Are Races Vistigial in D&D?

[Witty Username]

So, the Ravenloft lineages got me thinking about this again, but I have been pondering this since the Tasha's custom lineage and race customization options.
Do races no longer serve a useful purpose in D&D?
Races have been used to provide cultural story hooks and mechanical advantages, but 5e has chosen to move away from those things, partially to avoid problematic implications and partially to improve player creativity. Since that is the case what do races do?
We pick our primary stat for +2, our secondary stat for +1, maybe get a skill or two and dark vision regardless of our choice of race. Apart from usually one unique thing, we could leave the specific race off the sheet entirely and not notice the loss terribly.
I would make the comparison to alignment, alignment is in the same position for 5e, most of the time its loss on the sheet would not be noticed and has been accused of being unnecessary.
Now, This isn't to say that your character shouldn't have a race or alignment just that you may not need race or alignment or mechanics tied to them. This may require a shift in thinking, maybe you want to play a cat person, in this possible way of thinking you would just have in your description what ever cat and human traits you have instead of having "Tabaxi" in your race section much like you would describe the heinous acts you do to your enemies, or your bad temper when stressed instead of having "Chaotic Evil" in your alignment section.

What do you people think? Do we need a races section in D&D? Would we need a races section to have races in D&D?

[Dork_Forge]

I think that races absolutely serve a valuable place in D&D, if for whatever reasons, they want to move away from stat bumps being racial that's fine just put them in a background, but that is not a job for 5e.

[Sigreid]

It's moving that way. As time goes on they have been removing more and more of what made individual races distinct. This is basically what a lot of us have voiced disappointment in.

[Tvtyrant]

So, the Ravenloft lineages got me thinking about this again, but I have been pondering this since the Tasha's custom lineage and race customization options.
Do races no longer serve a useful purpose in D&D?
Races have been used to provide cultural story hooks and mechanical advantages, but 5e has chosen to move away from those things, partially to avoid problematic implications and partially to improve player creativity. Since that is the case what do races do?
We pick our primary stat for +2, our secondary stat for +1, maybe get a skill or two and dark vision regardless of our choice of race. Apart from usually one unique thing, we could leave the specific race off the sheet entirely and not notice the loss terribly.
I would make the comparison to alignment, alignment is in the same position for 5e, most of the time its loss on the sheet would not be noticed and has been accused of being unnecessary.
Now, This isn't to say that your character shouldn't have a race or alignment just that you may not need race or alignment or mechanics tied to them. This may require a shift in thinking, maybe you want to play a cat person, in this possible way of thinking you would just have in your description what ever cat and human traits you have instead of having "Tabaxi" in your race section much like you would describe the heinous acts you do to your enemies, or your bad temper when stressed instead of having "Chaotic Evil" in your alignment section.

What do you people think? Do we need a races section in D&D? Would we need a races section to have races in D&D?

Real life human men would have a +1 to strength and human women a +1 to wisdom. They haven't bothered to have those in the game for decades and people still play men and women, so they could have races just be roleplay orientated and people would still play them I imagine.

Would they be better for the game? That's up to each individual. Mechanically it probably means we move stat bonuses into the background section and put a +2 to dexterity for sailors, +2 strength for farmers, etc. Reducing the number of mechanical inputs can only be done so many times before the game is lacking actual mechanical options.

[Witty Username]

At least for where stat bonuses go, I am not sure we even need them in the first place. I would think the easiest way would be shift point by from 27 to 32 points and allow purchases up to 17, and rolled stats are already a sight cut above point buy (as I understand, I have not run the numbers personally).
But at the end of the day, the goal would be to replicate the stat line assumptions that 5e expects, which are pretty forgiving as is, so I don't have much emotional attachment to one method or another.

[Grod_The_Giant]

To be honest, I almost wish they'd go back to races-as-classes, or at least something like 3.5's bloodline progressions. I don't want to just play a human with pointy ears-- there's very little point in picking a nonhuman race unless it's going to be a significant part of the character. And if that's the case, I definitely want more than just a couple stat modifiers and a special ability or two.

I'm probably in the minority on this one, though.

[Dork_Forge]

To be honest, I almost wish they'd go back to races-as-classes, or at least something like 3.5's bloodline progressions. I don't want to just play a human with pointy ears-- there's very little point in picking a nonhuman race unless it's going to be a significant part of the character. And if that's the case, I definitely want more than just a couple stat modifiers and a special ability or two.

I'm probably in the minority on this one, though.

I wouldn't want race as class, but more meat to races would be nice. Perhaps level (tier) gated abilities that you can unlock so oyu don't need to rely on feats.

[LudicSavant]

So, the Ravenloft lineages got me thinking about this again, but I have been pondering this since the Tasha's custom lineage and race customization options.
Do races no longer serve a useful purpose in D&D?
Races have been used to provide cultural story hooks and mechanical advantages, but 5e has chosen to move away from those things, partially to avoid problematic implications and partially to improve player creativity. Since that is the case what do races do?
We pick our primary stat for +2, our secondary stat for +1, maybe get a skill or two and dark vision regardless of our choice of race. Apart from usually one unique thing, we could leave the specific race off the sheet entirely and not notice the loss terribly.
I would make the comparison to alignment, alignment is in the same position for 5e, most of the time its loss on the sheet would not be noticed and has been accused of being unnecessary.
Now, This isn't to say that your character shouldn't have a race or alignment just that you may not need race or alignment or mechanics tied to them. This may require a shift in thinking, maybe you want to play a cat person, in this possible way of thinking you would just have in your description what ever cat and human traits you have instead of having "Tabaxi" in your race section much like you would describe the heinous acts you do to your enemies, or your bad temper when stressed instead of having "Chaotic Evil" in your alignment section.

What do you people think? Do we need a races section in D&D? Would we need a races section to have races in D&D?

I don't think races are vestigial in 5th edition. I care about a lot of the aspects of races other than their ability scores -- it matters to me that elves trance, protector aasimar can transform into flying angels, drow can see super well in the dark, shifters can shift, kalashtar are telepathic, changelings shapeshift, etc.

However, I have long thought (well before Tasha's) that 5e's specific implementation of racial modifiers is vestigial.


Eh. Racial modifiers in 5e have already been reduced to a vestigial mush of numbers. It's a legacy of past editions, stripped of its original design context and purpose, living on as a sacred cow that no longer accomplishes much of anything positive, other than providing the warm fuzzies of familiarity.

