Detect Greater Balance – A Critical Review of 5e Race Design

[thoroughlyS]

Detect Greater Balance (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XQ9shwsH5tu2s4Nt4J2Lie-pY4_G8CYhjB-yuJ7FlTk/edit?usp=sharing)

The Musicus scale (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ViqLSEN67mmd2Lo_OJ-H5YX0fccsfI97kFaqx7V1Dmw/edit) for homebrew races has existed since the infancy of 5e, and has been immensely helpful to the community. However, its lack of granularity and sparse explanation of trait scores cause it to be imprecise. Detect Balance (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vq1kz6PRAbw5LHy6amH-bNb4OuB8DBXL1RsZROt03Sc/edit#gid=0) refines the units to be more granular, but similarly lacks effective explanation of traits. In some cases it is very unclear why certain features have higher scores than others.
This guide is designed to be an expansion on the foundations originally laid by Musicus and further refined by Eleazzaar, SwordMeow, and Zagorath. It contains all races, subraces, and variants except those which originally appear in a Magic: the Gathering themed supplement, and tiefling variants which only change the ASI and spells.
Balancing races is still a combination of art and science—no system of numbers will tell the whole story.



The document also includes my personal houserules for most of the official races, which attempt to make every race have some kind of niche or general viability. I would really appreciate any feedback on the scores presented, especially if you believe I have over or undervalued a trait.

[Greywander]

Ooh, nice to see a new one of these. I'll take a closer look at it when I have time.

Something I've wondered about is why feats are rated so highly. I mean, yeah, a feat at first level is good, but mechanically it should be equivalent to two choice of +1 ASIs. I can see rating it a little higher than that, and I know it's pretty subjective and hard to nail down an accurate value, but I wonder if these guides don't value them too highly.

I also see vulnerabilities are missing. I'm wondering how my skeleton subrace with bludgeoning vulnerability (but piercing resistance) will end up scoring according to your guide, as the scores with Musicus and Detect Balance were quite far off from each other.

[thoroughlyS]

Something I've wondered about is why feats are rated so highly. I mean, yeah, a feat at first level is good, but mechanically it should be equivalent to two choice of +1 ASIs. I can see rating it a little higher than that, and I know it's pretty subjective and hard to nail down an accurate value, but I wonder if these guides don't value them too highly.
My reasoning is that it is a feature which should be worth 2 ASIs of choice (10), which also offers choice (+2), and it offers access to features which were balanced for 4th level that you're getting early (+4). Having official Heavy Armor Master at 4th is nice, having it at 1st means you have resistance to most damage. Having Healer at 4th is strong, having it at 1st means your party has three-to-four times as much health. Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter all make you an unparalleled damage dealer, and in some cases line you up for another huge spike at 4th level (Polearm Master + Sentinel).

I also see vulnerabilities are missing. I'm wondering how my skeleton subrace with bludgeoning vulnerability (but piercing resistance) will end up scoring according to your guide, as the scores with Musicus and Detect Balance were quite far off from each other.
Vulnerabilities should not be a trait for a race. They should be relegated to monsters.

[KorvinStarmast]

Vulnerabilities should not be a trait for a race. They should be relegated to monsters. Massively agree.

[KaussH]

Vulnerabilities should not be a trait for a race. They should be relegated to monsters.

Massively disagree. One of the issues with current races is everything is positive, so all power creep goes up,up,up.
But that's just my 2 cents

[KorvinStarmast]

Massively disagree. One of the issues with current races is everything is positive, so all power creep goes up,up,up.
But that's just my 2 cents The PHB sets the fundamental framework.
It isn't power creep at all.

You are free to kvetch about it as compared to other editions, but this thread regards something within the context of 5th edition - the attempt to balance the races internally based on the basic framework is one of the better pages on the spread sheet.
Did you review the spread sheet? It's a pretty thorough look at the balance without adding the noise about vulnerabilities into it.

Again: No vulnerabilities in the PHB. (Drow sunlight sensitivity is 'in fiction' a rational limitation).

What Volo's did with negative modifiers broke with the PHB framework, and for my money that was a mistake for this edition: it was internally inconsistent.

See also the Genasi and Goliath from EE supplement: no vulnerabilities.

[PhantomSoul]

Massively disagree. One of the issues with current races is everything is positive, so all power creep goes up,up,up.
But that's just my 2 cents


The PHB sets the fundamental framework.
It isn't power creep at all.

...

What Volo's did with negative modifiers broke with the PHB framework, and for my money that was a mistake for this edition: it was internally inconsistent.

...

I think these are entirely compatible (if not complementary!); the PHB is setting up a framework that doesn't do much to provide tradeoffs, but because of that the subsequent content has largely been stuck not providing tradeoffs. I do wish there were more of them, but when designing it's tougher to do just because a different -- and reasonably limiting -- baseline has been set. But if the table is fine with tradeoffs (or fine with not selecting cases where those tradeoffs come up), then all the better.

I've had PCs with vulnerabilities* (as a player and as a DM), and it's been interesting to keep that in mind.

EDIT: As for the OP, this is great. I've been looking at these (earlier versions + Musicus) for years and have found them fantastically useful. I'd love to be able to toggle/adjust certain variations (e.g. adjust the long-rest "penalty" based on how the table tends to use rests), but that's a very reasonable thing for the user to adjust themselves (i.e. not in the spreadsheet).

_____
* Relevant note: most of my tables play with +50% not +100% for vulnerability, which also makes it a bit softer. I believe vulnerabilities have come up in games where that's not the case, too, though.

[Damon_Tor]

Again: No vulnerabilities in the PHB. (Drow sunlight sensitivity is 'in fiction' a rational limitation).

That's far from the only example of a race with a drawback. The small size is a drawback. One could argue that the lack of a common trait, darkvision for example, is effectively a drawback. Races with a movement speed below 30 could be said to have a drawback.

That said, vulnerability to a damage type isn't appropriate in my opinion.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's far from the only example of a race with a drawback. The small size is a drawback. One could argue that the lack of a common trait, darkvision for example, is effectively a drawback. Races with a movement speed below 30 could be said to have a drawback. It is kinda obvious that they built the core framework for medium sized speed 30 creatures, and the small were obviuosly an add - on. I don't see the Heavy Weapon issue as a vulnerability, and I totally disagree with objections to it. It is rational 'in fiction' in the same way that sunlight sensitivity is for drow. (For an example of how half baked their attention to detail was on small PCs, see the squeeze rules for small and medium ... )

That said, vulnerability to a damage type isn't appropriate in my opinion. I agree. I also feel that it is Off Topic for this thread since the System as Presented is complex enough that I am disappointed in the derail that was introduced. The OP did a heck of a lot of work on stuff As It Is; no need to derail into "whataboutery" for non existent features.

That would be a great, and I do mean great, thread for the homebrew forum: PC race vulnerabilities.

[thoroughlyS]

Thank you for the appreciation. Are there any trends in the scores you want to discuss? Or traits that you believe are over or undervalued? (I will admit, some of this was me playing with trait numbers until a race sat at where I actually think it is in terms of strength.) Does anyone like my proposals for buffing the weaker races? Or my restrictions to the stronger races? In all honesty, this isn't actually the full set of changes I use at my table, because this only attempts to keep the races on a level playing field. For my personal use, I have tweaked some of the "balanced" races, and really want to rework the Bugbear, Goblin, and Kenku to have less traits which are reminiscent of class features.

[PhantomSoul]

Overall the balance considerations make sense, but I'd consider adding a spell (mainly for a combat-useful spell) requiring concentration as a mitigating factor along the lines of non-synergistic traits. I've found for my characters it has had a huge effect on actual spell usefulness.

On a Melee character without spellcasting, there's a reasonable chance Concentration will be broken (especially if you're not Proficient, and as a non-caster you probably won't chase proficiency in Con Saves or take feats to boost your Concentration Saves); on a casting character you'll often have better Concentration Spells that limit or negate the Spell's usefulness pretty quickly. That mainly leaves non-Spellcasting or limited-Spellcasting Ranged-martial Characters (or high-Concentration Melee-martial Characters) to benefit, and in lots of cases the ASIs benefit Spellcasters most.

That's not a huge point, though, and there are enough considerations (combat usefulness, class combinations, concentration) that could mean it's just not worth the effort to offset in the numbers!

[PhoenixPhyre]

Small point, but I'm not sure it's worth assigning "don't need to eat" and "don't need to drink" each 1 point. I can't think of a case where they're separate, and together I don't think they're worth 2 points. But that just may be my personal style that doesn't focus on logistics.

And is "choice between 2 options" and "free choice" supposed to be the same cost for proficiencies and languages?

[thoroughlyS]

Fair point on eating/drinking. And in the section for proficiencies, there is a listed reduction if the choice is from a limited selection. Although, if you use Tasha's rules every proficiency is of choice, so you can knock off a point for every trait that gives a choice.

[kingcheesepants]

I think most of your rebalancing is pretty sensible, but I feel like you went a little overboard with Kobolds, Yuan-ti and to a lesser extent with Genasi. A kobold without pack tactics, a Fire Genasi without resistance to fire and a Yuan-ti with absolutely no advantages to any kind of magic. Well I'd certainly agree that all of those are powerful abilities but maybe you could think of some way to rebalance those races while still keeping those abilities or maybe an ability close to them.

[thoroughlyS]

I personally feel that pack tactics is a very boring feature which just translates to more numbers, and is best avoided on player characters. Sure, it makes tactical positioning work, but in the least interesting and strongest way possible. As for fire genasi, I would give them back produce flame before fire resistance, because at least you can actively use that. Even their darkvision is more appealing because it has an evocative description. I do see your point for yuan-ti purebloods, and could see axing their poison resistance for something like gnomish cunning. That said I don't really think yuan-ti should be playable, because their origin is so alien, so I am not inclined to spend too much time on them.

In short the reason I got rid of those features is just because they are raw game advantage with no real attraction outside of "numbers".

[LordShade]

OP, this is terrific work. Very interesting read. Thank you taking the effort to put this together.

