character you liked the idea of because of your optimization instincts. This is not an example to hold up in support of the Stormwind Fallacy.


By contrast, orc wizards don't feel weird to me at all. A lot of iconic orc characters in fantasy are wizards or Wizard-like characters. For example basically the main character of Warcraft 3 is more or less an orc Wizard.

Okay, I know WoW is not the same as D&D, but they do share some themes and ideas, and I know there is mage (wizard) class and a warlock class. Guuldan gets his power from demons, I'd be interested in hearing how wizard is a better representation of him than fiend pact warlock.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Except you just admitted an example of when it did. You weren't playing a character concept, despite liking the sound of it, because hobgoblins don't get wisdom.

It feels bad to face a mechanical penalty because of your roleplaying creativity. At that point, it's a lot easier to just give up and go "Yeah, I don't want to drag the party down, I guess I'll just play a (race more applicable to the class)..." because it's going to suck being behind everyone else in your party.


Honestly, the best solution to this would have been to just scrub racial ASI's altogether and just buff point buy/standard array to compensate, I think. For rolling you can just have a free floating +2/+1 that can represent what your character focused on in Adventurer Training or whatever. Though Mountain Dwarves and Half Elves would have had to get something else to compensate them for the loss I feel.

Also a minor point: Some people seem very upset that a gnome can start as strong as a goliath now which seems very silly. DnD should not be about "realism" in a world where a regular non-magical human can become 1.5x as strong as a gorilla. Not to mention there are no rules against say, playing a 16 year old 5'0 human who weighs 95 pounds and reaching 24 strength, again completely without the aid of magic. This stuff should not be a concern and should be tossed out with the same old Gygaxian notions that female characters should be weaker than male ones. As for homogenizing, races are unique because of their abilities, not because they have the "Right Biology" to do the job they want to do without penalty.

[jaappleton]

No I don't. I figured you didn't turn a game because of you couldn't make hobgoblin military commander work, and that you rather played another character instead. Nor does it particularly matter that you have played other suboptimal characters.

Ther fact remains you didn't play a character you liked the idea of because of your optimization instincts. This is not an example to hold up in support of the Stormwind Fallacy.

I didn't play a concept because while Order Domain is currently the closest that would fit it, doesn't mean its the right way to implement what I want to play.

So while now I can go with any race I want for whatever class and subclass I don't, it still doesn't mean the perfect subclass for what I want to play exists. Because it doesn't exist yet. Order is currently closest, but doesn't mean its the best way to do it.

Likewise: Let's say I want to play Thor. I'd argue Thor gets multiple attacks per round, so he needs Extra Attack. Thor can deal Thunder and Lightning damage. I'd argue Thor to be some sort of Lightning and Thunder based Paladin, with high Strength. Not a Tempest Cleric. Does a Lightning and Thunder oriented based Paladin exist? Or Fighter, even? One that can encapsulate a feeling of evoking power like Thor can? I say no, no such subclass exists.

I haven't played a particular character concept yet because I don't want to force a square peg into a round hole. I'd rather wait for the right peg. If need be, I'll make my own peg to fit into that hole by homebrewing, but I'd rather use official material when possible.

[Boci]

It feels bad to face a mechanical penalty because of your roleplaying creativity. At that point, it's a lot easier to just give up and go "Yeah, I don't want to drag the party down, I guess I'll just play a (race more applicable to the class)..." because it's going to suck being behind everyone else in your party.

I'm not saying I don't get that, I don't think Iplay suboptimal class and race combinations that way either, I'm just saying that when it does happen, it is a specific example of the Stormwind Fallacy being wrong and optimization instincts negating roleplay.


I haven't played a particular character concept yet because I don't want to force a square peg into a round hole. I'd rather wait for the right peg.

But it wouldn't have been. Playing a cleric without a wisdom bonus is not a square peg in a round hole. You can play a perfectly functional cleric with 14 or 15 wisdom.

[LudicSavant]

Okay, I know WoW is not the same as D&D, but they do share some themes and ideas, and I know there is mage (wizard) class and a warlock class. Guuldan gets his power from demons, I'd be interested in hearing how wizard is a better representation of him than fiend pact warlock.

Guuldan isn't the main character, Thrall is, and he does not get his power from demons. He's basically a Diviner who talks to the elements. You could maybe argue that he's some kind of Elemental Pact Warlock but I can do more Thrall-like things as a Diviner than I can as a Fiendlock.

That said, Guuldan and Thrall will both be much more effective now.

[Xervous]

Also a minor point: Some people seem very upset that a gnome can start as strong as a goliath now which seems very silly. DnD should not be about "realism" in a world where a regular non-magical human can become 1.5x as strong as a gorilla. Not to mention there are no rules against say, playing a 16 year old 5'0 human who weighs 95 pounds and reaching 24 strength, again completely without the aid of magic. This stuff should not be a concern and should be tossed out with the same old Gygaxian notions that female characters should be weaker than male ones. As for homogenizing, races are unique because of their abilities, not because they have the "Right Biology" to do the job they want to do without penalty.

But humans can’t start out as strong as halflings. This is what gets verisimilitude day drinking.

[jaappleton]

It feels bad to face a mechanical penalty because of your roleplaying creativity. At that point, it's a lot easier to just give up and go "Yeah, I don't want to drag the party down, I guess I'll just play a (race more applicable to the class)..." because it's going to suck being behind everyone else in your party.


Honestly, the best solution to this would have been to just scrub racial ASI's altogether and just buff point buy/standard array to compensate, I think. For rolling you can just have a free floating +2/+1 that can represent what your character focused on in Adventurer Training or whatever. Though Mountain Dwarves and Half Elves would have had to get something else to compensate them for the loss I feel.