Seriously, let's think about what racial modifiers actually accomplish. One could perhaps argue that the strongest half-orc should be stronger than the strongest human, but the mechanic doesn't actually do that. The strongest half-orc and the strongest human have the same Strength score (20). Heck, a level 1 Half-Orc Barbarian and a level 1 Human Barbarian are generally both going to start with a +3 strength score (with standard point buy). And the difference in stats between any race in the PHB and a human will never exceed 1 point. With a VHuman it's not even that (because a VHuman can be made into a +1/+2 race of any 2 stats by choosing to take a half-feat at level 1).

No, what the mechanic does in practice is shoehorn races into playing the "correct" classes. Your Drow Cleric of Lolth is still going to get to 20 Wis sooner or later, but they're going to be a weaker character overall since they had to divert more resources from other things (possibly even things that would have made them seem more drow-ish) to get there. That's it. They won't be any less wise than the next 20 Wisdom character, they'll just be missing an extra feat and have less features than a character of their level would generally have.

There's also some issues of mathematical jank when using Point Buy and playing a race "against type" that makes the penalties even bigger than one might expect (it's why with point buy, you can build a Gnome Wizard with better values in all stats, including Strength, than a Half-Orc Wizard, as long as Strength is not a primary stat for their build. It's because the bonuses to your high stats are worth more point buy points than the bonuses to your low stats).


At the very MINIMUM a tip of the hat goes to Ludic for pointing the problem out to me: I never play point-buy, always rolling stats, so I had a blind spot to that particular perverse incentive that genuinely did make playing something that didn't put the +2 in the "primary" stat feel unduly-punishing. In point-buy, you're legitimately costing yourself 3 build points if you don't put at LEAST a 13 into the stats your race boosts. Transforming them into 2 build points per +1 racial bonus to the stat evens that out. (you could also extend the chart to 17, at 2 points for 16 and 2 points for 17, but that opens up much bigger min/maxing, which is why I recommend not extending the chart but just giving the option of +2/+1 OR 4 points/2 points (in any combination) to the relevant racial stats)

___

Anyways, why do I say this is all vestigial? Because...
- We don't need it to represent that the strongest orc is stronger than the strongest human (because the mechanic already doesn't do that. You can't give the mechanic points for something it doesn't do). Heck, we don't even need them to tell us that, say, Loxodon are strong (since people seem to get that even though they don't have a +Str modifier on the PC race).
- We don't need it to tell us what classes go flavorfully with which races (for example, we know that Drow are often Clerics, and the racial mods didn't have to tell us that)
- We don't need it to tell us what an average member of the race looks like (we have lore and monster statblocks for that).
- Even for those who think it's a feature to encourage races to play certain classes over others, the incentives rarely line up right. For example, elves are supposed to be super good with longswords, but those are ill-suited for a Dex race. Other examples include Hobgoblin Fighters, Drow Clerics, etc.
- Even if you think players should be encouraged to play the "iconic" class for their race, different settings often make different classes "iconic," and I don't think any of D&D's many settings should be thrown under the bus by a core mechanic (In Eberron for example, elf and drow Barbarians, orc Druids, and hobgoblin Bards are iconic).
- A Drow with 20 Wisdom doesn't feel more drow-like as a result of the fact that they were down an ASI and couldn't afford to take Drow High Magic or something on their Cleric. They just feel like a weaker character overall. Nor does a Half-Orc with 20 Str feel more orc-like than a human as a result (since they probably have about the same Strength). By contrast, things like sunlight sensitivity and 120-foot darkvision do make you feel more drow-like.

I think we just don't really need it, especially for the point buy variant. If it wasn't a sacred cow holdover from older editions, we might well have not seen the PHB written with it at all, and other levers / methodologies could have been used to represent the differences between species better.

[Mjolnirbear]

For me... I'm very glad they're moving away from fixed stats. It solves many problems, not the least of which is having umpteen bajillion elf subspecies just to cover all the different stat blocks you need.

I want race to matter; I want each race pick to be lore-worthy and have mechanical usefulness. I want you to be able to actively dwarf your way to victory. I just don't want the stats to be part of that, because I want players to feel free to choose any race they think sounds cool, regardless of stats.

If 5.5 ever became a thing, my wish list for races would look something like this:

First, you have the Tasha's Stats choice or equivalent;
Second, you get an active ability;
Three, you get your choice of ribbons.

So you could build a custom race with any name you want that fits the world your DM is running. You could say you were a human trained by dwarves under the mountain and pick up, say, a superiority die and armor proficiency. Or this could be a dwarf. Or a hobgoblin. Or for your caster you could pick up a cantrip and a spell or two, like tiefling or elves. Some feats might be useful, like fey-touched, to eventually further develop your character, but not necessarily limited to only elves or only gnomes. Fey-touched could help you portray a satyr or dryad, but it could also represent a human who spend some time Under the Hill or an elf or even a halfling whose grandmother dallied with the Prince of Flowers.

Then, probably for AL games but also as simple examples to help avoid too many choices, some listed examples of elf, dwarf, hobgoblin, kobold, gnomes, shifter, warforged (setting permitted) each built with generic traits. You could introduce options like Warforged pre-built, so that you couldn't be a dwarf with Integrated Protection, but some flexibility would be permitted so you could be a warrior elf or a caster elf; simply substitute the Cantrip trait for the Maneuver trait for the elf build and you're golden.

The end result would be lists of traits and options, with some (i.e. Shifters and warforged, but especially anything OP like yuan-ti magic saves, or dark vision requiring DM approval) being limited to those races but others (cantrip, maneuver, proficiencies, bonus spells) to be largely interchangeable. You might have to be careful with spell options as racial features, but you could do it.

New books would basically be lore for RP purposes, with some new limited and some unlimited racial traits. You wouldn't need a million versions of elves, because you can inherently build them to your individual taste. It would be inherently flexible. And largely balanced by gatekeeping the most OP or unique crap.

[Witty Username]

I don't think races are vestigial in 5th edition. I care about a lot of the aspects of races other than their ability scores -- it matters to me that elves trance, protector aasimar can transform into flying angels, drow can see super well in the dark, shifters can shift, kalashtar are telepathic, changelings shapeshift, etc.


I am not sure we need races mechanically to get that though, Kalashtar is an interesting one to pick on in this case, since while the nitty gritty would be different you could get most of the flavor with custom lineage + the telepathic feat. And at that point, everyone having a feat at first level can in some cases replace these abilities entirely.
This may just be a side effect of some races being just better than others, Dragonborn would probably be the most straightforward example as their entire stat line is two abilities, one which is essentially a 1st level spell. But I think a lot of races fit into that category of abilities that aren't particularly extensive.
Not to mention the edge case races that are discouraging toward particular classes, like goblin rogue being substantially reduced in their effectiveness despite being a strong choice in terms of flavor.

[LudicSavant]

I am not sure we need races mechanically to get that though True, there are definitely other ways to do it!