My second reaction (the first being that this is an elegant and comprehensive piece of work) is that some of the costs you've assigned just don't feel right to me. Looking at Eladrin, with a short rest fey step being worth 13 points, that just doesn't feel like it's worth +3 to ability scores. I get how you are costing an ASI at 8 points but something feels off here, and you are using Magic Initiate (3+3+3=9) as your valuation metric, but that discounts that there are other feats that provide way more spellcasting power at the cost of 1 ASI. Consider

Fey/Shadow Touched - +1 ASI (4 points) and two LR spell slots of 1st and 2nd level (count the 3rd level version, so 6 points)
Drow high magic - 1st level spell at will (how many points would this be?) and a 2nd level spell on LR (4 points) and a 3rd level spell LR (how many points would this be?)
Svirfneblin magic - worth even more, as you get a 3rd-level spell at will and can be used by an Abjurer to replenish his ward

I think what is missing here is that ASIs are very, very hard to come by, but if you just want some magic, there are a ton of places you can get it. If you really want magic, you can always just take a level of Sorcerer or Cleric or whatever and get 2 LR slots and four cantrips--worth 16 points. I can't do the reverse, and start with a bunch of spells and take a level of some class that provides +4 to ability scores.

Third reaction--I had no idea Grungs were so good. I never paid attention to that poison ability. A ~50 percent chance to do 5 extra damage per hit as a passive racial ability is indeed very good. That being said, the water dependency feels totally debilitating. As strong as the poison skin is I don't think I could play a character that has such an adventure-killing weakness (I can never go into the desert to hunt a blue dragon or whatever). I don't even like Sunlight Sensitivity.

[thoroughlyS]

Looking at Eladrin, with a short rest fey step being worth 13 points, that just doesn't feel like it's worth +3 to ability scores. I get how you are costing an ASI at 8 points but something feels off here, and you are using Magic Initiate (3+3+3=9) as your valuation metric, but that discounts that there are other feats that provide way more spellcasting power at the cost of 1 ASI. Consider

Fey/Shadow Touched - +1 ASI (4 points) and two LR spell slots of 1st and 2nd level (count the 3rd level version, so 6 points)
Drow high magic - 1st level spell at will (how many points would this be?) and a 2nd level spell on LR (4 points) and a 3rd level spell LR (how many points would this be?)
Svirfneblin magic - worth even more, as you get a 3rd-level spell at will and can be used by an Abjurer to replenish his ward

I think what is missing here is that ASIs are very, very hard to come by, but if you just want some magic, there are a ton of places you can get it. If you really want magic, you can always just take a level of Sorcerer or Cleric or whatever and get 2 LR slots and four cantrips--worth 16 points. I can't do the reverse, and start with a bunch of spells and take a level of some class that provides +4 to ability scores.
I would like to start with your last point here, before addressing your first. Sure, ASIs are infrequent, but they are also discrete. It is shortsighted to say that you can just easily pick up magic, because that level of sorcerer or cleric pushes back all of your other levels. And as the game progresses, that investment takes a higher and higher toll, because the wait between levels balloons.

A standard ASI is +1 ASI of choice, and +1 ASI of choice. So 5 + 5 = 10.
Fey Touched is +1 ASI of choice (no reduction for a limited selection because it includes all three mental ability scores), a 1st-level spell of choice (also without reduction because your list of options is as big as most full caster spell lists), and a 2nd-level spell. So 5 + 3 + 4 = 12.
Shadow Touched has a much smaller list of 1st-level spells, so 11.
Drow High Magic is a 1st-level ritual at-will (I would put that on par with a cantrip), a 2nd-level spell, and a 3rd-level spell (earlier than the Triton, so more costly than that). So 2 + 4 + 7= 13. (I would only allow the casting of levitate or dispel magic on a long rest, knocking this down to 11.)
Svirfneblin Magic is a weird case. Nondetection is a ribbon in every case except Abjurer, so really this should only be counting two 2nd-level spells and a 1st-level spell. So 4 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 11. To bring this back on track just make the nondetection once per long rest as well, which is still plenty because the duration is 8 hours.

This is all to say that giving a SUBRACE a nonspell, component free, misty step on a short rest is very good. I'm betting a wizard would burn a feat on that.

Third reaction--I had no idea Grungs were so good. I never paid attention to that poison ability. A ~50 percent chance to do 5 extra damage per hit as a passive racial ability is indeed very good. That being said, the water dependency feels totally debilitating. As strong as the poison skin is I don't think I could play a character that has such an adventure-killing weakness (I can never go into the desert to hunt a blue dragon or whatever). I don't even like Sunlight Sensitivity.
The water dependency is easily dealt with in all but the most extreme environs, and only comes up once a DAY. Locating a river once per day shouldn't be too hard, because most settlements need a water source. And going dragon hunting in a desert as a grung is the exact worst time, but how often will a campaign require that?

[LordShade]

The counterpoint to that is low-level spells eventually become almost useless, but your ASIs are going to have an impact all day long. When I'm level 13, what do I care that I can cast faerie fire once a day? I still think you are overvaluing low-level magic.

Regarding the Grung, we'll have to agree to disagree. I concur that the poison abilities are very strong, but the downside risk is too big in my evaluation. I think of it like an investor--there's a foreseeable risk of getting stuck with a crippling debuff, and it's not worth ~7.5 dpr (assuming 3 APR) on a piercing build. Much like investing, if your character dies, he dies. Variance is the enemy of the player characters.

[elyktsorb]

Under your phb races revisited section, under Mask of the Wild, it just says 'description' instead of what that ability does.

You have Stout halfling listed as a +2 even though the abilities under it only add up to 1.5.

[thoroughlyS]

You're looking at the Musicus scale, which I don't have control over. My sheet is the big central link at the top of my post.

[TigerT20]

Cool! I'll convert my homebrew races and see how they scale up against your system.

Just a minor nitpick: You seem to be missing a few of the more obscure features that were on Detect Balance (like always-on Feather Fall or Spider Climb). Did you just consider them not worth the time?

Additionally? are you gonna try and copy Detect Balance's score calculator? Idk much about how it works, so excuse me if I'm asking the impossible (or at least very very hard).

[Bosh]

One issue with this style of rating system is that it doesn't take into account how well traits synergize.

For example: mountain dwarves get a bonus to strength and a medium armor proficiency. However most of the builds that need strength will already have a medium armor proficiency and most of the builds that need medium armor won't use strength. So having strength and medium armor as a combination is less useful than either by itself. Same goes with high elves and getting a bonus cantrip. The classes that need a high elf int boost don't really need an extra cantrip that much while the classes that really need a cantrip don't have much use for int.

I rather like this kind of non-synergistic race design as it opens up a lot of options rather than just having a race be good at X class and getting stat boosts and abilities that boost that class but it makes things harder to analyze from a balance standpoit.

[Dienekes]

One issue with this style of rating system is that it doesn't take into account how well traits synergize.

For example: mountain dwarves get a bonus to strength and a medium armor proficiency. However most of the builds that need strength will already have a medium armor proficiency and most of the builds that need medium armor won't use strength. So having strength and medium armor as a combination is less useful than either by itself. Same goes with high elves and getting a bonus cantrip. The classes that need a high elf int boost don't really need an extra cantrip that much while the classes that really need a cantrip don't have much use for int.

I rather like this kind of non-synergistic race design as it opens up a lot of options rather than just having a race be good at X class and getting stat boosts and abilities that boost that class but it makes things harder to analyze from a balance standpoit.

Eh? You might be looking at the wrong link.

The section on mountain dwarf even has a bit that says “nonsynergistic racial traits” with a penalty to their points specifically to address this issue.

I admit it doesn’t say that for high elves, but I personally also think they don’t need to. Weapon and armor proficiency either you have them or you don’t. Getting them twice provides literally no benefit. While getting an extra cantrip? There are more good utility cantrips that remain useful available than any class naturally gets. Now admittedly, the class that got 0 cantrips getting to pick Minor Illusion or Prestidigitation or Mage Hand is going to get a bigger boost than the wizard who already picked those three so instead gets a decent offense pick or something like Message or Mending to give even more utility. But that is still leagues more useful than the Mountain Dwarf warriors getting exactly 0 benefit from their armor or Mountain Dwarf wizards getting 0 benefit from their Strength.

[thoroughlyS]

Just a minor nitpick: You seem to be missing a few of the more obscure features that were on Detect Balance (like always-on Feather Fall or Spider Climb). Did you just consider them not worth the time?

Additionally? are you gonna try and copy Detect Balance's score calculator? Idk much about how it works, so excuse me if I'm asking the impossible (or at least very very hard).
Perhaps it was a little too forward of me to call this "Detect Greater Balance" because in truth I have had this file for multiple years now, and haven't been keeping tabs on "Detect Balance". I'm guessing traits like that were requested by viewers, rather than being taken from the system. I suppose I could start adding more, but I might have to take some time to decide where to put them.

Changing the ASIs on Tieflings on MToF in some cases has a greater effect methinks considering you're putting a -2 nonsynergistic racial trait value on Tieflings as a whole for the Charisma/Intelligence combo. Many of those MToF Tieflings get Charisma/Dexterity and Charisma/Constitution which screams synergy to me, definitely not worth giving them a -2 regardless. YMMV
I didn't say their scores would all be the same, I just don't want 10 more variants of tiefling centralizing the data. We already know that any given variant will either have the same score, or +2 if its ASIs are synergistic.

[Droppeddead]

That's far from the only example of a race with a drawback. The small size is a drawback. One could argue that the lack of a common trait, darkvision for example, is effectively a drawback. Races with a movement speed below 30 could be said to have a drawback.

Well, yes and no. Being smaller means that it's easier for you to hide and find cover and you can be carried more easily. The lower movement speed can be problematic but it has never been really an issue in my experience. Not being able to use heavy weapons might be the biggest restriction due to lack of reach weapons but damage output doesn't really suffer.

[Second Wind]

I use this balance scale when designing new playable races. Thank you for it.

I think there's a confusion around stat bonuses, and a related confusion around the variant human's feat. Stat bonuses are difficult to score, because 5e relies so heavily on your build's primary offensive stat. When using point buy:


+1 to your primary stat is amazing, since it gets you to a +3 starting modifier.
+2 to your primary stat is only slightly better than +1, since it still only gets you a +3 starting modifier.
+1 or +2 to a secondary stat is solid but nothing wild.
+1 or +2 to a dump stat is a ribbon.