Also a minor point: Some people seem very upset that a gnome can start as strong as a goliath now which seems very silly. DnD should not be about "realism" in a world where a regular non-magical human can become 1.5x as strong as a gorilla. Not to mention there are no rules against say, playing a 16 year old 5'0 human who weighs 95 pounds and reaching 24 strength, again completely without the aid of magic. This stuff should not be a concern and should be tossed out with the same old Gygaxian notions that female characters should be weaker than male ones. As for homogenizing, races are unique because of their abilities, not because they have the "Right Biology" to do the job they want to do without penalty.

THANK YOU. I've been arguing this since 5E's creation. 20 Str is 20 Str, from a Gnome or Goliath shouldn't matter. It is still a +5 Modifier and does the same +5 Str. Now give small races proper usage of Heavy Weapons, damnit! (Or let them use GWM with Versatile weapons being used 2H, I'm fine with that too)

[Dienekes]

Guuldan isn't the main character, Thrall is, and he does not get his power from demons. He's basically a Diviner who talks to the elements. You could maybe argue that he's some kind of Elemental Pact Warlock but I can do more Thrall-like things as a Diviner than I can as a Fiendlock.

That said, Guuldan and Thrall will both be much more effective now.

Unless things have changed a lot since WCIII (I haven't played WoW), I always figured Thrall for a Druid. Uses Conjure Woodland Beings, the occasional dominate beast, has a lot of support abilities as he guides the Orcs to greatness. Hasn't gotten any of his magic through books as far as I'm aware (which was more the purview of Jaina).


It feels bad to face a mechanical penalty because of your roleplaying creativity. At that point, it's a lot easier to just give up and go "Yeah, I don't want to drag the party down, I guess I'll just play a (race more applicable to the class)..." because it's going to suck being behind everyone else in your party.


Honestly, the best solution to this would have been to just scrub racial ASI's altogether and just buff point buy/standard array to compensate, I think. For rolling you can just have a free floating +2/+1 that can represent what your character focused on in Adventurer Training or whatever. Though Mountain Dwarves and Half Elves would have had to get something else to compensate them for the loss I feel.

Also a minor point: Some people seem very upset that a gnome can start as strong as a goliath now which seems very silly. DnD should not be about "realism" in a world where a regular non-magical human can become 1.5x as strong as a gorilla. Not to mention there are no rules against say, playing a 16 year old 5'0 human who weighs 95 pounds and reaching 24 strength, again completely without the aid of magic. This stuff should not be a concern and should be tossed out with the same old Gygaxian notions that female characters should be weaker than male ones. As for homogenizing, races are unique because of their abilities, not because they have the "Right Biology" to do the job they want to do without penalty.

Part of the issue here, I think, is that 5e does a very poor job of demonstrating that.

We just had this discussion a few weeks ago so I'm going to draw on that a bit. But while "Ape" is supposedly any Ape, the stats given do not actually demonstrate what a gorilla can do. And by the numbers given in the PHB, a silverback gorilla can carry much higher than a Str 20 character.

So what are we to make of that? That all gorillas are ridiculously weak in 5e? That Ape is just a terrible representation of a gorilla. That the designers didn't really have a clear view of what they were doing when they got started which left us with a strange mess that is realistic precisely until it stops being realistic?

I don't know.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Unless things have changed a lot since WCIII (I haven't played WoW), I always figured Thrall for a Druid. Uses Conjure Woodland Beings, the occasional dominate beast, has a lot of support abilities as he guides the Orcs to greatness. Hasn't gotten any of his magic through books as far as I'm aware (which was more the purview of Jaina).


Yeah. Thrall is a Shaman (in-universe). No great match to any D&D class, but the closest thematic match would be D&D druid (not WC3 druid, although that's a closer fit). Summoning, nature-focused magic, elemental focus, light/medium armor. No arcane stuff at all, no books, much more "wisdom" than "intelligence" (scare quotes because those don't match the D&D terms exactly).

And WoW has them as an intermediate-armor, elements-and-totems class. Not a good fit for a wizard, certainly. Not a good fit anywhere, but that's the nature of comparisons to non-D&D media.

[Dork_Forge]

THANK YOU. I've been arguing this since 5E's creation. 20 Str is 20 Str, from a Gnome or Goliath shouldn't matter. It is still a +5 Modifier and does the same +5 Str. Now give small races proper usage of Heavy Weapons, damnit! (Or let them use GWM with Versatile weapons being used 2H, I'm fine with that too)

Heavy weapon restriction has nothing to do with strength, it's the weapons being to large to adequately wield when you're of such a small stature.

[KorvinStarmast]

THANK YOU. I've been arguing this since 5E's creation. 20 Str is 20 Str, from a Gnome or Goliath shouldn't matter. It is still a +5 Modifier and does the same +5 Str. Now give small races proper usage of Heavy Weapons, damnit! (Or let them use GWM with Versatile weapons being used 2H, I'm fine with that too) Please don't, or then we see the Human Barbarian use the Fire Giant's Sword to get that nice 6d6 damage. (That's whey they didn't do that, I think).

Also: verisimilitude and all that.

[LudicSavant]

Unless things have changed a lot since WCIII (I haven't played WoW), I always figured Thrall for a Druid. Uses Conjure Woodland Beings, the occasional dominate beast, has a lot of support abilities as he guides the Orcs to greatness. Hasn't gotten any of his magic through books as far as I'm aware (which was more the purview of Jaina).

*Shrug* Whichever kind of caster you want to call him, that kind of caster was not well-served by a +2 Str / +1 Con statline. Also, in the lore weren't they constantly talking about how crazy smart he's supposed to be?

I just don't see why anyone would have an aversion to the idea of orc spellcasters. There are lots of iconic orc spellcasters in fantasy. Including in D&D lore! Maybe some people want to play characters like that sometimes without feeling like they're getting a swift kick in the shins for their trouble.