It's just when I say "vestigial" I'm thinking more "I don't need this organ" instead of "I could get an equally good organ."

[Witty Username]

True, there are definitely other ways to do it!

It's just when I say "vestigial" I'm thinking more "I don't need this organ" instead of "I could get an equally good organ."

Very fair point, also I am glad I already finished my drink. :smallbiggrin:

I do suppose my thoughts are more in the what direction we are going and how we would want to see that go over time, as apposed to how things are now.
So, I guess the question should be Are races becoming more vestigial (why didn't anyone say I misspelled vestigial? I'll try to fix that if I can), and how are we feeling about D&D moving in that direction if it is?

[Dienekes]

Honestly, I kinda think they are. I don't want them to be. But outside of a few rare abilities a cleric plays like a cleric, a barbarian plays like a barbarian, no matter what the race is. Prior to Tasha most of what a race did is note whether or not you need to spend an additional ASI, and what money you need to spend to gain the benefits of darkvision, flying, and the other things you'll need at certain levels.



Anyways, why do I say this is all vestigial? Because...
- We don't need it to represent that the strongest orc is stronger than the strongest human (because the mechanic already doesn't do that. You can't give the mechanic points for something it doesn't do). Heck, we don't even need them to tell us that, say, Loxodon are strong (since people seem to get that even though they don't have a +Str modifier on the PC race).

See my wish is that the strongest Orcs ACTUALLY ARE stronger than the strongest human. Unfortunately, I don't think 5e is set up to allow that to work with bounded accuracy and all.



- Even for those who think it's a feature to encourage races to play certain classes over others, the incentives rarely line up right. For example, elves are supposed to be super good with longswords, but those are ill-suited for a Dex race. Other examples include Hobgoblin Fighters, Drow Clerics, etc.

Yeah, this is an issue.


Anyway, I think there are tensions within the very system of 5e. How different do you want your races? Personally, I really want them different. I want Orcs to be bigger and tougher. Something that can lift things other races can only marvel at, when they strike with an axe it pierces deeper, more destructive than anything. I want the toughest dwarves to take a hits that would kill anyone else and keep walking as though it was nothing. I want elves to be so agile they can dance along a battlefield with everyone marveling at their grace.

But the current methods of portraying that: Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity. Are tied to the bounded accuracy system, which admittedly is a good thing for simplicity of character builds and ease of math.



So what's the solution? I don't know. If you break bounded accuracy the system falls apart. If you don't the races don't actually feel like their description says they are. And even if they did, that would just make the all orcs are barbarians problem worse.

I suppose, really what I want is a 6E that works from the ground up that solves these problems.

[LudicSavant]

Very fair point, also I am glad I already finished my drink. :smallbiggrin:

I do suppose my thoughts are more in the what direction we are going and how we would want to see that go over time, as apposed to how things are now.
So, I guess the question should be Are races becoming more vestigial (why didn't anyone say I misspelled vestigial? I'll try to fix that if I can), and how are we feeling about D&D moving in that direction if it is?

I generally prefer games where any race is solid for any class. I would not mind D&D becoming one of those games, via of any of a wide variety of methods. I see no need for some races to be underpowered at some classes.

I would note that "balanced" doesn't mean "the same." Two different races can make good (insert class) for extremely different reasons from each other. And a good designer can make it so that that's the case for every class/race combination. It's not like it's a thing that game designers haven't managed to pull off before.


See my wish is that the strongest Orcs ACTUALLY ARE stronger than the strongest human. That's a fine thing to want! And if you want that, it's still a case of "we should want something different than 5e's implementation of racial modifiers."

There are even ways such could be implemented without unbalancing the races for certain classes, or breaking bounded accuracy.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My opinion--

Considered purely mechanically, races are vestigial and always have been. You can be completely successful (based on the core system math) as any race with any class. The features provided are minor at best. Now they're just even more vestigial, as the total set of benefits is more blended out among different "point-buy-like" ways.

I much prefer if most of the meaning of races comes from the in-universe fiction, rather than anything mechanical. Unlike classes, races are fully embedded in the universe. And that's what should matter there.

[da newt]

IMO races in 5e are as core or fluff as you want them to be, and this forum proves that some of us suck at the lore like marrow in a bone where some of us prefer a custom lineage one off no bounds for my individuality sort of thing.

Now I think both camps can be well served - traditional races with traditional norms or a very cosmopolitan mix of all the various races living among each other like it's normal to see a pixie and a giant and a human and a bugbear and a unique humanoid sitting around a table at the tavern playing cards and having a beer ...

If you want it to matter, it can - if you could care less, that's cool too. If it makes you happy - go for it.

[diplomancer]

Not really. No one says backgrounds are "vestigial", and they definitely have a lower mechanical impact (and, arguably, a lower role-playing impact as well).

The very fact that there are like, what, 50 races & subraces, is strong indication that devs don't see it as vestigial.

[Segev]

I feel the need to point out that it's not necessarily about "the strongest orc" being stronger than "the strongest human," but about "the average orc" being stronger than "the average human." And as long as you fix the point-buy rules wrt stat bonuses, or are using rolled stats or something where you're not flat-out getting more resources if you put your +2 as high as you can, this happens, because even if the top end doesn't go up, the low end does. The half-orc wizard with 15 intelligence has a minimum of 12 strength, for example, in point-buy, compared to the gnome with a minimum of 8 or the human with a minimum of 10. (The non-variant human with this version of "fixed" point-buy has minimum 10 in all stats, which is actually pretty big due to how much it frees up points to buy the stats you really want.)

[Corsair14]

As a rolled stat only person, races are very important. Not everyone is on board with the Tasha's silliness and that is not the right direction. Races and their differences exist for a reason. What I do not want is for them to start pushing the Tasha crap as if its not just a fringe option. It was bad enough they got rid of penalties.

[Anymage]

5e races are pretty minor (except in the few cases where they aren't), and could largely be excised without too much trouble. One of the big talking points of flex stat fans (at least before the topics kept getting derailed with accusations of real world racism) was that people wanted more active racial abilities. Your half orc with Relentless Endurance can play a little more aggressively with his cheat death, and I expect to see more things at around that level of utility when 6e finally rolls around.

Stats being the big draw to races? I'd like to see stats still matter, but I'll grant that it's hard to find a good balance for ASIs that isn't either +1 to all your most important rolls for the bulk of your career (bad for making trap options) or irrelevant because it's washed out by all the other possible bonuses (in which case you're looking at another problem soon). That has more to do with the way that stats - and especially nonrolled stats - work in D&D than it does with races.