The variant human dominates because it gives +1 to your primary and secondary stat, and lets you pick a feat that's comparable in power to another +2 to the primary stat. Variant human is comparable in power to a +3/+1 race -- it's so powerful that it's an optimal or near-optimal choice for almost every build.

[DarknessEternal]

Isn't this entirely irrelevant post-TCoE now that races are purely cosmetic?

[Valmark]

Isn't this entirely irrelevant post-TCoE now that races are purely cosmetic?

Given the fact that it's an optional rule and racial features/feats are still a thing... No, a guide to races (it's more then just a guide but I lack a proper term) isn't irrilevant, nor are races purely cosmetic.

[P. G. Macer]

Isn't this entirely irrelevant post-TCoE now that races are purely cosmetic?

Calling race “purely cosmetic” post-TCoE is a gross exaggeration, as while ASIs are mostly moot, and proficiencies can be exchanged, there are still racial features unaffected by the new rules, such as innate spellcasting, movement speeds, and advantage on certain saves, among other things. Furthermore, not all tables will opt to use the Customizing your Origin rules, and the rules are opt-in and optional anyway.

EDIT: Shadow-Monk’d

[Ettina]

Why are people so against PCs with vulnerabilities? I've played with several, and they're not huge problems.

In my play experiences:

My vampire PC had tons of fun planning around avoiding sunlight and dealing with people who had anti-undead magic (this was Curse of Strahd, so Von Richten terrified me when we first met because he sussed me out as a vamp and attacked me with anti-vamp stuff).

My wererat PC only encountered silver when people were planning to fight lycanthropes, so it served as a "they're ready for you" thing, and at one point was a giveaway that someone she'd trusted had betrayed her.

When I DMed for a troll with a headband of intellect, a lot of his enemies took one look at him and used fire, and he used his smarts to work around that, turning a lot of encounters into engaging puzzles instead of straight slugfests.

When I DMed for a skeleton bard who was vulnerable to bludgeoning damage, he had such a solid front line that he never actually got hit, so it didn't matter.

In a lot of my favorite fiction, my favorite moments have featured powerful main characters facing the one thing they're weak to, like Superman vs someone with Kryptonite, or a dude made of cloth freaking out because someone threatened to set him on fire, or the many stories with good-guy vampires trying to deal with the weaknesses typical of vampires.

The Detect Balance scale claims that any semi-competent enemy will abuse vulnerabilities. Well, firstly, this should only happen if the enemy has reason to a) know about the weakness and b) be willing and able to abuse it, just like counterplaying against PC strategies, and secondly, if that does happen, it's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's something PCs can and should be expected to be prepared to counter. And in a party, it might not even be worth abusing the weakness - why bludgeon the skeleton bard when the paladin with less obvious weaknesses is both easier to reach and dealing more damage?

It just seems like a knee-jerk rejection of a fun concept for poorly-thought-out reasons.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If a vulnerability isn't a major threat or isn't going to get exploited, it's a ribbon that shouldn't grant you any boons in return (like a cosmetic flaw).

If it is a big threat or is actively exploited, it's way too severe to be playable without the DM warping the game to reduce the threat. In which case see above.

Same reason that monster vulnerability isn't used more: it reduces options wherever it's meaningful. It reduces fights to binary: exploit the weakness and it's a pushover, don't and it's a slog at best.

That's my personal opinion anyway.

[P. G. Macer]

Why are people so against PCs with vulnerabilities? I've played with several, and they're not huge problems.

In my play experiences:

My vampire PC had tons of fun planning around avoiding sunlight and dealing with people who had anti-undead magic (this was Curse of Strahd, so Von Richten terrified me when we first met because he sussed me out as a vamp and attacked me with anti-vamp stuff).

My wererat PC only encountered silver when people were planning to fight lycanthropes, so it served as a "they're ready for you" thing, and at one point was a giveaway that someone she'd trusted had betrayed her.

When I DMed for a troll with a headband of intellect, a lot of his enemies took one look at him and used fire, and he used his smarts to work around that, turning a lot of encounters into engaging puzzles instead of straight slugfests.

When I DMed for a skeleton bard who was vulnerable to bludgeoning damage, he had such a solid front line that he never actually got hit, so it didn't matter.

In a lot of my favorite fiction, my favorite moments have featured powerful main characters facing the one thing they're weak to, like Superman vs someone with Kryptonite, or a dude made of cloth freaking out because someone threatened to set him on fire, or the many stories with good-guy vampires trying to deal with the weaknesses typical of vampires.

The Detect Balance scale claims that any semi-competent enemy will abuse vulnerabilities. Well, firstly, this should only happen if the enemy has reason to a) know about the weakness and b) be willing and able to abuse it, just like counterplaying against PC strategies, and secondly, if that does happen, it's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's something PCs can and should be expected to be prepared to counter. And in a party, it might not even be worth abusing the weakness - why bludgeon the skeleton bard when the paladin with less obvious weaknesses is both easier to reach and dealing more damage?

It just seems like a knee-jerk rejection of a fun concept for poorly-thought-out reasons.

I think the original context of “vulnerabilities on PC races should be avoided” was specifically referring to damage vulnerabilities, as that can get out of hand really fast and kill a PC with massive damage. Other than Sunlight Sensitivity, the only negative PC traits I can think of are the Kenku being unable to speak and the Centaur’s reduced climbing speed. There used to be the orc and kobold’s ability score penalties, but those were errata’d out.

[thoroughlyS]

I have made two minor changes to my "rebalanced" list: I replaced my fire genasi's darkvision with produce flame because it is an active trait, and I changed triton's spellcasting so that they don't get a spell at st level, but do get gust of wind and wall of water as published.

Also, someone asked me to do a writeup of the new hexblood lineage from the most recent Unearthed Arcana, so I will provide it here.



Hexblood
35



ASI +2 of choice
10



ASI +1 of choice
5



small or medium size
0



30 ft walking speed
0



common
0



language of choice
1



darkvision 60 ft
4



advantage on saving throws against a condition
2
charmed


1st-level spell once per long rest
2
disguise self


1st-level spell once per long rest
2
hex


spell added to spell list
2
disguise self, hex


magic token
6
You can use an action to send a telepathic message to the creature holding or carrying the token, as long as you are on the same plane of existence and are within 10 miles of it. The message can contain up to twenty-five words.
In addition, while you are within 10 miles of the token, you can use an action to enter a trance for 1 minute, during which you can see and hear from the token as if you were located where it is. While you are using your senses at the token’s location, you are blinded and deafened in regard to your own surroundings. Afterward, the token is harmlessly destroyed.


additional type
1
fey


This is the first instance on this table of an ASI +2 of choice, which is obviously scored as situationally better than a regular ASI +2 for the versatility it provides. This is also the first example of adding a spell to your spell list, which I rate as situational, because it doesn't increase your available resources at all, just expands your options. The magic token is really good for covert operations, as it provides a way to relay messages securely or to surveil an area. But it is a one-and-done effect, so its utility is diminished. After re-reading the ability I realize that you can send as many messages as you want, which is like having the sending spell at will. This is a very useful tool for scouting ahead and relaying info to your party. Finally, there is the additional type, which is little more than a ribbon considering you are also still a humanoid and thus subject to all the same effects.

All told, it's definitely on the stronger side, but only for the flexibility it has. I would bring this down to normal by changing the ASIs to +2 Constitution and +1 Charisma, and removing the line that adds the spells to your spell list. That shaves 5 points off of the races score leaving them with a healthy 30.

[king_steve]

This is also the first example of adding a spell to your spell list, which I rate as situational, because it doesn't expand your available resources at all, just gives more breadth.

The Dragonmarked races from Eberron: Rising from the Last War have added spells to your spell list, but the Hexblood is even more powerful since its a spell known, not just on your spell list (mostly important for spells known casters and not spells prepared casters).

[thoroughlyS]

I meant first example on this table, as with the first sentence. I haven't issued that score before.

[Ettina]

I think the original context of “vulnerabilities on PC races should be avoided” was specifically referring to damage vulnerabilities, as that can get out of hand really fast and kill a PC with massive damage. Other than Sunlight Sensitivity, the only negative PC traits I can think of are the Kenku being unable to speak and the Centaur’s reduced climbing speed. There used to be the orc and kobold’s ability score penalties, but those were errata’d out.

Most level-appropriate fights aren't going to one-shot a PC even with double damage, so there's options for characters to counterplay. It's definitely a weakness, no doubt about that, but Sunlight Sensitivity is more likely to seriously impact a PC's experience in combat than vulnerability to, say, fire damage or something. Especially if the DM avoids metagaming and chooses damage types based on what the enemy in question knows rather than what's mechanically optimal.

[KyleG]

Do you think it could be a useful to assign a value to the different feats? That could help balance out where a fear is taken given we know how powerful some feats are.

And on another note I found this alternative to the fire genasi cantrip/spell combo. Any chance someone can figure out a value for it? I like the flavour.
Phoenix Flame. When you take damage, you may use your reaction to lash out with a burst of flames that deals 2d6 fire damage to every creature within 5 ft. of you. You regain a number of hit points equal to half the fire damage dealt. You may use this once per short rest.

Both are rabbit holes, next ill be asking how you mighy value a trait like a once per day shapeshift to cr1/4 beast...

[thoroughlyS]

Phoenix Flame. When you take damage, you may use your reaction to lash out with a burst of flames that deals 2d6 fire damage to every creature within 5 ft. of you. You regain a number of hit points equal to half the fire damage dealt. You may use this once per short rest.
This effect is very similar to hellish rebuke, a 1st-level spell. It does less damage, but hits multiple creatures, adds a little bit of healing, and isn't a spell. I'd give this the same value as a 2nd-level spell at 1st level (11). So the proposed fire genasi would have:


Fire Genasi
30



ASI +1
4
Intelligence


darkvision 60 ft
4



common resistance
3
fire


phoenix flame
11
When you take damage, you may use your reaction to lash out with a burst of flames that deals 2d6 fire damage to every creature within 5 ft. of you. You regain a number of hit points equal to half the fire damage dealt. You may use this once per short rest.