[jaappleton]

Please don't, or then we see the Human Barbarian use the Fire Giant's Sword to get that nice 6d6 damage. (That's whey they didn't do that, I think).

Also: verisimilitude and all that.

Why no Small races with 2H Versatile weapons?

If you want to make the weight of the weapon itself an issue, fine. So no Humans, or any PC race, wielding a Fire Giants sword. That I'm OK with.

But I do believe all playable races should have full access and ability to all PC options, which means feats. And Small races can't properly utilize GWM. I really do believe that's something which should be fixed.

[Boci]

I just don't see why anyone would have an aversion to the idea of orc spellcasters. There are lots of iconic orc spellcasters in fantasy. Including in D&D lore! Maybe some people want to play characters like that sometimes without feeling like they're getting a swift kick in the shins for their trouble.

You're conflating two things here. Not wanting orcs to get a bonus to intelligence, does not mean people have an aversion to orcs spellcasters. Its fair that not everyone wants to play an orc wizard without a bonus to int, but it doesn't mean the people who want to keep the bonus at strength and con don't want orc spellcasters.

[MaxWilson]

Please don't, or then we see the Human Barbarian use the Fire Giant's Sword to get that nice 6d6 damage. (That's whey they didn't do that, I think).

Also: verisimilitude and all that.

Power combo: an Eldritch Knight contracts lycanthropy from a werebear, then transforms to hybrid form (Large size). He Reduces a Fire Giant's sword to Large size so he can wield it, then attacks with it for 6d6-1d4 damage per hit.


Seriously, Enlarge/Reduce makes no sense.

[jaappleton]

Power combo: an Eldritch Knight contracts lycanthropy from a werebear, then transforms to hybrid form (Large size). He Reduces a Fire Giant's sword to Large size so he can wield it, then attacks with it for 6d6-1d4 damage per hit.


Seriously, Enlarge/Reduce makes no sense.

Deurgar Rune Knights can make themselves Huge.

>_>

[LudicSavant]

You're conflating two things here. Not wanting orcs to get a bonus to intelligence, does not mean people have an aversion to orcs spellcasters. Its fair that not everyone wants to play an orc wizard without a bonus to int, but it doesn't mean the people who want to keep the bonus at strength and con don't want orc spellcasters.

Right, you want there to be orc spellcasters, you just don't want them to be a good race for it. And are asking me if I would find it weird if they aren't one of the worse races for it.

Let's make no mistake here. An orc Wizard and a high-elf Wizard PC, without this change, are going to end up with the exact same Intelligence. They're both going to raise it to 20. The orc is just going to be missing an ASI somewhere else.

A human Barbarian and an Orc Barbarian in 5e, no variant rules at all, are likely to start and end with the same Strength score.

The 'races have meaningful fluff differences in physical limitations represented by attributes' ship was out of the harbor the day 5e was released. IMHO, you're holding onto its ghost.

[PhoenixPhyre]

*Shrug* Whichever kind of caster you want to call him, that kind of caster was not well-served by a +2 Str / +1 Con statline. Also, in the lore weren't they constantly talking about how crazy smart he's supposed to be?

I just don't see why anyone would have an aversion to the idea of orc spellcasters. There are lots of iconic orc spellcasters in fantasy. Including in D&D lore! Maybe some people want to play characters like that sometimes without feeling like they're getting a swift kick in the shins for their trouble.

Warcraft orcs are not D&D orcs. Don't mix the systems (mechanically). That way lies heartache.

And actually, his WC3 incarnation was closer to WoW's Enhancement Shaman (more melee, less casting). Which actually would like a +2 Str/+1 Con statline. So meh.

And I strongly object to the idea that not having a racial ASI that boosts your primary stat makes it unfeasable to play that character. That's out of line with the game's basic assumptions:
* main stat +2 at level 1, and never +5
* secondary stat + Con positive
* not wielding an inappropriate weapon (one that you lack proficiency or have disadvantage constantly with)
* not wearing inappropriate armor

That's the game's baseline. Anything else is entirely self-imposed.

I've seen tons of tiefling druids. High-elf fighters (STR focused). Etc. Games went just fine. Just because your circle is heavily optimization-focused doesn't mean the game itself is.

[Boci]

Right, you want there to be orc spellcasters, you just don't want them to be a good race for it. And are asking me if I would find it weird if they aren't one of the worse races for it.

No, I asked you if it was wierd if they would be a better race for wizards than high elves.


Let's make no mistake here. An orc Wizard and a high-elf Wizard PC, without this change, are going to end up with the exact same Intelligence. They're both going to raise it to 20. The orc is just going to be missing an ASI somewhere else.

Yes, but the rest of the half-orcs abilities, or one of them, are better than the elf's for a wizard.


The 'races have meaningful fluff differences in physical limitations represented by attributes' ship was out of the harbor the day 5e was released. IMHO, you're holding onto its ghost.

That explains all the Half-Orc Wizards we've seen since day 1, oh wait. Seriously, we if that were true we wouldn't need this new varient rule.

[LudicSavant]

No, I asked you if it was wierd if they would be a better race for wizards than high elves.

That's just the same thing worded differently, from my perspective.

[GooeyChewie]

But I do believe all playable races should have full access and ability to all PC options, which means feats. And Small races can't properly utilize GWM. I really do believe that's something which should be fixed.

What's the point of races at all at that point? Just cosmetic value?

[Boci]

That's just the same thing worded differently, from my perspective.

Its not. Assuming optimization heavy groups, you won't see high-elves wizards but might see hhalf-orcs wizards. You don't have to find that wierd, but all high and mighty because checks if that aethetic compeltly atypical to common fantasy is okay with you is...of questionable value. Don't let me hold you back if you think the twist is fun by all means.