[Witty Username]

I feel the need to point out that it's not necessarily about "the strongest orc" being stronger than "the strongest human," but about "the average orc" being stronger than "the average human." And as long as you fix the point-buy rules wrt stat bonuses, or are using rolled stats or something where you're not flat-out getting more resources if you put your +2 as high as you can, this happens, because even if the top end doesn't go up, the low end does. The half-orc wizard with 15 intelligence has a minimum of 12 strength, for example, in point-buy, compared to the gnome with a minimum of 8 or the human with a minimum of 10. (The non-variant human with this version of "fixed" point-buy has minimum 10 in all stats, which is actually pretty big due to how much it frees up points to buy the stats you really want.)

So something like a 15 costs 6 points instead of 9, a score always 1:1 drop points to 20-22 (That is where the quick math is taking me to, keep the end values about the same)?


As a rolled stat only person, races are very important. Not everyone is on board with the Tasha's silliness and that is not the right direction. Races and their differences exist for a reason. What I do not want is for them to start pushing the Tasha crap as if its not just a fringe option. It was bad enough they got rid of penalties.
As a rolled stat only person, I am asking questions. So I don't think that is necessarily relevant. Also, how much of a fringe opinion is the Tasha's changes?


To be honest, I almost wish they'd go back to races-as-classes, or at least something like 3.5's bloodline progressions. I don't want to just play a human with pointy ears-- there's very little point in picking a nonhuman race unless it's going to be a significant part of the character. And if that's the case, I definitely want more than just a couple stat modifiers and a special ability or two.

I'm probably in the minority on this one, though.
I wanted to give this some thought before I responded to this one.
My first thought on it was though the lens of dragonborn, and would it be fair to make a dragonborn sorcerer and explain how/why they are a sorcerer with "I'm a dragonborn."? That seems pretty fair to me, I feel like just picking spells and the dragon bloodline could get you a ways on its own of your just part dragon, as intended.
Mulling it over, we are pretty free in terms of where are character's class abilities come from. We have this framing that its occupational to some extent, results of training or practical experience but with the sorcerer class does include traits inherent to the character like bloodline. Maybe a barbarian's toughness comes from being part ogre, or a monk's martial arts comes from having natural weapons like claws or fangs, or some bludgeoning thing (I am blanking on examples, I'm sorry).
This seems like a pretty good idea mine for subclasses, and its not like we don't already have some of this. I am not sure everyone that wants to play a shifter wants to be a barbarian but path of the beast can tap into that concept rather well.
And this is just playing into existing systems, we aren't really making new classes here.
This may cause a bit of an immersion problem framed like this though. A goblin that is a rogue because it abilities match their race well and a human rogue though training end up being the same level of effectiveness, which may cause a problem in terms of suspension of disbelief. On the other hand, a rogue archetype: Goblin would definitely feel impactful.

[Kane0]

Races will remain an RP distinction even if they arent a mechanical one (like by using tashas).

[KorvinStarmast]

I much prefer if most of the meaning of races comes from the in-universe fiction, rather than anything mechanical. Unlike classes, races are fully embedded in the universe. And that's what should matter there. +1.

Races will remain an RP distinction even if they aren't a mechanical one (like by using Tasha's). Which kind of takes us back to the problem people are kvetching about, unfortunately.

Getting each race 1, 2, or 3 balanced features (as in all get 1, all get 2, or all get 3) and NO fixed stat bonus (three +1's, placed where you like for all races is my idea) would go a long way toward reaching what Kane mentions. Shape them in nuanced ways and for the love of Pete, think about balance next time.

Freaking elf games ... :smallfurious::smallfurious::smallfurious:

*Goes outside to yell at kids playing in the street*

[Kane0]

Which kind of takes us back to the problem people are kvetching about, unfortunately.

Getting each race 1, 2, or 3 balanced features (as in all get 1, all get 2, or all get 3) and NO fixed stat bonus (three +1's, placed where you like for all races is my idea) would go a long way toward reaching what Kane mentions. Shape them in nuanced ways and for the love of Pete, think about balance next time.


To be fair there have been plenty of homebrew attempts to get a build-your-own-race long before tashas. The racial point buy calculator springs to mind.

But yeah, equalizing features would make things a lot smoother. Set aside the stat increase for backgrounds (which are already modifiable), then assign each race two or three roughly equal features, one or two roughly equal ribbons and a choice of a more generic trait like darkvision/profs/cantrip.
But subraces might put a wrench in that.

[KorvinStarmast]

But subraces might put a wrench in that.
Then get rid of sub races. :smallwink:
Yeah, I know, radical thought. :smallcool:

[Kuulvheysoon]

Then get rid of sub races. :smallwink:
Yeah, I know, radical thought. :smallcool:

Actually, with how you've proposed earlier, I'd be down. Make each race more distinct from each other, floating ASIs, and would we really need subraces? I mean, the most notable subraces in (core) 5E is drow versus regular elf, and you could literally split them off seperately.

[J-H]

Only if your DM uses the optional rules, and chooses to have a non-diverse world where living ten times as longer, or half as long, or being short and sturdy, or having a god whose focus is totally stone and mining, or whatever, all means nothing and everybody's the same shade of grey.

In other words, not in most homebrew settings and not in most of the official settings to date.

They can go down their boring optional path and most of us will just ignore it.

[Segev]

I, for one, look forward to my fire-breathing, flying forest gnome with a 17 AC from his hard shell.

[Rukelnikov]

Races are still necessary to give many seetings consistency. When my group plays star wars, we deem it ok to just describe your race and be whatever you want, its a big galaxy, there being some race nobody knew about is fine.

In most dnd campaigns though, the setting has some races living in it, if everyone just designs their own race, the DM needs to have a setting that accomodates for this, which would be a major headache lots of times.

Mechanically I agree races have too little impact, personally I think they should have more impact, while I don't like PF2 overall, the characters having a list of racial feats they get every now and then is something I do like though.

[Damon_Tor]

I like complexity in my games. Race is one more lever to pull for interesting results, and so removing it removes complexity, which reduces my interest in the system. If it were replaced with another system that was just as complex (a more substantial background system, for example) then I would be okay with that

[OldTrees1]

What do you people think? Do we need a races section in D&D? Would we need a races section to have races in D&D?

Give me a Raptorian species (I will settle for aarakocra), a Warforged species, a Myconoid species, an undead species (Ghoul would be nice), a Troll species, a draconic species (5E Dragonborn is okay I guess), a Large species (I will settle for an Ogre), and a spider species (could be like a Drider).

PS: I could go on for at least 20 but I set lower standards for WotC than I do for us DMs. (Things like Guardian Spirits and Potted Plants make the longer list)


We need a species selection for significant mechanical differences between actually different species. Otherwise how can I play these actually quite different species? Unfortunately 5E only has 3 of these (Aarakocra / Winged Tiefling, Warforged, & Dragonborn). Oh but 5E does get bonus points for Tortles.