On the higher end, compared to official races (blowing every other genasi out of the water), but not exactly out of place. On the other hand, it is a tad stronger than I like, and I would remove the fire resistance to bring them down a bit.

[KyleG]

This effect is very similar to hellish rebuke, a 1st-level spell. It does less damage, but hits multiple creatures, adds a little bit of healing, and isn't a spell. I'd give this the same value as a 2nd-level spell at 1st level (11). So the proposed fire genasi would have:


Fire Genasi
30



ASI +1
4
Intelligence


darkvision 60 ft
4



common resistance
3
fire


phoenix flame
11
When you take damage, you may use your reaction to lash out with a burst of flames that deals 2d6 fire damage to every creature within 5 ft. of you. You regain a number of hit points equal to half the fire damage dealt. You may use this once per short rest.


On the higher end, compared to official races (blowing every other genasi out of the water), but not exactly out of place. On the other hand, it is a tad stronger than I like, and I would remove the fire resistance to bring them down a bit.

Legend. Id remove the darkvision myself, either way works I guess.

[Theodoxus]

Curious why the Triton's fog cloud is worth 3 points (1st level at 1st level casting) but the Fire Genasi's burning hands is worth 2 points (1st level at 3rd level casting).

[thoroughlyS]

Getting to play around with it at the lowest levels is barely worth mentioning. equivalent to a ribbon.

[KyleG]

Given a +1 asi is worth 4 points does that mean a,half feat is worth 4, and a full worth 8? But not all feats are created equal.

[thoroughlyS]

A half feat also provides an ASI, and would be valued for both. You are still correct that not all feats are created equally. Sometimes the same feat can be worth differing amounts. Just look at Resilient. It offers +1 ASI of choice (5), and a saving throw proficiency, but if you take DEX, CON, or WIS (~5), it will be more valuable than STR, INT, or CHA (~2).

[KyleG]

A half feat also provides an ASI, and would be valued for both. You are still correct that not all feats are created equally. Sometimes the same feat can be worth differing amounts. Just look at Resilient. It offers +1 ASI of choice (5), and a saving throw proficiency, but if you take DEX, CON, or WIS (~5), it will be more valuable than STR, INT, or CHA (~2).

I look forward to a feat version or addition to detect greater balance in the future (fingers crossed, hint hint ;-) )

[KyleG]

I'm curious if the weighting on features that don't come online until later eg. Tiefling spells would be affected by campaigns starting at later levels like 3 or 5. Would they score add highly? Especially considering races that don't have level dependent racial traits like dwarves.

[Bloodcloud]

Interesting work. I DO disagree with the Kobold: I LIKE pack tactic being their thing, and cower and grovel is really not great.

Stone Genasi, not sure about your choice either. I get your idea, but I'm not a fan, I dont think of rock persons as climber either. Meld into stone is quite high level, but it would feel incredibly thematic, and I can't really say overpowered maybe by limitng it to ritual casting?

[thoroughlyS]

I'm curious if the weighting on features that don't come online until later eg. Tiefling spells would be affected by campaigns starting at later levels like 3 or 5. Would they score add highly? Especially considering races that don't have level dependent racial traits like dwarves.
The weight is based on how useful they are relative to the options available. 2nd-level spells are less impressive once you reach 5th level, and get access to Tier 2 spells.

Stone Genasi, not sure about your choice either. I get your idea, but I'm not a fan, I dont think of rock persons as climber either. Meld into stone is quite high level, but it would feel incredibly thematic, and I can't really say overpowered maybe by limitng it to ritual casting?
Yeah, there are really slim pickings of 2nd-level spells, and none really fit well. I also looked at barkskin and Maximilian's earthen grasp, but they both kind of suck. I mean, sure at my table I can make those spells better and then give that, but that solution seems outside the scope of this thread.

[KyleG]

The weight is based on how useful they are relative to the options available. 2nd-level spells are less impressive once you reach 5th level, and get access to Tier 2 spells.

So are the races less balanced at those later levels? The relative score of a 3rd level dwarf vs 3rd level tiefling would be different? With the dwarf unchanged and the tiefling lowered? And even more so at 5th?

[Merudo]

With Tasha's out, shouldn't the "nonsynergistic racial traits" penalty trait be removed, or at least made optional?

[PhantomSoul]

With Tasha's out, shouldn't the "nonsynergistic racial traits" penalty trait be removed, or at least made optional?

Optional (maybe with a checkbox toggle) or just ignore Tasha's (perhaps the ideal in my eyes; if you want to look at a warped version of the balance, it's easy to see how the values change from the document). Tasha's also forces you to give freebie floating ASIs (which have a higher cost), so it isn't just about removing a reasonable balance consideration, but about changing two. (And at that, there's +1 of choice, but no +2 of choice listed, so adding a rating for that could be plausible.)

[thoroughlyS]

I have added a small note about using the "Customizing Your Origin" rules (Tasha's p.7), and included a listing for "ASI +2 of choice". If your table uses these rules, most races will see their total increase by ~3, and most (if not all) nonsynergistic racial trait listings can be ignored.

[thoroughlyS]

I have just completed a full overhaul of the races analyzed due to the release of Monsters of the Multiverse. This book collects 33 races from other sourcebooks, and provides several updates. Foremost among these updates is the jump to the flexible ASI system which was first presented in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. Now that the majority of races have been rereleased using this system, I have updated my analysis to accommodate the shift in paradigm. I have also include several races which were originally setting specific. I have removed any race options that do not appear in the PHB or MotM. This is because those races no longer fit the new paradigm, and would cause a gap in the data.

Please take a look at the new Rebalanced, section as I have pruned many of my own rebalances which were superceded by the new book.

Also, for posterity I will give an updated evaluation of the hexblood, considering the game has caught up to how it's designed.


Hexblood
43



Ability Score Increase
12



small or medium size
0



30 ft walking speed
0



darkvision 60 ft
4



1st-level spell once per long rest
2
disguise self


1st-level spell once per long rest
2
hex


ancestral legacy
16
If you replace a race with this lineage, you can keep the following elements of that race: any skill proficiencies you gained from it and any climbing, flying, or swimming speed you gained from it.
If you don't keep any of those elements or you choose this lineage at character creation, you gain proficiency in two skills of your choice.


fey
1



eerie token
6
• As an action, you can send a telepathic message to the creature holding or carrying the token, as long as you are within 10 miles of it. The message can contain up to twenty-five words.
• If you are within 10 miles of the token, you can enter a trance as an action. The trance lasts for 1 minute, but it ends early if you dismiss it (no action required) or are incapacitated. During this trance, you can see and hear from the token as if you were located where it is. While you are using your senses at the token's location, you are blinded and deafened in regard to your own surroundings. When the trance ends, the token is harmlessly destroyed.



Ancestral Legacy really throws off the value of this lineage. I have to rate it so highly, because that is the value you can get by replacing aarakocra. If you just got the two skills it would still be a 33, which is high but not unreasonable.

[PhantomSoul]

I appreciate the effort of the overhaul -- it looks like there's no record of the pre-Monsters of the Multiverse ratings. I was hoping for a separate "archive"/"original"/"legacy" tab to at least be able to look at the original versions even if the pre-MotM and post-MotM wouldn't be in the same rating plot!

[KyleG]

I appreciate the effort of the overhaul -- it looks like there's no record of the pre-Monsters of the Multiverse ratings. I was hoping for a separate "archive"/"original"/"legacy" tab to at least be able to look at the original versions even if the pre-MotM and post-MotM wouldn't be in the same rating plot!

Or to compare ratings.

[thoroughlyS]

I recovered a pre-MotM version of the file, and added as a new tab. I fixed a handful of old values to fall in line with my new views on them, but that didn't change much.

It is really interesting to note that even though there were a bunch of mechanically weak races prior to MotM, the variance in power (judged by the standard deviation from the mean value) was lower! I assume this is because all of the PHB races create a distinct power gap.

[Khrysaes]

I recovered a pre-MotM version of the file, and added as a new tab. I fixed a handful of old values to fall in line with my new views on them, but that didn't change much.

It is really interesting to note that even though there were a bunch of mechanically weak races prior to MotM, the variance in power (judged by the standard deviation from the mean value) was lower! I assume this is because all of the PHB races create a distinct power gap.

Do you have both pre and post MoTM on one page allowing a comparison of the two versions using your most recent guidelines for those that are drastically different such as Kobold, YuanTi, or HobGoblin?

[LudicSavant]

Unfortunately, I don't think this "Detect Greater Balance" scale is usefully accurate, as it currently stands.

As an example, it rates MPMM Fire Genasi (who are basically a Tiefling with a far inferior spell list, like the infamously bad Flame Blade) higher than MPMM Githzerai (who give you the mighty Shield as a spell known and an extra slot to cast it, apply what is effectively the Subtle Spell metamagic to it for free, get Resistance to all charm and fear effects, one of the better and harder to replicate elemental resistances, and a significantly buffed version of Detect Thoughts and Mage Hand).

It also rates the MPMM Fire Genasi higher than Half-Elves and MPMM Firbolgs (who have stuff like the ability to use bonus action, non-spell invisibility PB times a day, and can use it to dodge Counterspells and such). It also rates MPMM Fire Genasi the same as Hill Dwarf and Variant Human, and almost as high as Aarakocra.

These things shouldn't even be close. MPMM Githzerai is so many miles away from the level of the poor MPMM Fire Genasi it's not even funny.

Edit:
It's not just the Fire Genasi that's overrated, either. We also have examples like the Triton getting a whopping 35, putting it well above optimal MPMM races like Shifters, Fairies, Githzerai, Harengon, Hobgoblins, Tabaxi, Goblins, or the much-buffed liquid Bugbears.

Another example of a weird rating: magic resistance gets rated as equally valuable in your post-MPMM version as the pre-MPMM version, even though Magic Resistance got a pretty hefty nerf in MPMM. Yet it's rated the same, like nothing changed.

I notice this for a lot of things. It tends to rate a lot of features the same, even when they are extremely different in value.

Edit2: Looking at the Fire Genasi vs Githzerai case (where it's basically comparing a bottom-tier race to a top-tier one and somehow concluding that the bottom tier one is better), I notice a few things.