[Hellpyre]

I feel like the core part of what they were trying to get away from - the idea the there is a racial basis for any of your character stats - is kind of undercut by doing it the way they did. It's not so much that they're mechanically much better, but the ubermenschen of the Mountain Dwarfs and Half-Elves are now just genetically predisposed towards superiority at any task they lay their hands on. At least an "all races get a floating +2/+1" approach would have set the tone WotC wanted better.

[LudicSavant]

*snip*

I see you edited out the statement you made about 'so that explains all the Half-Orc Wizards we've seen since day 1, oh wait' statement (and I can't quote it, because it's gone if I hit the back button on my browser). So I assume you realized the issue with that statement (or otherwise changed your mind), but I want to comment about it anyways.

The reason people don't play Half-Orc Wizards right now isn't because there's a huge flavor difference between starting with 15 Int and 16 Int. Or any difference at all between 20 Int and 20 Int.

It's because there's a difference in overall mechanical effectiveness. For example, the effect of me taking 3 ASIs instead of 2 to get to 20 Int isn't that I have the flavor of 'being less smart cuz I am big dumb orc' it's 'I didn't get to take Warcaster because I'm an orc, so I don't mix up my casting with brutish melee.'

I don't see that as a flavor improvement.

[jaappleton]

What's the point of races at all at that point? Just cosmetic value?

Tieflings still have Fire Resistance and Darkvision, plus racial spells
Goliaths still have Powerful Build and Cold Resistance and Stone's Endurance

I don't need to continue here. You get my point.

The ability to shift around your stat bonuses to whatever you like has a big role in the game. In all three pillars: Exploration, Social, and Combat. The ability for all PCs to use all PC related options, in the case I'm presenting as an example, is a core aspect of one of those three pillars of the game: Combat. I should be able to make a Gnome Barbarian work just as effectively as a Half Orc in combat, if they're going to allow you to put your ASIs wherever. I know not everyone agrees with me, but I really do believe a Small race should be able to take the GWM feat without penalty.

All they'd have to do it allow the feat to work with 2H melee weapons that lack the Heavy property. I'm not saying let people wield a Fire Giant sword or any garbage like that. Word the feat however you want to, just let Small races get the full benefits of the feat. The game is all about empowering players to portray heroes, there shouldn't be limits on that. If a Medium size race can do it, a Small race shouldn't be penalized for it.

[Boci]

I see you edited out the statement you made about 'so that explains all the Half-Orc Wizards we've seen since day 1, oh wait' statement (and I can't quote it, because it's gone if I hit the back button on my browser). So I assume you realized the issue with that statement, but I want to comment about it anyways.

Issues? No. It was snarky, but that's not really an issue, and it was a relevant comeback to your point. I'm not ashamaned I wrote it or anything. I can edit it back in so you can quote it properly if you like.


The reason people don't play Half-Orc Wizards right now isn't because there's a huge flavor difference between starting with 15 Int and 16 Int.

So the ship hasn't sailed since the start of 5e. Either the ship sailed and the start and we don't need this new varient rule, or the ship has only set sail now. You can't have it both ways.

I asked you if a table where half-orcs replace high-elves as the wizard race was wierd. I don't get why you've chosen to be so offended. Its fine if you don't find that wierd, I just do.

[LudicSavant]

Here's the difference in racial flavor between old orc wizard and new orc wizard, with point buy, as it tends to show up in practice.

Old Orc Wizard point distribution:
10 Str, 14 Dex, 16 Con, 15 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha

New Orc Wizard point distribution:
10 Str, 14 Dex, 17 Con, 16 Int, 8 Wis, 8 Cha

They have the same Strength, but new orc Wizard has higher Constitution, and bumps it up to 18 when they get Res(Con) at the same level the old Orc Wizard was taking an Int-half-feat like Keen Mind.

If it seems weird that the old orc wizard is less of a muscle Wizard, that's because it is!! Because the actual impact of +2 Str/+1 Con on the statline isn't that the Wizard is going to stop investing in Intelligence and stop dumping Strength. It's that the Wizard is going to have less Constitution and less ASIs left over after getting 20 Int.

[Segev]

I just don't see why anyone would have an aversion to the idea of orc spellcasters. There are lots of iconic orc spellcasters in fantasy. Including in D&D lore! Maybe some people want to play characters like that sometimes without feeling like they're getting a swift kick in the shins for their trouble.


You're conflating two things here. Not wanting orcs to get a bonus to intelligence, does not mean people have an aversion to orcs spellcasters. Its fair that not everyone wants to play an orc wizard without a bonus to int, but it doesn't mean the people who want to keep the bonus at strength and con don't want orc spellcasters.Right. I want a half-orc wizard to be smart because he's unusual for an orc, but still is an orc, not because he's got the same potential stat spread as any other wizard.


The reason people don't play Half-Orc Wizards right now isn't because there's a huge flavor difference between starting with 15 Int and 16 Int. Or any difference at all between 20 Int and 20 Int.

It's because there's a difference in overall mechanical effectiveness. For example, the effect of me taking 3 ASIs instead of 2 to get to 20 Int isn't that I have the flavor of 'being less smart cuz I am big dumb orc' it's 'I didn't get to take Warcaster because I'm an orc, so I don't mix up my casting with brutish melee.'

I don't see that as a flavor improvement.This actually is the mechanical/flavor connection: that a half-orc might need to work harder, invest more, to get to Int 20 than a gnome is significant, even if it's not game-wrecking for that half-orc to never get above a 19. The flavor of the half-orc wizard who is unusually smart for a half-orc (and for any other race that doesn't get a bonus to Int, really) includes his struggles to catch up to the smartest of the smartest members of smart races.

The difference in overall effectiveness is 5%, at most. Is that significant? If so, then I find the difference worth preserving. If not, then I question the need to do this floating ASI business.

That said, it probably won't hurt anybody's games. What you do at your table is between you and the others at it (primarily the DM). That doesn't change my assessment that this isn't good design, and that it makes race far more... well:



What's the point of races at all at that point? Just cosmetic value?