[Tanarii]

To be honest, I almost wish they'd go back to races-as-classes, or at least something like 3.5's bloodline progressions. I don't want to just play a human with pointy ears-- there's very little point in picking a nonhuman race unless it's going to be a significant part of the character. And if that's the case, I definitely want more than just a couple stat modifiers and a special ability or two.

I'm probably in the minority on this one, though.
That or back to a limited sub-set of classes available. Or some benefit or hinderance to picking specific classes.

The ability modifier used to be nominal, because ability scores weren't so crucial, and they were +1/-1. The ability score max/min which were often more impactful.


-------

As far as the OP goes, no, they're not vestigial, because exploring what it means to be a non-human adventurer can be interesting for some folks, especially in a human world. But on that front, minimizing race features might actually be beneficial, retaining only ones that truly depend on physical and psychological differences. Because as it stands, many people pick race based on race features, and you end up with a menagerie as a result. And personally I'd be happier if games I were in had less of a menagerie feel to them, where human was the go-to pick for most players. And that when someone is playing a non-human, they weren't just pointy eared or stumpy humans.

[Deathtongue]

I'd rather not have mental stat differences exist at all between the various races. Whenever game designers make a statement like 'actually, here's how a race that's more intelligent than humans on average would behave' or 'actually, here's how a race that's less charismatic than humans on average would behave' you're going to get a look into what they think a stupid/ugly/reckless/obnoxious/selfish/etc. culture and people would look like -- only this time you have a patina of racial essentialism slathered on top of them. The end result is rarely pretty.

And for the settings which deliberately go out of their way to subvert the dissonance between mental stats and their dominant culture... why does this stat modifier exist as a racial stat, exactly? If nurture is so strong that it completely makes an Eberron Drow's mental stats irrelevant in how others interact with them, why should they have a mental stat difference from other PC races at all? And if you are absolutely going to insist that A) some cultures are more stupid/ugly/reckless/obnoxious/selfish/etc. than others and B) nurture overrides nature, such that if you're a Typical Dragonlance Kender people are going to find you obnoxious even with a 20 CHA -- why aren't we assigning mental stats by culture instead of by race?

[Witty Username]

Give me a Raptorian species (I will settle for aarakocra), a Warforged species, a Myconoid species, an undead species (Ghoul would be nice), a Troll species, a draconic species (5E Dragonborn is okay I guess), a Large species (I will settle for an Ogre), and a spider species (could be like a Drider).

PS: I could go on for at least 20 but I set lower standards for WotC than I do for us DMs. (Things like Guardian Spirits and Potted Plants make the longer list)


We need a species selection for significant mechanical differences between actually different species. Otherwise how can I play these actually quite different species? Unfortunately 5E only has 3 of these (Aarakocra / Winged Tiefling, Warforged, & Dragonborn). Oh but 5E does get bonus points for Tortles.
I would have said lizardfolk instead of dragonborn and added kenku personally.

Should the significant mechanical differences be unique to the race or acquirable through other means? And if they are acquirable through other means, then couldn't we manage race as part of the character's description?

Dragonborn can breathe fire, a dragon blood sorcerer w/ subtle spell can accomplish similar with burning hands. Could we then say the concept of dragonborn could be better handled by a custom lineage dragon blood sorcerer? And since custom lineage is just a cluster of mechanics to make the math work, we could just give everyone a cluster of features to make the math work. This would mean we would be intentionally blurring the line between class features and racial abilities as needed, maybe the ranger's Primal awareness to sense creatures within a mile is because they are a wolfman with a good sense of smell. Races would exist from this point as a matter of description and context.

This is kinda what is flagging in my mind, Racial abilities tend to not be unique or are very niche. goblin and Nimble Escape is a great example, the better trait of the Goblin is not unique, anyone with 2 levels in rogue has it. so any 2nd level rogue could pass as a goblin mechanically. And once that is the case would I not be able to just RP a goblin?

[t209]

Part of me feel about each race lineages having their own perks, mostly one at the beginning.
Like Fallout Perks or Traits, or Wasteland Quirks.

[HappyDaze]

Part of me feel about each race lineages having their own perks, mostly one at the beginning.
Like Fallout Perks or Traits, or Wasteland Quirks.

Savage Worlds, most specifically Savage Rifts, uses a race builder that includes such things as racial Edges and Hindrances, but it also includes varying starting stats (and stat maximums) based upon race and race-specific skill boosts. Many of these things are only of greatest importance at the start of the game, but some have lingering effects.

[Sorinth]

Ability score increases have pretty much always been super important and extremely boring part of race selection so Tasha's has been a step in the right direction even though it's not the only way they could do it.

If the goal is to have the races to feel/play different then they need to avoid ability scores and focus on actual features. If you want to play a Dwarf because you want to feel like you are super hardy/tough, then a Constitution boost is the least interesting way of doing it, whereas something like the Goliath ability Stone's Endurance, or the Half-Orc Relentless Endurance does as good if not better job at being tough and isn't boring. Or take the Elf's trance ability, if you are a GOO Warlock being able to take 4 SR during a normal LR means you can fire off tons of spells like Sending, Clairvoyance, Scrying, Contact Other Plane, that's going to make you feel/play differently compared other races.

[Theodoxus]

Give me a Raptorian species (I will settle for aarakocra), a Warforged species, a Myconoid species, an undead species (Ghoul would be nice), a Troll species, a draconic species (5E Dragonborn is okay I guess), a Large species (I will settle for an Ogre), and a spider species (could be like a Drider).

PS: I could go on for at least 20 but I set lower standards for WotC than I do for us DMs. (Things like Guardian Spirits and Potted Plants make the longer list)


We need a species selection for significant mechanical differences between actually different species. Otherwise how can I play these actually quite different species? Unfortunately 5E only has 3 of these (Aarakocra / Winged Tiefling, Warforged, & Dragonborn). Oh but 5E does get bonus points for Tortles.

Let's see...

I have my main race, based on descendants of Changelings who have +3 to stats, arrange how you like, and then have 12 traits. You can roll randomly for 3 or pick any 2. Some have additive effects. The traits are: darkvision*, trance, stout (dwarven encumbrance), powerful build, lucky, magic resistance*, aggressive, long limbed*, poison resistance*, toughness (as per hill dwarf), mask of the wild, and relentless endurance.
*darkvision taken twice doubles to 120'. magic resistance taken twice means immunity to one energy type chosen from acid, cold, fire, lightning or thunder. long limbed taken twice means a reach of 15'. poison resistance taken twice provides immunity to poison.