It says Fire is a "common resistance" but Psychic as a "rare resistance" worth only 2/3s as much, even though Psychic is actually one of the most statistically common monster damage types in the game (comparable to Fire, Necrotic, and Poison in terms of how many monsters can deal it), and harder to replicate through alternative features (like Absorb Elements).

It also just rates the Fire Genasi spellcasting and Githzerai spellcasting the same, even though the Githzerai spellcasting not only has a vastly superior list, but also significantly buffs the spells in question by making them invisible and componentless (which is a better effect than Subtle Spell). But it gets rated the same. That needs to change if the scale is going to become more accurate.

The fact that it just considers all spellcasting features equal, even ones as wildly different as the Fire Genasi and Githzerai's, is a major flaw in the rating system. Especially since spellcasting features aren't exactly rare, a huge number of races have them as a large part of their power budget... you need to have some way to meaningfully compare between them if you're going to get a useful measurement.

Edit3: Another weird rating: It puts the new MPMM Goliath at 25 points, considering it one of the weakest races in the game. Which is weird, given the following:

We can count about how much HP the new Goliath's trademark feature is worth. Assuming a 16 Constitution, it’d be (on average)…
Level 1-4: 19 HP with 16 Con (23 with 20 Con)
Level 5-8: 28.5 HP (34.5)
Level 9-12: 38 HP (46)
Level 13-16: 47.5 HP (57.5)
Level 17-20: 57 HP (69)

That's bloody huge. Eating 19 extra damage at level bloody 1? A Hill Dwarf's +1 hp/level eats that by level 19. 57-69 hp at level 17? The Tough feat was only giving you 40 (though, importantly, Tough doesn't take a Reaction).

What's more, that's not temp HP, it's a damage-reducing Reaction and thus can do things like lower (or even negate) Concentration checks, or make Armor of Agathys last for more hits, or the like.

Another weird thing about the Goliath rating is that it considers Cold a "common Resistance" when it considered Psychic a "rare resistance." Why is this? I'm curious what basis was used to assume that Cold was more common than Psychic.

Edit4:
I'm seeing this list here on the "detect greater balance" sheet:

rare resistance 2 necrotic, psychic, radiant, thunder Unlikely to impact the majority of combats, unless you are running a specific type of campaign.
common resistance 3 acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison Utilized by a plurality of creatures at all levels of play.

Where did this list come from? Who determined that Necrotic and Psychic were "rare" and that Acid and Lightning were "common," and what methodology was used to come to this conclusion?

I took a quick look at a monster database (which sadly doesn't count damage types from spell lists, but does count all other abilities), it counted 177 monsters that do Necrotic damage, and 88 for acid, from all of the core+supplement books (but not adventure books). And it's not like the game's overflowing with Acid damage spells over Necrotic ones.

So I'm curious where the "Acid = common, Necrotic = rare" conclusion arose from. Was this just something blindly assumed, or was there some methodology?

[Khrysaes]

Unfortunately, I don't think this "Detect Greater Balance" scale is usefully accurate, as it currently stands.

As an example, it rates MPMM Fire Genasi (who are basically a Tiefling with a far inferior spell list, like the infamously bad Flame Blade) higher than MPMM Githzerai (who give you the mighty Shield as a spell known and an extra slot to cast it, apply what is effectively the Subtle Spell metamagic to it for free, get Resistance to all charm and fear effects, one of the better and harder to replicate elemental resistances, and a significantly buffed version of Detect Thoughts and Mage Hand).

It also rates the MPMM Fire Genasi higher than Half-Elves and MPMM Firbolgs (who have stuff like the ability to use bonus action, non-spell invisibility PB times a day, and can use it to dodge Counterspells and such). It also rates MPMM Fire Genasi the same as Hill Dwarf and Variant Human, and almost as high as Aarakocra.

These things shouldn't even be close. MPMM Githzerai is so many miles away from the level of the poor MPMM Fire Genasi it's not even funny.

Edit:
It's not just the Fire Genasi that's overrated, either. We also have examples like the Triton getting a whopping 35, putting it well above optimal MPMM races like Shifters, Fairies, Githzerai, Harengon, Hobgoblins, Tabaxi, Goblins, or the much-buffed liquid Bugbears.

Another example of a weird rating: magic resistance gets rated as equally valuable in your post-MPMM version as the pre-MPMM version, even though Magic Resistance got a pretty hefty nerf in MPMM. Yet it's rated the same, like nothing changed.

I notice this for a lot of things. It tends to rate a lot of features the same, even when they are extremely different in value.

Edit2: Looking at the Fire Genasi vs Githzerai case (where it's basically comparing a bottom-tier race to a top-tier one and somehow concluding that the bottom tier one is better), I notice a few things.

It says Fire is a "common resistance" but Psychic as a "rare resistance" worth only 2/3s as much, even though Psychic is actually one of the most statistically common monster damage types in the game (comparable to Fire, Necrotic, and Poison in terms of how many monsters can deal it), and harder to replicate through alternative features (like Absorb Elements).

It also just rates the Fire Genasi spellcasting and Githzerai spellcasting the same, even though the Githzerai spellcasting not only has a vastly superior list, but also significantly buffs the spells in question by making them invisible and componentless (which is a better effect than Subtle Spell). But it gets rated the same. That needs to change if the scale is going to become more accurate.

The fact that it just considers all spellcasting features equal, even ones as wildly different as the Fire Genasi and Githzerai's, is a major flaw in the rating system. Especially since spellcasting features aren't exactly rare, a huge number of races have them as a large part of their power budget... you need to have some way to meaningfully compare between them if you're going to get a useful measurement.

Edit3: Another weird rating: It puts the new MPMM Goliath at 25 points, considering it one of the weakest races in the game. Which is weird, given the following:

We can count about how much HP the new Goliath's trademark feature is worth. Assuming a 16 Constitution, it’d be (on average)…
Level 1-4: 19 HP with 16 Con (23 with 20 Con)
Level 5-8: 28.5 HP (34.5)
Level 9-12: 38 HP (46)
Level 13-16: 47.5 HP (57.5)
Level 17-20: 57 HP (69)

That's bloody huge. Eating 19 extra damage at level bloody 1? A Hill Dwarf's +1 hp/level eats that by level 19. 57-69 hp at level 17? The Tough feat was only giving you 40 (though, importantly, Tough doesn't take a Reaction).

What's more, that's not temp HP, it's a damage-reducing Reaction and thus can do things like lower (or even negate) Concentration checks, or make Armor of Agathys last for more hits, or the like.

Another weird thing about the Goliath rating is that it considers Cold a "common Resistance" when it considered Psychic a "rare resistance." Why is this? I'm curious what basis was used to assume that Cold was more common than Psychic.

Edit4:
I'm seeing this list here on the "detect greater balance" sheet:


Where did this list come from? Who determined that Necrotic and Psychic were "rare" and that Acid and Lightning were "common," and what methodology was used to come to this conclusion?

I took a quick look at a monster database (which sadly doesn't count damage types from spell lists, but does count all other abilities), it counted 177 monsters that do Necrotic damage, and 88 for acid, from all of the core+supplement books (but not adventure books). And it's not like the game's overflowing with Acid damage spells over Necrotic ones.

So I'm curious where the "Acid = common, Necrotic = rare" conclusion arose from. Was this just something blindly assumed, or was there some methodology?

I think some to many of the criteria are from out of date information that werent updated as new content was released. Now, i dont know if these for sure are correct, but if thr grading criteria was made during phb/mm only phase and just kept, then maybe in those books psychic and necrotic were rare. Then the grading was not updated with new content.

I definitely think it as a list both has value and needs to be updated to reflect current content.

[LudicSavant]

I think some to many of the criteria are from out of date information that werent updated as new content was released. Now, i dont know if these for sure are correct, but if thr grading criteria was made during phb/mm only phase and just kept, then maybe in those books psychic and necrotic were rare.

This doesn't appear to be the case -- Stuff like Lightning appears to still be less common than Necrotic in the MM (though the disparity isn't as large as with supplements).

[Khrysaes]

This doesn't appear to be the case -- Stuff like Lightning appears to still be less common than Necrotic in the MM (though the disparity isn't as large as with supplements).

Maybe it hase something to do with effect chance of appearance in random encounter tables?

Like, there may be less types of monsters with lighting but a higher chance of them showing up?

[thoroughlyS]

Oh man, quite a lot of thorough, well-reasoned, criticism (if a little scathing). I'm actually really appreciative of someone taking the time to comb through my guide with a critical perspective. Especially someone who has demonstrated a strong understanding of the system on the Homebrew board, like LudicSavant. I'd like to address systemic criticisms before moving onto examples. In my responses below, I often ask how you would value certain traits. The main thing I want to keep in mind is that +2 ASI is 8 points, just like Detect Balance. This is the yardstick.


The fact that it just considers all spellcasting features equal, even ones as wildly different as the Fire Genasi and Githzerai's, is a major flaw in the rating system. Especially since spellcasting features aren't exactly rare, a huge number of races have them as a large part of their power budget... you need to have some way to meaningfully compare between them if you're going to get a useful measurement.
I knew from the beginning that treating all spells of the same level as the same would result in misleading scores. But I'm honestly not well-versed enough to feel confident rating every spell off-the-cuff. I fully concede that this doesn't provide an accurate assessment of power at the table, merely a count of spellcasting traits. Ideally this system is good enough to help new homebrewers find a rule-of-thumb. (Honestly, this seems like the same metric that WotC uses too, how else would you explain that fire genasi and githyanki have the same number of features, but result in wildly different power levels?)


I'm seeing this list here on the "detect greater balance" sheet:



rare resistance
2
necrotic, psychic, radiant, thunder


common resistance
3
acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison



Where did this list come from? Who determined that Necrotic and Psychic were "rare" and that Acid and Lightning were "common," and what methodology was used to come to this conclusion?

I took a quick look at a monster database (which sadly doesn't count damage types from spell lists, but does count all other abilities), it counted 177 monsters that do Necrotic damage, and 88 for acid, from all of the core+supplement books (but not adventure books). And it's not like the game's overflowing with Acid damage spells over Necrotic ones.