This does seem to me to be the direction it's going.

[Boci]

Here's the difference in racial flavor between old orc wizard and new orc wizard, with point buy, as it tends to show up in practice.

Old Orc Wizard point distribution:
10 Str, 14 Dex, 16 Con, 15 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha

New Orc Wizard point distribution:
10 Str, 14 Dex, 17 Con, 16 Int, 8 Wis, 8 Cha

They have the same Strength, but new orc Wizard has higher Constitution, and bumps it up to 18 when they get Res(Con) at the same level the old Orc Wizard was taking an Int-half-feat like Keen Mind.

If it seems weird that the old orc wizard is less of a muscle Wizard, that's because it is!! Because the actual impact of +2 Str/+1 Con on the statline isn't that the Wizard is going to stop investing in Intelligence and stop dumping Strength. It's that the Wizard is going to have less Constitution and less ASIs left over after getting 20 Int.

Again, this seems to contradict your previous statement that "orc don't make as good wizards stopped being a thing the moment 5e dropped".

And for third time now I think. Its fine that you like this, but it is worth aknolwedging that this further aggrevates a problem you noted earlier in this thread: high elves make bad wizards, despite they being a go to race for them in most fantasy. If common fantasy aethetic doesn't mattert to you, then no big loss.

[LudicSavant]

The difference in overall effectiveness is 5%, at most.

Just as a note: It's not actually true that a +1 is only a +5% improvement in outcomes.

For a relatively simple example, let's say you hit 50% of the time, and deal 1d8+4 damage. Then you get +1 strength, and then hit 55% of the time, and deal 1d8+5 damage.

Original DPR: (.45*(1d8+4))+(.05*(2d8+4)) = 4.475
New DPR: (.5*(1d8+5))+(.05*(2d8+5)) = 5.45

Total difference: ~22%. Not 5%.


Again, this seems to contradict your previous statement that "orc don't make as good wizards stopped being a thing the moment 5e dropped".

That's because that's not what my previous statement was.

[MaxWilson]

Here's the difference in racial flavor between old orc wizard and new orc wizard, with point buy, as it tends to show up in practice.

Old Orc Wizard point distribution:
10 Str, 14 Dex, 16 Con, 15 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha

New Orc Wizard point distribution:
10 Str, 14 Dex, 17 Con, 16 Int, 8 Wis, 8 Cha

They have the same Strength, but new orc Wizard has higher Constitution, and bumps it up to 18 when they get Res(Con) at the same level the old Orc Wizard was taking an Int-half-feat like Keen Mind.

If it seems weird that the old orc wizard is less of a muscle Wizard, that's because it is!! Because the actual impact of +2 Str/+1 Con on the statline isn't that the Wizard is going to stop investing in Intelligence and stop dumping Strength. It's that the Wizard is going to have less Constitution and less ASIs left over after getting 20 Int.

It seems weird to me that the "new" orc wizard is boosting Str instead of Wis. Why would he do that? 8 Str, 14 Dex, 17 Con, 16 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha seems more plausible and is clearly less muscle-ey, not more.

[LudicSavant]

It seems weird to me that the "new" orc wizard is boosting Str instead of Wis. Why would he do that? 8 Str, 14 Dex, 17 Con, 16 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha seems more plausible and is clearly less muscle-ey, not more.

You could also get 10 Str / 14 Dex / 16 Con / 16 Int / 10 Wis / 8 Cha. And still have an extra ASI over the old orc Wizard to get another +2 Con.

I get what you're trying to say. You're saying you could make an 8 Str orc where you couldn't before. But I'm not looking at the worst muscle Wizard I can make. I'm looking at, if I want to make a muscle Wizard, who makes a better one? And the answer is "the new Wizard." There is no configuration where the old Wizard comes out ahead or even breaks even unless they decide to dump Int, which isn't gonna happen.

[Boci]

That's because that's not what my previous statement was.

Please explain how I am misinterpreting:

"The 'races have meaningful fluff differences in physical limitations represented by attributes' ship was out of the harbor the day 5e was released. IMHO, you're holding onto its ghost."

Are you talking about the stat cap? That would be wierd, since I didn't see anyone dislike how good this rule makes half-orc wizards discuss that. You also say I'm holding on to a ghost, which would be wierd if you're addressign a stat cap, which I never did.

[Lavaeolus]

Its not. Assuming optimization heavy groups, you won't see high-elves wizards but might see hhalf-orcs wizards. You don't have to find that wierd, but all high and mighty because checks if that aethetic compeltly atypical to common fantasy is okay with you is...of questionable value. Don't let me hold you back if you think the twist is fun by all means.

As far as this specifically goes, a quick breakdown of what half-orc and high elf have to offer under these rules. First, both get a skill proficiency, Darkvision, and a Speed of 30.

The half-orc will get:
* Savage Attacks, which is a little moot for most Wizards.
* Relentless Endurance, a nice feature all-in-all. But situational; it's a nice safeguard, but if you're close to death all the time that's its own concern.

The high elf will get:
* Advantage on saving throws against being charmed.
* Can't be put to sleep, don't need to sleep.
* An extra cantrip keyed off Intelligence, admittedly a little moot on a Wizard who already knows a bunch.
* An extra language. Gamebreaking!
* Weapon training. Wizards aren't known for their weaponry, though they might like a longbow for certain situations; still, if they don't want any, they can convert it to four tools.

I realise this is a little focusing on a specific, so I don't think you should necessarily extrapolate this to the whole idea (e.g. it's a little odd Dwarf Fighters and Barbarians become toolmasters by trading in all their weapons). But as far as this case go, I think the high elf remains solid here.

The half-orc will be able to leverage Relentless Endurance, but the high elf will get their own features to contend and be slightly more wizard-y (albeit one extra cantrip is relatively minor in impact).