I have 12 "static attribute" races based on animals: Aven (Plane Shift: Amonkhet), Bearkin (Bearfolk from Midgard Heroes, Kobold Press), Dragon (I'll spoiler that belong, I'm quite proud of it), Grung, Kaninen (dog focused modification of the Leonin in Mythic Odysseys), Lizardfolk, Loxodon (Guildmaster's Guild to Ravnica), Minotaur (Mythic Odysseys version), Ratfolk (taken from a DM Guild pub I don't recall the name of), Tabaxi, Tortle, and Thri-kreen (based on a fan mod of the MM version).

I also have 12 "static attribute" races I'm calling 'Planetouched' that come from the Astral Sea, Elemental Chaos, Feywild and Shadowfel. (it includes trolls, ghouls and warforged; I don't have a myconoid species though... but I do have Kijani (from Midgard) that are plant people, so kinda close. No Large species, as I find them needlessly problematic nor spiders... but I do encourage my druids to take the giant spider wildshape. /shrug.

With these 25 options, I feel most players can pick exactly the race build they want.

Now as for Dragon, I'm currently limiting it from being able to multiclass, but the more I think about it, the more it would work best as a racial class. Something like a EK with sorcery instead of wizardry... I'll need to ruminate on it, but here is it's current form:

The dragons of Barta are the most unique of the Servitors, and ultimately the most powerful. They start out as hatchlings, called dragonwrought kobolds, small, winged creatures transmuted from elemental kobolds. As they mature (reach Tier 2, in game terms), they grow to medium size and are now called dragonborn. It is at this stage in their life that they take on the characteristics of the dragon type they will become. Tier 3 brings another metamorphosis, becoming dragonkin, sometimes called half-dragons. In Tier 4 they take on the mantle of full dragons.
Special: Dragons must be single classed.
Ability Score Increase: +2 Dex, +1 Cha
Size: dragonwrought kobolds are size small
Speed: they are speed 4 and have a fly speed 6 as long as you are not wearing armor.
Darkvision: You can see in dim light within 12 squares of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You cannot discern color in darkness, only shades of gray
Draconic Ancestry: You have resistance to a type of damage based on the color of dragon you are.


Dragon
Resistance
Dragon
Resistance


Black
Acid
Brass
Fire


Blue
Lightning
Bronze
Lightning


Green
Poison
Copper
Acid


Red
Fire
Gold
Fire


White
Cold
Silver
Cold



Pack Tactics: You have advantage on an attack roll against a creature if at least one of your allies is within 1 square of the creature and the ally is not incapacitated.
Sunlight Sensitivity: You have disadvantage on attack rolls and on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight when you, the target of your attack, or whatever you are trying to perceive is in direct sunlight.
Languages: You can speak, read, and write Common and Draconic.

DRAGONBORN
When you reach 5th level, you grow to medium size. You lose Pack Tactics and Sunlight Sensitivity. But gain the following:
Ability Score Increase: +2 Str, +1 Cha
Speed: You land speed increases to 5.
Draconic Ancestry: You gain a draconic ancestry, choose one type of dragon from Draconic Ancestry table. Once chosen, it cannot be changed.


Dragon
Damage
Breath Weapon


Black
Acid
1 x 6 sq line (Dex save)


Blue
Lightning
1 x 6 sq line (Dex save)


Brass
Fire
1 x 6 sq line (Dex save)


Bronze
Lightning
1 x 6 sq line (Dex save)


Copper
Acid
1 x 6 sq line (Dex save)


Gold
Fire
3 sq cone (Con save)


Green
Poison
3 sq cone (Con save)


Red
Fire
3 sq cone (Con save)


Silver
Cold
3 sq cone (Con save)


White
Cold
3 sq cone (Con save)



Breath Weapon: You can use your action to exhale destructive energy. Your draconic ancestry determines the size, shape, and damage type of the exhalation.
When you use your breath weapon, each creature in the area of the exhalation must make a saving throw, the type of which is determined by your draconic ancestry. The DC for this saving throw equals 8 + your Constitution modifier + your proficiency bonus. A creature takes 3d6 damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one.
After you use your breath weapon, you cannot use it again until you complete a short or long rest.


DRAGONKIN (HALF-DRAGON)
When you reach 11th level, you undergo another metamorphosis, growing larger and more menacing. You gain the following additional abilities:
Ability Score Increase: +2 Cha
Speed: Your speed increases to 6, and you are no longer slowed by encumbrance or heavy armor. Also, your fly speed is no longer hampered by armor.
Darkvision: Your darkvision extends to 24 squares.
Commanding Presence: You have proficiency in the Persuasion skill.
Breath Weapon: The damage from you breath weapon increases to 5d6 and only requires a bonus action to activate.

DRAGON
When you reach 17th level, you reach your final form, becoming a full dragon. You gain the following abilities:
Attribute Score Increase: +2 Str, +2 Con, +1 Cha
Speed: 8, fly 16
Transformation: You can resume your kobold, dragonborn or dragonkin forms. As an action, you can instantly assume a smaller incarnation from your past. Your stats otherwise do not change. You can maintain the form indefinitely, but once you change back to your dragon form, you cannot assume a smaller form until after you have competed a long rest.
Additional Abilities: Reference the Dragon table to see what additional abilities you gain based on the choice of dragon chosen at 5th level.



Dragon
Breath Weapon
Blindsight
Special


Black
10d8
6
Amphibious
Swim: 8 sq


Blue
8d10
6
Burrow: 4 sq


Brass
10d6
6
Burrow: 4 sq


Bronze
8d10
6
Amphibious
Swim: 8 sq


Copper
8d8
6
Climb: 8 sq


Gold
8d10
6
Amphibious
Swim: 8 sq


Green
10d6
6
Amphibious
Swim: 8 sq


Red
14d6
6
Climb: 8 sq


Silver
10d8
6
-


White
8d8
6
Ice walk Burrow: 4 sq Swim: 8 sq

[OldTrees1]

I would have said lizardfolk instead of dragonborn and added kenku personally.

For me it depends on the lizardfolk. Some don't seem mechanically differentiated from "generic biped species" while others are covered head to tail in natural weapons. The latter definitely makes my list.

Kenku unfortunately seem like part of "generic biped species" to me so I did not use them in my example. I still want them to exist but I don't understand if/why they are mechanically different.


Should the significant mechanical differences be unique to the race or acquirable through other means? And if they are acquirable through other means, then couldn't we manage race as part of the character's description?

Dragonborn can breathe fire, a dragon blood sorcerer w/ subtle spell can accomplish similar with burning hands. Could we then say the concept of dragonborn could be better handled by a custom lineage dragon blood sorcerer? And since custom lineage is just a cluster of mechanics to make the math work, we could just give everyone a cluster of features to make the math work. This would mean we would be intentionally blurring the line between class features and racial abilities as needed, maybe the ranger's Primal awareness to sense creatures within a mile is because they are a wolfman with a good sense of smell. Races would exist from this point as a matter of description and context.