So I'm curious where the "Acid = common, Necrotic = rare" conclusion arose from. Was this just something blindly assumed, or was there some methodology?

I think some to many of the criteria are from out of date information that werent updated as new content was released. Now, i dont know if these for sure are correct, but if thr grading criteria was made during phb/mm only phase and just kept, then maybe in those books psychic and necrotic were rare. Then the grading was not updated with new content.

I definitely think it as a list both has value and needs to be updated to reflect current content.


Maybe it hase something to do with effect chance of appearance in random encounter tables?

Like, there may be less types of monsters with lighting but a higher chance of them showing up?
My methods were nowhere near as complex as these. I based the list on the damage types available to PHB dragonborn, as well as those listed on the Elemental Adept feat. At the time of writing this early section of the guide, I didn't have access to a monster database tool that could just spit put how many creatures dealt each type of damage. Now that I have your attention, LudicSavant, how would you value resistances to the different damage types?




As an example, it rates MPMM Fire Genasi (who are basically a Tiefling with a far inferior spell list, like the infamously bad Flame Blade) higher than MPMM Githzerai (who give you the mighty Shield as a spell known and an extra slot to cast it, apply what is effectively the Subtle Spell metamagic to it for free, get Resistance to all charm and fear effects, one of the better and harder to replicate elemental resistances, and a significantly buffed version of Detect Thoughts and Mage Hand).

...

These things shouldn't even be close. MPMM Githzerai is so many miles away from the level of the poor MPMM Fire Genasi it's not even funny.

Looking at the Fire Genasi vs Githzerai case (where it's basically comparing a bottom-tier race to a top-tier one and somehow concluding that the bottom tier one is better), I notice a few things.

It says Fire is a "common resistance" but Psychic as a "rare resistance" worth only 2/3s as much, even though Psychic is actually one of the most statistically common monster damage types in the game (comparable to Fire, Necrotic, and Poison in terms of how many monsters can deal it), and harder to replicate through alternative features (like Absorb Elements).

It also just rates the Fire Genasi spellcasting and Githzerai spellcasting the same, even though the Githzerai spellcasting not only has a vastly superior list, but also significantly buffs the spells in question by making them invisible and componentless (which is a better effect than Subtle Spell). But it gets rated the same. That needs to change if the scale is going to become more accurate.
I feel like this disparity indicates that I'm not valuing the traits of the githzerai enough. Which traits do you think should be more highly valued? And if I change their value, do you think that's an appropriate change to the other races which share those traits? Side Note: When I updated this, I skimmed the part about how being psionic affected the spells. I thought it added them to your spell list, which every trait does now, so I removed the listing. I have put that listing back, so let me know if you think it should be valued more.


It also rates the MPMM Fire Genasi higher than Half-Elves and MPMM Firbolgs (who have stuff like the ability to use bonus action, non-spell invisibility PB times a day, and can use it to dodge Counterspells and such). It also rates MPMM Fire Genasi the same as Hill Dwarf and Variant Human, and almost as high as Aarakocra.
It is worth mentioning, that the Half-Elf is rated so low, because I am assuming they get the same ASIs as everyone else (e.g. +2, +1). They effectively lost 4 points just from that. As for the firbolg, a long time ago I rated bonus action invisibility higher, but kept bringing it down because I just didn't want to believe WotC made a race so stacked. Now I am leaning towards making a single use of this trait worth 4 (to account for being able to use it to gain advantage, or avoid Opportunity Attacks, or hide a spell), therefore valuing the whole trait at 12. Thoughts? And in regards to aarakocra, do you feel they are rated too low? If so, is it because of the flight? Would you agree that flight should be rated even more highly?


It's not just the Fire Genasi that's overrated, either. We also have examples like the Triton getting a whopping 35, putting it well above optimal MPMM races like Shifters, Fairies, Githzerai, Harengon, Hobgoblins, Tabaxi, Goblins, or the much-buffed liquid Bugbears.
What can I say? Tritons just get a lot of traits. What's funny to me is that they kept getting a new trait every time they were reprinted. And both fog cloud and gust of wind are regarded as solid battlefield control spells. I've not had a lot of experience with wall of water. Where would you say I'm overvaluing them?

Another example of a weird rating: magic resistance gets rated as equally valuable in your post-MPMM version as the pre-MPMM version, even though Magic Resistance got a pretty hefty nerf in MPMM. Yet it's rated the same, like nothing changed.
This one is just an honest mistake. I missed that it no longer gave advantage against magic that wasn't spells. How does this work with the new spellcasting NPC rules? Because I think that also affects the rating here.


Another weird rating: It puts the new MPMM Goliath at 25 points, considering it one of the weakest races in the game. Which is weird, given the following:

We can count about how much HP the new Goliath's trademark feature is worth. Assuming a 16 Constitution, it’d be (on average)…
Level 1-4: 19 HP with 16 Con (23 with 20 Con)
Level 5-8: 28.5 HP (34.5)
Level 9-12: 38 HP (46)
Level 13-16: 47.5 HP (57.5)
Level 17-20: 57 HP (69)

That's bloody huge. Eating 19 extra damage at level bloody 1? A Hill Dwarf's +1 hp/level eats that by level 19. 57-69 hp at level 17? The Tough feat was only giving you 40 (though, importantly, Tough doesn't take a Reaction).

What's more, that's not temp HP, it's a damage-reducing Reaction and thus can do things like lower (or even negate) Concentration checks, or make Armor of Agathys last for more hits, or the like.
I never looked at the max potential gains on this feature. I was always comparing it to Relentless Endurance, which could be used to stay standing from any hit. Seeing the math laid out like this, I can see how my current rating undersells it. Do you agree with 4 points per use, for a total of 12? Or do you think that's still not enough?

[LudicSavant]

Oh man, quite a lot of thorough, well-reasoned, criticism (if a little scathing). I'm actually really appreciative of someone taking the time to comb through my guide with a critical perspective. Especially someone who has demonstrated a strong understanding of the system on the Homebrew board, like LudicSavant. I'd like to address systemic criticisms before moving onto examples. In my responses below, I often ask how you would value certain traits. The main thing I want to keep in mind is that +2 ASI is 8 points, just like Detect Balance. This is the yardstick.

Glad to help. I just like trying to increase the accuracy of measurements. :smallsmile:


In my responses below, I often ask how you would value certain traits.
You might find this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?642901-Mini-Guide-to-Mordenkainen-s-Monsters-of-the-Multiverse-PC-Races!) helpful in that regard, particularly the rambling I do in the second post (the bit on "evaluating common features"). Note that I also have plans to update that thread soon-ish.


My methods were nowhere near as complex as these. I based the list on the damage types available to PHB dragonborn, as well as those listed on the Elemental Adept feat. At the time of writing this early section of the guide, I didn't have access to a monster database tool that could just spit put how many creatures dealt each type of damage. Now that I have your attention, LudicSavant, how would you value resistances to the different damage types?

Looking at aforementioned database, Psychic, Fire, Necrotic, and Poison seem to be the especially common ones for elemental resistances.

However I should note for the sake of thoroughness that this alone is not a perfect measurement. There are additional variables that could be considered beyond commonness among stat blocks, including...

- Some resistances are easier to acquire from alternative sources than others. For example, you can get Fire from Absorb Elements, and Poison Resistance from lots of things, but Necrotic resistance is harder to come by (to my knowledge).
- Not merely whether a monster can deal a damage type, but how important that damage type is to that monster's gameplan (can they switch gears to another type easily? Is the damage split? Etc). This would require me to individually evaluate every monster's strategy which is... more unpaid work that I want to do just now. But it's worth keeping in mind as a factor that could switch up that "Psychic, Fire, Necrotic, Poison" verdict if I had more info.
- Some monster stat blocks might be more popular than others, and thus show up more.
- If you know the theme of the campaign you're headed into, that matters. For example, if you know you're headed to the arctic to fight frost salamanders and yetis, then Cold resistance is gonna be awesome. If you know you're going to be dealing with aberrations and Lovecraftian @#$%, then psychic resistance is a good bet. If you know undead are a theme, then Necrotic Resistance is a great bet. I find that I have never been able to predict ahead of time whether Acid or Lightning resistance would shine in a campaign, though.

___

As for condition resistances, I personally value Charm Resistance above the other ones, just because charms are not only common, but include some of the nastiest effects around. Fear's common too, but the consequences of failing a fear save is never something like 'you blow all of your nova resources right in your ally's face.' It's usually something like "you get Disadvantage on attack rolls and can't move closer to the enemy." Heck, if you're a ranged, non-attack-based character, you might not even care about failing that save. The more severe ones are usually something like "you use up your Action running away." Which is bad, but not as bad as charms get.


I feel like this disparity indicates that I'm not valuing the traits of the githzerai enough. Which traits do you think should be more highly valued?

The biggest one is the spell list. Like I said in my previous post, spell lists are often a big part of a race's power budget and they vary a lot in value, so not treating all spell lists as equal is an important step to improving the accuracy of the scale.

For the Githzerai, 3 of their spells are good, and 1 of them is race-definingly good (Shield). And all 3 get that "componentless" benefit. This componentless benefit is good specifically because of the way it synergizes with those spells -- if nobody can see you Detect Thoughts or Mage Hand, you can use it in a lot of situations you couldn't before.

The reason Shield is such a huge addition is not just because you get to cast it once, but also because you get it added to your spells known. This is a huge benefit for a class like Cleric, who in many cases wouldn't have access to good reactions.

By contrast, the Fire Genasi's spells do not work well, not only in terms of what spells they are, but the method in which they're delivered.

Flame Blade is not a very competitive use of an Action at any level. It's like... Witch Bolt tier. It could be eliminated from the race and it'd barely change its power, IMHO.

Burning Hands is actually a pretty good use of an Action at level 1... but Flame Genasi doesn't get it until level 3, and unlike a Tiefling's first level spell, it doesn't get the free upcast. And while something like Shield will be a relevant Reaction your whole career, Burning Hands will be a relevant Action at only a limited level range... and the Fire Genasi doesn't even get it for much of that level range.