[LudicSavant]

Please explain how I am misinterpreting

There is a meaningful mechanical effectiveness difference created by 5e's implementation of racial stats.

There is not, however, a meaningful fluff effect. A human Barbarian and an orc Barbarian are likely to both start with 16 Strength, and end with 20 Strength. A human Wizard and an orc Barbarian have a stat difference of exactly 1 point of Int, which probably gonna be roleplayed just the same, and they will both end with 20 Intelligence... the Orc will just have a lower stat somewhere else, like Constitution or missing a feat.

[Boci]

There is a meaningful mechanical effectiveness difference created by 5e's implementation of racial stats.

There is not, however, a meaningful fluff effect. A human Barbarian and an orc Barbarian are likely to both start with 16 Strength, and end with 20 Strength. A human Wizard and an orc Barbarian have a stat difference of exactly 1 point of Int, which probably gonna be roleplayed just the same, and they will both end with 20 Intelligence... the Orc will just have a lower stat somewhere else, like Constitution or missing a feat.

Yes, and in 3.5 the different between a half-orc wizard and a human wizard's intellgience modifier would have been the same. Ditto in 4th edition. The modifers would be one off, which presumably would be roleplayed the same. This seems to be nothing new and just how D&D has typically always treated the idea of a non-standard wizard.

5th edition brought them closer together by introducing the stat cap, but kept the previous edition's tendancy to make half-orcs an inferior choice to the human for a wizard.

[LudicSavant]

5th edition brought them closer together by introducing the stat cap, but kept the previous edition's tendancy to make half-orcs an inferior choice to the human for a wizard.

Right. That's what I was saying.

[MaxWilson]

You could also get 10 Str / 14 Dex / 16 Con / 16 Int / 10 Wis / 8 Cha. And still have an extra ASI over the old orc Wizard to get another +2 Con.

I get what you're trying to say. You're saying you could make an 8 Str orc where you couldn't before. But I'm not looking at the worst muscle Wizard I can make. I'm looking at, if I want to make a muscle Wizard, who makes a better one? And the answer is "the new Wizard." There is no configuration where the old Wizard comes out ahead or even breaks even unless they decide to dump Int, which isn't gonna happen.

Of course there's no scenario where the old wizard comes out ahead--nobody is arguing that. Floating +s are strictly mechanically "better", how could the old way ever do something worse? Even if your goal is to have a Str 17 Con 16 wizard, you can always leave the +s where they are.

But you're missing the point. The old orc had Str 10 because they had to--10 is the minimum. They totally ignored Str and invested everything in wizardy stats. The closest correspondance to that in the new world is to keep the same player priorities, but take advantage of the opportunity to shift the +2 into Int/Con, resulting in a less muscley wizard.

I was responding to an apparent claim that the new way counterintuitively makes for MORE muscley orc wizards than the old way, and that's not true. The player who doesn't care about Str but wants to play an orc will now have a lower Str and higher Int/Con. There's nothing counterintuitive going on here.

[Boci]

Right. That's what I was saying.

Wierd thing to being up to me when I had never mentioned it. Clearly, as you have now aknolwedged, 5e kept the D&D tradition of half-orcs not making good wizards, so claiming I was clinging to the ghost of something that was very much a part of 5e from the get go was not really true.

[Amnestic]

Warcraft orcs are not D&D orcs. Don't mix the systems (mechanically). That way lies heartache.

And actually, his WC3 incarnation was closer to WoW's Enhancement Shaman (more melee, less casting). Which actually would like a +2 Str/+1 Con statline. So meh.


Not that this is really the point but his WC3 incarnation was entirely spell-based, his auto attack being a ranged lightning bolt ability and having no melee attacks whatsoever. He is was using the Far Seer template.

Thrall himself wears plate mail and wields a big hammer - but he was also originally a gladiator before becoming a shaman, so he's probably best represented by a Fighter/Druid multiclass, starting as fighter for the armour proficiencies and skipping over the 'metal armour' fluff.

[GooeyChewie]

Tieflings still have Fire Resistance and Darkvision, plus racial spells
Goliaths still have Powerful Build and Cold Resistance and Stone's Endurance

I don't need to continue here. You get my point.
When you said "I do believe all playable races should have full access and ability to all PC options," I took it to mean that racial abilities counted as PC options.

So, if small PC races are allowed to use heavy weapons unhindered, can medium PC races use riding dogs as mounts?

[BRC]

5th edition brought them closer together by introducing the stat cap, but kept the previous edition's tendancy to make half-orcs an inferior choice to the human for a wizard.

And what is the benefit of that tendency? What does it do besides punish players who want to play a non-optimal race/class combo. Is their Roleplaying Experience noticably enriched by being forced to have a lower primary stat?

Remember, these are rules for building PC's, not dictates for fantasy worldbuilding. The fact that it's easier to BUILD a 16 Int Orc doesn't mean that 16 Int orcs have to be any more common in your setting.

All it does is take the pressure off the player to choose the Mechanically Optimal race for the class they want to play, or else spend some time playing catchup (having to spend an extra ASI to get their primary stat to 20 while everybody else gets to play with an extra feat, for example).

[MaxWilson]

So the ship hasn't sailed since the start of 5e. Either the ship sailed and the start and we don't need this new varient rule, or the ship has only set sail now. You can't have it both ways.

I asked you if a table where half-orcs replace high-elves as the wizard race was wierd. I don't get why you've chosen to be so offended. Its fine if you don't find that wierd, I just do.

I respectfully request that the uber-magical orc race be renamed the Jaghut (https://malazan.fandom.com/wiki/Jaghut).


https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette4.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fmal azan%2Fimages%2Fc%2Fc7%2FRaest_3.jpg%2Frevision%2F latest%3Fcb%3D20150207185028&f=1&nofb=1

[Boci]

And what is the benefit of that tendency? What does it do besides punish players who want to play a non-optimal race/class combo. Is their Roleplaying Experience noticably enriched by being forced to have a lower primary stat?