This is kinda what is flagging in my mind, Racial abilities tend to not be unique or are very niche. goblin and Nimble Escape is a great example, the better trait of the Goblin is not unique, anyone with 2 levels in rogue has it. so any 2nd level rogue could pass as a goblin mechanically. And once that is the case would I not be able to just RP a goblin?

First, is it okay for different means to accomplish the same result? Is it okay for a Barbarian, Bard, Rogue, and Wizard to all reach the peak of a mountain? Is it okay for a Hasted Arcane Trickster and a Paladin to both attack twice per round? Yes it is okay for outcomes to be replicated by different means.

You wondered "Should the significant mechanical differences be unique to the race or acquirable through other means? And if they are acquirable through other means, then couldn't we manage race as part of the character's description?" Yes it is fine for a Raptorian/Aarakocra Rogue to fly with their wings and a Myconoid Artificer to fly via a magic spell. The Myconoid Artificer does not polymorph into a Raptorian/Aarakocra just because they learned a spell. Why should the Raptorian/Aarakocra be deleted and replaced with "take the fly spell and refluff it"?

You compare a Dragonborn <unspecified classes> with mandatory Sorcerer levels. What if my Dragonborn Monk is not a Sorcerer? Why the mandatory Sorcerer levels rather than have mechanically interesting and distinct species?

Likewise you compare the Goblin <unspecified classes> with mandatory Rogue levels. What if the Goblin Druid is not a Rogue? Why the mandatory Rogue levels rather than have mechanically interesting and distinct species. Now personally Goblins fall into the generic biped species category for me, but Nimble Escape is a good example to think about. Should Rogue levels be mandatory for Goblins? Should 5 Wizard levels be mandatory for Aarakocras? Should Druid levels be mandatory for Spider-People? A lot of other features become mandatory for those characters if they have to take a mandatory class before they can role play as the species their character is born as. Suddenly all Goblins have Expertise, Sneak Attack, +2 skills known, Thieves Tool Proficiency, and Thieves Cant? All because we can't have mechanically interesting and distinct species? Do all Myconoids have pacts with Great Old Ones?

I think careful examination of the unintended consequences of mandatory levels shows that mechanically distinct species are a better design pattern.

However Nimble Escape raises another issue. Is this actually something that makes Goblins a mechanically distinct species? Or can we do even better when designing species? Consider Aarakocra wings.



Let's see...

I have my main race, based on descendants of Changelings who have +3 to stats, arrange how you like, and then have 12 traits. You can roll randomly for 3 or pick any 2. Some have additive effects. The traits are: darkvision*, trance, stout (dwarven encumbrance), powerful build, lucky, magic resistance*, aggressive, long limbed*, poison resistance*, toughness (as per hill dwarf), mask of the wild, and relentless endurance.
*darkvision taken twice doubles to 120'. magic resistance taken twice means immunity to one energy type chosen from acid, cold, fire, lightning or thunder. long limbed taken twice means a reach of 15'. poison resistance taken twice provides immunity to poison.

I have 12 "static attribute" races based on animals: Aven (Plane Shift: Amonkhet), Bearkin (Bearfolk from Midgard Heroes, Kobold Press), Dragon (I'll spoiler that belong, I'm quite proud of it), Grung, Kaninen (dog focused modification of the Leonin in Mythic Odysseys), Lizardfolk, Loxodon (Guildmaster's Guild to Ravnica), Minotaur (Mythic Odysseys version), Ratfolk (taken from a DM Guild pub I don't recall the name of), Tabaxi, Tortle, and Thri-kreen (based on a fan mod of the MM version).

I also have 12 "static attribute" races I'm calling 'Planetouched' that come from the Astral Sea, Elemental Chaos, Feywild and Shadowfel. (it includes trolls, ghouls and warforged; I don't have a myconoid species though... but I do have Kijani (from Midgard) that are plant people, so kinda close. No Large species, as I find them needlessly problematic nor spiders... but I do encourage my druids to take the giant spider wildshape. /shrug.

With these 25 options, I feel most players can pick exactly the race build they want.

My standards for WotC is lower than my standards for fellow DMs. That is unfair but complementary.

My list for WotC was Raptorian, Warforged, Myconoid, Undead, Troll species, Draconic, Large, Spider-people.
1) You said no to Large size, abnormal body types (Spider-people), and mute telepathic spore using mushroom people (Myconoids). Kijani is not close enough but see below.
2) You do have 12 "static attribute" races which includes Regenerating Trolls, Undead Ghouls, and Construct Warforged. Kijani look interesting in a way that is distinct from how Myconoids are interesting.
3) Your "generic biped species" that you use to catch many species is quite good. Most of my test distinct-species can't fit but that makes sense since most of them are things like Fire Elemental or Tiny Fey. However it does a good job on all the test boring-species can fit. You even cover more than 5E does in that regard. (Which is expected. Remember lower standards for WotC, higher standards for you.)

Within those 25 options you don't cover my list, but you have a much better spread than 5E achieved. I count 9 races from my extended list (5E gets 3). A good range that could be expanded. I believe you are right, most players can pick exactly the race they want, even if I would have a 50% miss chance. I would consider that a strong success.

PS: I am making assumptions about some of those planetouched species. For example I am assuming the Ghouls are undead with that being mechanically distinct from life. However I think that is a very reasonable assumption to make.

PS2: Dragon looks nice. Personally it is a bit sad to seek Kobold & Dragonborn folded into Dragon, but I think I understand why you did it.

[Witty Username]

For me it depends on the lizardfolk. Some don't seem mechanically differentiated from "generic biped species" while others are covered head to tail in natural weapons. The latter definitely makes my list.

Kenku unfortunately seem like part of "generic biped species" to me so I did not use them in my example. I still want them to exist but I don't understand if/why they are mechanically different.



First, is it okay for different means to accomplish the same result? Is it okay for a Barbarian, Bard, Rogue, and Wizard to all reach the peak of a mountain? Is it okay for a Hasted Arcane Trickster and a Paladin to both attack twice per round? Yes it is okay for outcomes to be replicated by different means.

You wondered "Should the significant mechanical differences be unique to the race or acquirable through other means? And if they are acquirable through other means, then couldn't we manage race as part of the character's description?" Yes it is fine for a Raptorian/Aarakocra Rogue to fly with their wings and a Myconoid Artificer to fly via a magic spell. The Myconoid Artificer does not polymorph into a Raptorian/Aarakocra just because they learned a spell. Why should the Raptorian/Aarakocra be deleted and replaced with "take the fly spell and refluff it"?