And in regards to aarakocra, do you feel they are rated too low? If so, is it because of the flight? Would you agree that flight should be rated even more highly? Concentration-free Flight is on its own enough to make a race competitive, IMHO.

Looking at Detect Greater Balance, I see this:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/841980415115919381/950857453459873812/unknown.png
A couple bits stand out to me. The first is the -6 for the armor limitation. I think this should be -0. Why? Because it's not a nerf to the power of the builds that pick Aarakocra.

How do I put this... if you're a build that wants to use medium or heavy armor, you don't play Aarakocra. If you're a build that wants to use light or no armor, then the armor limitation is irrelevant to you.

Basically, the -6 armor limitation affects how many builds are compatible with Aarakocra, but not how much it boosts compatible builds. Does that make sense?

The second bit I notice is natural weapons. I'd basically rate natural weapons as worth nearly zero, with hands-free natural weapons being worth slightly more than hands-requiring ones. Especially with the MPMM changes, they're such a narrow improvement over unarmed attacks (and unarmed attacks are so niche as it is) that I just don't care and consider them ribbons.

At the very least, I'd be rating natural weapons well below something like Charm Resistance, IMHO.


What can I say? Tritons just get a lot of traits. What's funny to me is that they kept getting a new trait every time they were reprinted. And both fog cloud and gust of wind are regarded as solid battlefield control spells. I've not had a lot of experience with wall of water. Where would you say I'm overvaluing them?

If the intention is to rate the MPMM version, then I should note they don't have Wall of Water anymore, they have Water Walk, an achingly situational spell for an already-aquatic race.

I personally see MPMM Tritons as basically swimming Tieflings that downgraded their Resistance and can't take Flames of Phlegethos or give me action economy boosters (e.g. Tiefling spell list is Reactions or pre-casts, Triton stuff is Action-replacers). And I generally regard tieflings as kinda meh mechanically, as much as I love them (if my avatar is any indication).

So I think the place the rating went awry was that they ended up way, way higher than Tieflings (and way higher than things that should be way higher than tieflings). And that's because they're getting Wall of Water rated like it's an entire extra spellcasting feature all on its own, and because they're getting points for every minor-but-not-really consequential feature... basically getting ranking boosts for quantity instead of quality of features.

Somewhat related, you can see me rant about my thoughts on the value of water breathing and swimming racial features here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25372446&postcount=2).


I never looked at the max potential gains on this feature. I was always comparing it to Relentless Endurance, which could be used to stay standing from any hit. Seeing the math laid out like this, I can see how my current rating undersells it. Do you agree with 4 points per use, for a total of 12? Or do you think that's still not enough?

Not sure on the exact point rating. More than Relentless Endurance, though, for sure. MPMM Goliath stronk.

I'm uncertain what you mean by 4 points per use for a total of 12. They get proficiency uses a day (so 2-6 uses).

[thoroughlyS]

Looking at aforementioned database, Psychic, Fire, Necrotic, and Poison seem to be the especially common ones for elemental resistances.

However I should note for the sake of thoroughness that this alone is not a perfect measurement. There are additional variables that could be considered beyond commonness among stat blocks
None of this is really going to be perfect, mostly because there is no way to tell how useful anything will be across tables. So this is a huge help. But how much would you value a common resistance? What about a rare resistance? Like, is necrotic resistance good enough to compare to Relentless Endurance? Is cold resistance basically a ribbon?


As for condition resistances, I personally value Charm Resistance above the other ones, just because charms are not only common, but include some of the nastiest effects around. Fear's common too, but the consequences of failing a fear save is never something like 'you blow all of your nova resources right in your ally's face.' It's usually something like "you get Disadvantage on attack rolls and can't move closer to the enemy." Heck, if you're a ranged, non-attack-based character, you might not even care about failing that save. The more severe ones are usually something like "you use up your Action running away." Which is bad, but not as bad as charms get.
So would you rate advantage on saving throws against being charmed as a 4?


Concentration-free Flight is on its own enough to make a race competitive, IMHO.

Looking at Detect Greater Balance, I see this:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/841980415115919381/950857453459873812/unknown.png
A couple bits stand out to me. The first is the -6 for the armor limitation. I think this should be -0. Why? Because it's not a nerf to the power of the builds that pick Aarakocra.

How do I put this... if you're a build that wants to use medium or heavy armor, you don't play Aarakocra. If you're a build that wants to use light or no armor, then the armor limitation is irrelevant to you.

Basically, the -6 armor limitation affects how many builds are compatible with Aarakocra, but not how much it boosts compatible builds. Does that make sense?
I consider it from the other angle. Aarakocra would be opened up to more builds if you could wear more armor. For example, going DEX fighter or ranged Hexblade. As it stands, every modern race limits you to light and medium, but homebrewers aren't necessarily going to stick with that. How should that be rated? Do you think I should flip how I have it now? Flight in light armor is the base, with a bonus if you can fly in medium or heavy?


The second bit I notice is natural weapons. I'd basically rate natural weapons as worth nearly zero, with hands-free natural weapons being worth slightly more than hands-requiring ones. Especially with the MPMM changes, they're such a narrow improvement over unarmed attacks (and unarmed attacks are so niche as it is) that I just don't care and consider them ribbons.
I previously considered a 1d6 natural weapon as situational, because you can't be disarmed of it. But you're right. That is so overly situational that it's just a ribbon. I have reduced the value of all natural weapons to account for this.


If the intention is to rate the MPMM version, then I should note they don't have Wall of Water anymore, they have Water Walk, an achingly situational spell for an already-aquatic race.
You know, I noticed that when I read through the book but I guess it slipped my mind while doing the guide. It definitely didn't help that they are the penultimate race on the list. I have included the note that I have for water genasi and deep gnomes.


So I think the place the rating went awry was that they ended up way, way higher than Tieflings (and way higher than things that should be way higher than tieflings). And that's because they're getting Wall of Water rated like it's an entire extra spellcasting feature all on its own, and because they're getting points for every minor-but-not-really consequential feature... basically getting ranking boosts for quantity instead of quality of features.
The quantity vs quality is actually intentional. Tacking on 6 ribbons is just as much a mark of bad design as underpowered and overpowered traits. If anything I think this indicates tritons could stand to lose some toys.


I'm uncertain what you mean by 4 points per use for a total of 12. They get proficiency uses a day (so 2-6 uses).
For the purposes of this guide I treat that as three uses. This is the number players will have for a majority of the average campaign (which predominantly play through Tier 2).

[LudicSavant]

So this is a huge help. But how much would you value a common resistance? What about a rare resistance? Like, is necrotic resistance good enough to compare to Relentless Endurance? Is cold resistance basically a ribbon?

I think that something like Fire Resistance is more than a ribbon but less than a mainline feature. I have definitely been thankful to have a Resistance before, more than a few times. And like, just activating once during the day can be enough to make a significant value (for example, turning a single dragon breath from 70 to 35 damage means the feature was worth 35 hp that day). But of course, there's no guarantee you'll be hit by something the appropriate element every day. Or that the hit will be substantial. So it's tough to judge.


I consider it from the other angle. Aarakocra would be opened up to more builds if you could wear more armor. For example, going DEX fighter or ranged Hexblade. As it stands, every modern race limits you to light and medium, but homebrewers aren't necessarily going to stick with that. How should that be rated? Do you think I should flip how I have it now? Flight in light armor is the base, with a bonus if you can fly in medium or heavy?

I find that Dex Fighters already prefer light or mage armor once they max their Dexterity. YMMV.

Anyways, the bonus approach seems reasonable enough I guess, but I think the bonus should be modest. I'm not notably more worried about flying platebois than flying sharpshooters.

Perhaps there is another way of looking at it, however. Limiting it to the people who like light or no armor makes it at least somewhat harder to make an all-flying party composition, and makes it so that said party composition will probably be at least a little squishier for their trouble -- not so much because of the difference in armor, but because the builds who like medium/heavy armor are also more likely to have shields and other notable durability features.


I previously considered a 1d6 natural weapon as situational, because you can't be disarmed of it. But you're right. That is so overly situational that it's just a ribbon. I have reduced the value of all natural weapons to account for this. Yeah. In most situations where you get disarmed, you can draw a backup weapon.

The main situations I can think of where I'd care about having a natural weapon would be...
- "You have to leave your weapons at the door."
- "I want to hold my shield, grapple this @#$%er, and attack them with my feet, bite, or horns." Doesn't apply to natural weapons that require free hands.


For the purposes of this guide I treat that as three uses. This is the number players will have for a majority of the average campaign (which predominantly play through Tier 2).

I don't think that races should be judged solely by how they perform in just 2/3rds of Tier 2. The rest of the game exists and has value.

There are millions of players out there. Even if you somehow determined that half of them were playing in 2/3rds of tier 2 (how?), that would still leaves millions in the rest of the game. That rest of the game deserves to be designed for, too! I know I certainly play all 4 tiers, as do the other players I know who have access to stable groups.

___

PS Last I checked, the D&D Beyond Statistics said that the majority of character sheets on said site are Tier 1, not Tier 2. Of course, "number of character sheets on D&D Beyond at level X" is not the same thing as "amount of players at level X" and thus also not "amount of human play time spent at level X" and definitely not "number of campaigns that end at level X." I'm not currently aware of any reliable source of data for those things so if you have some, please share.

(As an example of why those things aren't the same, consider a hypothetical dataset of two people: One player submits 12 characters sheets to various DMs trying to find a game that won't fall apart in a session or two. The other player has a stable group and plays a single character from level 1-20. There are 13 character sheets, but only 2 human players, and 1 character getting most of the playtime).

It's also notable that D&D Beyond sheet users are a distinct subculture of D&D players which may very well have their own trends distinct from other subcultures. Or may not.

[thoroughlyS]

I don't think that races should be judged solely by how they perform in just 2/3rds of Tier 2. The rest of the game exists and has value.

There are millions of players out there. Even if you somehow determined that half of them were playing in 2/3rds of tier 2 (how?), that would still leaves millions in the rest of the game. That rest of the game deserves to be designed for, too! I know I certainly play all 4 tiers, as do the other players I know who have access to stable groups.