For some people, yes. I've played a child PC before and assured my DM that yes, I did want a emchanical penalty to reflect the fact that I wasn't fully grown.


Remember, these are rules for building PC's, not dictates for fantasy worldbuilding. The fact that it's easier to BUILD a 16 Int Orc doesn't mean that 16 Int orcs have to be any more common in your setting.

Yes, but there's no reason not to now. Fantasy world building was influenced by what the race was good at. The reasons why orcs tend to be good warriors in worldbuilding is because mechanically they make good warriors. Unlike other aspect, we can't credit LotR with this, because LotR orcs were only good at dying and being pathetic.

[LudicSavant]

Wierd thing to being up to me when I had never mentioned it. Clearly, as you have now aknolwedged, 5e kept the D&D tradition of half-orcs not making good wizards, so claiming I was clinging to the ghost of something that was very much a part of 5e from the get go was not really true.

The difference in older editions was that attributes had a somewhat larger fluff role in the sense that A) they were larger and B) they were uncapped, so they actually established that the strongest orc was stronger than the strongest man.

I wasn't a huge fan of them back then, but these days they feel entirely vestigial to me.

I am basically saying that from my perspective, any meaningful fluff impact that racial attributes have have shriveled up to a point they're basically just a ghost.

[Boci]

The difference in older editions was that attributes had a somewhat larger fluff role in the sense that A) they were larger and B) they were uncapped, so they actually established that the strongest orc was stronger than the strongest man.

I wasn't a huge fan of them back then, but these days they feel entirely vestigial to me.

How was it larger when it was still just the same difference in the emchanical modifer? How does a mechanical modifer eventually going away vs. becoming increasingly less relevant but always there somehow influence the fluff aspect?


I am basically saying that from my perspective, any meaningful fluff impact that racial attributes have have shriveled up to a point they're basically just a ghost.

I don't get this. I don't have to, its your opinion, not mine, but to me the start is more important than the finish. 5e had every much as fluffy a reason why half-orcs didn't make good wizards. They also had a theme that mere mortals had an upper cieling that could be reached by everyone. Whilst this did make it more equal in the end, it didn't matter at the start, and surely the fluff of a race is the world building stuff, not the PC specfici stuff?

[BRC]

For some people, yes. I've played a child PC before and assured my DM that yes, I did want a emchanical penalty to reflect the fact that I wasn't fully grown.

Good news, if you value that, you can still have that.


Yes, but there's no reason not to now. Fantasy world building was influenced by what the race was good at.

I'd argue it's the other way around. D&D's Statlines were not drawn whole cloth out of nowhere, they were created to reflect existing fantasy archetypes, largely defined by popular fiction, mostly, but not exclusively, Tolkien (Who, himself took heavy inspiration from other writers and mythology).

Orcs have a bonus to Strength and Con because Tolkien described orcs as being Strong and Tough. The Orcs in something like Warfcraft or The Forgotten Realms are first and foremost derivative of Tolkein's Orcs, and the Phb Statblock is a reflection of that archetype.

[clash]

For some people, yes. I've played a child PC before and assured my DM that yes, I did want a emchanical penalty to reflect the fact that I wasn't fully grown.


It's fair enough to want a penalty as part of your story but that doesnt mean everyone should have a penalty. Players that want this can impose it upon themselves. Dont want your half-orc wizard to be as smart as a high elf wizard then dont take the stat bonus to int. Even under these rules that option is still there, but for people that want an unorthodox combination to work or even a combination that should work well but doesnt, dont impose your own penalties on them.

[x3n0n]

If we stick to just ability score shifts (ignoring languages and skill/weapon/tool proficiencies), what effect do we expect this to have?

If stats are rolled, then more rolls will yield arrays that allow unusual race/class combos with "good" performance.
If point buy, more race/class combos can be used to make characters with "good" performance.

Other than fluff and verisimilitude, what is lost here? I think the only balance-related answer is "a race's designer didn't expect it to be played often in some particular class, and thus didn't worry much about the intersection between the race's features and that class's features, leading to unexpectedly powerful combos". I will be curious to see if it happens. (And if so, someone could have rolled those stats anyway, so why is this worse?)

Languages are a non-issue, I assume.

Skill/tool/weapon proficiencies are odd. Total freedom means that races with crappy or redundant skills can convert them to good ones, leading to builds that used to be impossible, regardless of dice. Races with at least 2 weapon proficiencies or any skill other than Perception get a significant utility bump from this. (Maybe you use 1 race weapon proficiency or even 2, but the rest can clearly be converted to tools.)

[LudicSavant]

How was it larger when it was still just the same difference in the emchanical modifer?

Orcs had what, +4 Str / +2 Con / -2 Int, Wis, and Cha? Not sure why you're telling me that's the same.


How does a mechanical modifer eventually going away vs. becoming increasingly less relevant but always there somehow influence the fluff aspect?

Because 'the strongest orc is stronger than the strongest human' is a tangible in-world thing. Whereas 'this person had to roll higher to get the same score' is something that is as tangible as whether or not Miko's character sheet actually has the word "Samurai" on it. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

[Boci]

Good news, if you value that, you can still have that.

Yeah, the time to say that was before you said "all this does is punish", because some players don't interpret it as a punish. You were insisting your preference that only truth.


I'd argue it's the other way around. D&D's Statlines were not drawn whole cloth out of nowhere, they were created to reflect existing fantasy archetypes, largely defined by popular fiction, mostly, but not exclusively, Tolkien (Who, himself took heavy inspiration from other writers and mythology).

Did I edit in the part about how you cannot credit tolkien for D&D orcs because his orcs were pathetic and not warriors for you to have missed? D&D was certainly influenced by existing factors, but it has also invented its own stuff, which it has used in its own worldbuilding.


Orcs had what, +4 Str / +2 Con / -2 Int, Wis, and Cha? Not sure why you're telling me that's the same.

We've been talking about half-orcs. You know, the ability to drop to 1hp instead of 0 ability we were discussing? That's the half-orc.


Because 'the strongest orc is stronger than the strongest human' is a tangible in-world thing. Whereas 'this person had to roll higher to get the same score' is something that is as tangible as whether or not Miko's character sheet actually has the word "Samurai" on it. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

No. "The average orc is stronger but dumber than the average elf" is totally a tangible in-world thing. Probably more so than the strongest orc, because how many times will you meet the -est of any race?

[LudicSavant]

"The average orc is stronger but dumber than the average elf" is totally a tangible in-world thing.

The fact that this particular orc PC has 15 Int tells me absolutely nothing about the average orc or average elf, neither of which have that, and neither of which are PCs, and neither of which need to be generated with PC character creation rules.

However, if I see an orc with 24 Strength right out the gate, that tells me that that is a possible Strength score for a natural orc to have in the world. That's the difference. The information that can be directly inferred from the character's in-world existence.

And please, please don't tell me that the fluff represented is that they had to 'work harder' to get where they are. Does someone who is unusually tall for their race have to start short and work harder to be tall? Do we say that a Wizard requires more XP to level up because they have to work harder to than a Sorcerer? That's not how anything works.

[king_steve]

Because 'the strongest orc is stronger than the strongest human' is a tangible in-world thing.

Isn't this represented by the Powerful Build feature?

[LudicSavant]

Isn't this represented by the Powerful Build feature?

Yep. That is a tangible fluff thing.

[KorvinStarmast]

But then again, I like drow. Possibly because I completely rewrote their lore (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?480130-Lolth-Lady-Luck). Then they aren't drow, they are word, or something else, in the context of this discussion. :smallcool:


Why no Small races with 2H Versatile weapons? They can already use versatile weapons with two hands: long sword, battle axe, quarter staff. It's in the PHB, and they can try to use the Maul or Great Axe and attack with disadvantage. That's also in the PHB.

Power combo: an Eldritch Knight contracts lycanthropy from a werebear, then transforms to hybrid form (Large size). He Reduces a Fire Giant's sword to Large size so he can wield it, then attacks with it for 6d6-1d4 damage per hit.

Seriously, Enlarge/Reduce makes no sense. And why not? Cheese is delicious. :smallcool: But it is still cheese.

What's the point of races at all at that point? Just cosmetic value? Here's an idea: there isn't one.

[LudicSavant]

Then they aren't drow, they are word, or something else, in the context of this discussion. :smallcool:

I also like Eberron drow. Do those get to count?

[Boci]

The fact that this particular orc PC has 15 Int tells me absolutely nothing about the average orc or average elf, neither of which have that.

Yes, smart high-elves are also smarter than orc or half-orcs, or wood elves for that matter. Again, totally tangible in-world fluff backed by mechanics.


And please, please don't tell me that the fluff represented is that they had to 'work harder' to get where they are. Does someone who is unusually tall for their race have to start short and work harder to be tall? Do we say that a Wizard requires more XP to level up because they have to work harder to than a Sorcerer? That's not how anything works.

Except for half-orc and orc wizards it totally is how D&D 5e worked until now, years after its publication.

Again, not a problem if you like new rule, but you seem to be convinced its been a long time coming when it might just be a one off, "here, go nuts". I guess we won't find out until 6th ed drops.

[LudicSavant]

Yes, smart high-elves are also smarter than orc or half-orcs, or wood elves for that matter. Again, totally tangible in-world fluff backed by mechanics.

You're not following me here.

If I observe an individual orc PC, and I see that they have 15 Int, I don't have any information about 'average orcs' or the orc race in general other than that 15 Int is a possible stat for them to have. I cannot scientifically deduce that an average orc has 15 Int (or any other Int score) from this. I can't even do it if I measure every single orc NPC in the world because they didn't get generated with PC creation rules.

[x3n0n]

"The average orc is stronger but dumber than the average elf" is totally a tangible in-world thing.

So now this goes back to their stated rationale, doesn't it? The race ability score modifiers as printed in PHB may reflect average differences between populations. Let's stipulate that they do.

Where is the logical link that says those numbers *should* have any effect on the creation of a PC, especially in a world where you can already rearrange your array?

If we want to go back to "roll your dice, the first one is Str", then maybe you could use racial ability modifiers over many characters to simulate a population. But who cares about that? Modern D&D character creation philosophy is not about taking the hand you're dealt, it's about creating the character concept you want to play.

I've actually talked myself into the "floating +2/+1 or modifiers as printed" camp. (With "modifiers as printed" as a concession to people who really want a race with an unusual modifier like Mountain Dwarf, Half-Elf, or Triton.)

Thanks to all for a stimulating discussion and for helping me understand my feelings on this.

[sambojin]

So, Firbolgs now get +2Wis, +1Con (or Dex or Cha), Powerful Build (for 240lb dump-stat carry), and Common/ Primordial/ Sylvan so they can talk to all their druid summons at character creation. Nice :)

Edit: yes I did mean Con. 👇
Oh, and they get plenty of short rest racial casting as well. To tell you the truth, they'd make fine wizards as well now, with Int/ Con.

Overall, I like the changes, both from a character creation perspective and from a power-gaming one.

[x3n0n]

So, Firbolgs now get +2Wis, +1Dex (or Cha), Powerful Build (for 240lb dump-stat carry), and Common/ Primordial/ Sylvan so they can talk to all their druid summons at character creation. Nice :)

Aside: did you mean Con or Cha? I'd usually take Con there.

Also: yes, that seems nice. :)