___

PS Last I checked, the D&D Beyond Statistics said that the majority of character sheets on said site are Tier 1, not Tier 2. Of course, "number of character sheets on D&D Beyond at level X" is not the same thing as "amount of players at level X" and thus also not "amount of human play time spent at level X" and definitely not "number of campaigns that end at level X." I'm not currently aware of any reliable source of data for those things so if you have some, please share.
My logic was drawn from what I suppose are just the headline version of the D&D Beyond stats you reference. I've heard the metric that "90% of D&D games end at 10th level", which I knew came from D&D Beyond. I didn't know that this was a speculative statement based only on the sheer number of character sheets on D&D Beyond. That said, in my experience frequenting an Adventurer's League location, a lot of people finish a campaign ~11th level and then make new characters because their original story is over. And from experience playing with home groups I know that 1st-3rd level pass very quickly if the table doesn't just start at 3rd level outright. So in my personal experience (which is honestly the best thing I have to go off of) games are mostly played from 3rd-11th level. This seems to track with experiences expressed online. Taking these ideas together, I see that proficiency bonus is +2 for a short while, +3 for most of those levels, and +4 for a little while.

[LudicSavant]

My logic was drawn from what I suppose are just the headline version of the D&D Beyond stats you reference. I've heard the metric that "90% of D&D games end at 10th level", which I knew came from D&D Beyond. I didn't know that this was a speculative statement based only on the sheer number of character sheets on D&D Beyond. That headline was indeed based on the number of character sheets on D&D Beyond, the vast majority of which are apparently tier 1 (not tier 2). The clickbaity headline has since been used as an internet meme to dismiss many player experiences and large parts of the game as either nonexistent or meaningless because they're supposedly not "the majority."

But if Prego only ever tried to make the perfect pasta sauce for "the majority" they would have never become nearly so successful and the world wouldn't have extra chunky pasta sauce.

Levels besides 5-8 exist. The design of those levels matters. Doesn't matter if they're the majority or not.

Let me put it another way. If you look at the steam achievements for games, the later an achievement is in the game, the less people have it (by significant margins). Does that mean I should be unconcerned about content that isn't at the start of the game, as a designer?

[thoroughlyS]

I feel like this is spinning beyond the scope of my guide. Like, what are you trying to say here that affects how I should value the traits which are usable proficiency times per long rest? Do you think I should value them more than I am because they gain value over time?

[Pex]

My only issue with new races is each new race obsoletes Human that much more while Variant Human remains barely relevant because the feat matters a lot. Human needs fixing.

[LudicSavant]

I feel like this is spinning beyond the scope of my guide. Like, what are you trying to say here that affects how I should value the traits which are usable proficiency times per long rest? Do you think I should value them more than I am because they gain value over time?

Hmm. Okay. Reining the scope back a little then.

I do think that the new "PB/long rest" features are generally better than "1/short rest" features that preceded them.

If we assume an average of 2 short rests a day, then you'd get 3 uses on 1/short rest. The PB/long rest model means that over 12 of the 20 levels of the game, you get more than 3 uses a day.

Additionally, even on the 4 levels of the game where they're both (on average) 3/day, the long rest schedule is better than the short rest one, because you're more likely to be able to use the ability at a more opportune timing. For example, a Goliath can now use their damage resistance back to back to back if someone tries to focus them down, or they're Concentrating on something crucial, or they want to preserve Armor of Agathys for the maximum number of hits, etc.

[thoroughlyS]

I agree unilaterally. This is why traits that were changed from once per short rest to proficiency times per long rest are rated higher, even if no other changes were made. (See Stone's Endurance, Hidden Step, Shifting, etc.)

[thoroughlyS]

I updated the values for the new version of magic resistance, which pretty solidly impacted my evaluation of the official satyr and yuan-ti, but I still find them to be at the top of the curve compared to most of the other options. I also realized I had overlooked changes to both Surprise Attack on the bugbear, and Trance as presented for eladrin, sea elf, and shadar-kai. I have updated my evaluations of those features as well.

After fixing those values, I took another look at the races, trying to find any whose value without ribbons was below 24 or above 32. These make up the majority of races I rebalanced (I also rebalanced the gem dragonborn, dark elf, locathah, and variant human).

[greenstone]

I'd like to see race design in conjunction with world design.

Maybe it could answer the question of why humans rule the world, when every other race is mechanically better? Or why a race that has no innate magical ability and that can't see in darkness hasn't gone extinct?

Race design should inform the state of the world (or perhaps the other way around?).

After all, if a particular race has a particular feature, that means every member of that race. Elves having a cantrip doesn't just mean just the PCs, it means everysingle one of the hundreds of thousands of elves in the world have a cantrip. What impact does that have? What happens when an army takes the field with every single member of the army able to fight with sword or bow, but also with spells? How does an army who only has swords and bows deal with that?

For example, "All Elves are somewhat sickly (-2 CON). They suffer badly from disease, and have had some really nasty epidemics sweep through their race, reducing numbers dramatically. This is why the elven population is so small and scattered, why they value children and motherhood highly, and why they tend to be isolationist. Elves don't mix with other races not because they are arrogant or standoffish but because they don't want to catch a plague."

[thoroughlyS]

I appreciate the critical approach to worldbuilding, but the concepts you're asking about are outside the scope of this guide and therefore this thread.

[tokek]

I just want to point out a slight rules error you have - on the Firbolg.

Invisibility is stronger than you give it credit for, unless a monster has blindsight or similar they cannot AOO the invisible Firbolg at all but you have stated the benefit is that AOO is at disadvantage. Attacks of opportunity require a creature that you can see, you cannot see an invisible creature.

I personally think that feature is stronger on balance than the misty-step variants. Its an extremely strong defence against attacks of opportunity and a strong defence against everything else. It renders the character temporarily immune to any effect or spell that requires a target you can see - which is a lot of them. Also it gives advantage on an attack if that is what you need.

Additionally its spells are per short rest while most racial spells are per long rest - and the disguise self spell is explicitly stronger in its effect than the version of it everyone else gets.

With those corrections I think Firbolg becomes one of the strongest race choices - I consider it comfortably the equal of Shadar-kai or Eladrin

[LudicSavant]

Additionally its spells are per short rest while most racial spells are per long rest

Firbolg's spells got changed to long rest.

But the other part, at least, is correct. You cannot make OAs against creatures you cannot see.

Looking at the sheet, it also still seems to refer to Hidden Step as being on a short rest, which it isn't anymore. It's now PB uses/day.

Another thing, you can use it to cast spells amidst a horde of Counterspellers, so long as they can't see invisibility.

[thoroughlyS]

I just want to point out a slight rules error you have - on the Firbolg.

Invisibility is stronger than you give it credit for, unless a monster has blindsight or similar they cannot AOO the invisible Firbolg at all but you have stated the benefit is that AOO is at disadvantage. Attacks of opportunity require a creature that you can see, you cannot see an invisible creature.
Huh, I wonder when I made that mistake. It's listed in the pre-MotM version too... I actually was aware that it prevented Opportunity Attacks. I have fixed those notes.


I personally think that feature is stronger on balance than the misty-step variants. Its an extremely strong defence against attacks of opportunity and a strong defence against everything else. It renders the character temporarily immune to any effect or spell that requires a target you can see - which is a lot of them. Also it gives advantage on an attack if that is what you need.

...

With those corrections I think Firbolg becomes one of the strongest race choices - I consider it comfortably the equal of Shadar-kai or Eladrin
I would argue about Hidden Step being better than Fey Step. Mostly because there are also cases where Fey Step helps you more than advantage on an attack or not being seen (preventing you from being targeted). Specifically it lets you escape situations you otherwise couldn't and lets you reach place you otherwise couldn't (even if it's just effectively Dashing). Also, firbolgs are roughly the equal of eladrin and shadar-kai on the guide already. They are 2 points lower than the eladrin, which is not a big jump. The only reason shadar-kai are so high is they get a free resistance for no real reason.




Looking at the sheet, it also still seems to refer to Hidden Step as being on a short rest, which it isn't anymore. It's now PB uses/day.
That was just me failing to update the notes. My bad.

[KyleG]

I'm curious how you might rate an ability that changes? In the case I'm thinking it's levitate at 3rd level but always on like flight, but then 30ft fly at 5th. Not spells, abilities.
Furthermore, what is there was a possible consequence, chance to fall if hit? A concentrating save (although having them still able to concentrate on spells)
It's my attempt to create psionic race.

[Nefariis]

You might have already made a note of this somewhere (I didn't see it though) - but why are you considering all stat increases equal (+12)?

a fixed +2, a fixed +2/+1, a fixed +2 / floating +1, and a fixed +2 / 2x floating +1 - would all seem like they should have different point values.

I love taking half elves, because the extra +1 fixes the natural odd score with a point buy - which is like a free +1 to a bunch skills , abilities, and saves

[thoroughlyS]

I'm curious how you might rate an ability that changes? In the case I'm thinking it's levitate at 3rd level but always on like flight, but then 30ft fly at 5th. Not spells, abilities.
Furthermore, what is there was a possible consequence, chance to fall if hit? A concentrating save (although having them still able to concentrate on spells)
It's my attempt to create psionic race.
Honestly, I'm not sure how to rate something like that. I guess my best estimate would just be to rate it as flight, since it becomes that in Tier 2 anyway. And to clarify, when they get hit or lose focus (e.g. are incapacitated) they fall? Does this also apply to their flight after 5th level? Because that would actually be a serious drawback. Something like a -6.


You might have already made a note of this somewhere (I didn't see it though) - but why are you considering all stat increases equal (+12)?

a fixed +2, a fixed +2/+1, a fixed +2 / floating +1, and a fixed +2 / 2x floating +1 - would all seem like they should have different point values.

I love taking half elves, because the extra +1 fixes the natural odd score with a point buy - which is like a free +1 to a bunch skills , abilities, and saves
The system you describe is how my guide worked prior to Monsters of the Multiverse. You can actually see how I used to value ASIs like that on the pre-MotM tab. Now that almost all races have been updated to use the floating ASI rules, I value those as 12 points. I also assume this will be applied to PHB races at tables that use these rules (which is why the half-elf now looks so lackluster, as it's lost a floating +1).