You compare a Dragonborn <unspecified classes> with mandatory Sorcerer levels. What if my Dragonborn Monk is not a Sorcerer? Why the mandatory Sorcerer levels rather than have mechanically interesting and distinct species?

Likewise you compare the Goblin <unspecified classes> with mandatory Rogue levels. What if the Goblin Druid is not a Rogue? Why the mandatory Rogue levels rather than have mechanically interesting and distinct species. Now personally Goblins fall into the generic biped species category for me, but Nimble Escape is a good example to think about. Should Rogue levels be mandatory for Goblins? Should 5 Wizard levels be mandatory for Aarakocras? Should Druid levels be mandatory for Spider-People? A lot of other features become mandatory for those characters if they have to take a mandatory class before they can role play as the species their character is born as. Suddenly all Goblins have Expertise, Sneak Attack, +2 skills known, Thieves Tool Proficiency, and Thieves Cant? All because we can't have mechanically interesting and distinct species? Do all Myconoids have pacts with Great Old Ones?

I think careful examination of the unintended consequences of mandatory levels shows that mechanically distinct species are a better design pattern.

However Nimble Escape raises another issue. Is this actually something that makes Goblins a mechanically distinct species? Or can we do even better when designing species? Consider Aarakocra wings.

Admittedly specifically Aarakocra does not work in this model, unless something unusual happened like a new feat "Wings".
Dragonborn is easy to pick on because its abilities are small, Custom lineage plus Magic initiate for something like Burning hands/thunderwave and you are most of the way there.
My thoughts are more in the direction is that if races amount to one or two traits, then we could get those traits though other systems pretty easily. Custom lineage and variant human highlight this, with racial trait they get a feat, so any thing that amounts to a feat could be shifted into that system.

But It sounds like you are more in the other direction, where races should have significant mechanical benefits and don't overlap with class features, probably more than 3 traits that are going to be used all the time. Would I be correct on that?

[OldTrees1]

Admittedly specifically Aarakocra does not work in this model, unless something unusual happened like a new feat "Wings".
Dragonborn is easy to pick on because its abilities are small, Custom lineage plus Magic initiate for something like Burning hands/thunderwave and you are most of the way there.
My thoughts are more in the direction is that if races amount to one or two traits, then we could get those traits though other systems pretty easily. Custom lineage and variant human highlight this, with racial trait they get a feat, so any thing that amounts to a feat could be shifted into that system.

But It sounds like you are more in the other direction, where races have significant mechanical benefits and don't overlap with class features, probably more than 3 traits that are going to be used all the time. Would I be correct on that?

I think you are 98% correct in your understanding of my direction. Yes I definitely am looking for significant differentiating mechanical benefits.

I want races with significant mechanical benefits that demonstrate how the obviously differentiated species are differentiated. However I am not opposed to characters outside the species being using mechanically differentiated means to imperfectly overlap one of a species feature's. A Fly spell can allow the caster to fly, with better maneuverability, for a limited duration, as long as they concentrate.

I think 3 traits might be about right for 5E's feature density, however a lot of these traits would not appear on other species. Warforged might be Living Construct, Armored Body, Modular Design. Of those 3 traits I don't expect them to be reused except on variations of Warforged. A Tortle would have a different feature because a Shell is different from being literally made of armor. However a living construct made of wood or stone instead of metal might be a campaign specific species using a modified version of Warforged as the stats for this Effigy or Statue species.

I don't know if the characters will use these differentiating traits all the time. The passive ones will be always on but some Warforged characters might feel squeamish about the ability to slot in different hands. They will have the capacity but could choose not to use it.

Summary: Yes for the most part you understand the direction I prefer / want / head in. I do think it is fine for classes to be able to do similar things in different ways with effect that are similar but different.

[Sorinth]

I think there's a case to be made to create a set of pre-packaged abilities that are meant to represent racial qualities but not uniquely tied to a specific race. So you pick one or two packages and whatever race you want. So something like "wings" would be a package and is essentially what you would take when you wanted a Winged Tieflings, Aarakocra, Avariel, etc... and you could even go for something brand new like a Winged Dwarf. There might also be a package called "Tough" that uses some combination of poison resistance, Stone's Endurance, Relentless Endurance for when you want to be the more classical Dwarf/Goliath/Half-Orc. Though whether they would want to have it purely up to the DM to decided which packages are available to each race, or whether they would have a list saying this race can choose from this list of 5 packages is debatable.

But honestly I don't see D&D going that far down the customization route. I suspect they might try to trim down the racial abilities to stick with the purely physical stuff and then either add to the Backgrounds or create some new sort of lineage/cultural selection where you would find the things like High-Elfs getting a free Cantrip.

[Cheesegear]

Do races no longer serve a useful purpose in D&D?

Yes. They serve mostly roleplaying purposes and interesting backstory hooks.


but 5e has chosen to move away from those things, partially to avoid problematic implications

The biggest problem that I see, is that D&D still refers to it as 'race', rather than 'species'. If D&D fixed its nomenclature, you would fix a lot of the problems calling it 'race', has.


We pick our primary stat for +2, our secondary stat for +1, maybe get a skill or two and dark vision regardless of our choice of race. Apart from usually one unique thing, we could leave the specific race off the sheet entirely and not notice the loss terribly.

The main problem is that no matter which species you pick, your scores are all capped at 20. That means that a Level 8 Human is as strong as a Level 8 Half-Orc, which shouldn't be true. A Half-Orc should have a max Strength of 22, not 20. An Elf should have a max Dexterity of 22, not 20. etc.

Choosing your character's species currently only affects your early-game optimisation, and how fast you can get to 20 in your main ability score. Once that happens, your species has very little importance. Except when it comes to Darkvision, and certain extraordinary abilities. A Half-Orc's Relentless Endurance and bonus crit damage remains valuable at every level, though not necessarily for every class.


I would make the comparison to alignment, alignment is in the same position for 5e, most of the time its loss on the sheet would not be noticed and has been accused of being unnecessary.

It's been accused of being unnecessary because:
a) Most players don't play their alignment. They play what's most advantageous to them. Which is almost always Chaotic Neutral or Neutral Evil. If every player is Chaotic Neutral, then why write it down?
b) Most DMs don't use Reputation as a story mechanic, to encourage players to keep playing their alignment as written.

Alignment is very necessary if you're playing in a 'Living World'. If you're playing a pre-written module, or your DM is railroading you, you're not going to be able to play your alignment, as you want, including the consequences, because that would break the module, or the DM's story. If you're homebrewing sessions week-to-week, alignment is an extremely useful tool that can progress the story if the players play, and the DM, DMs.


What do you people think? Do we need a races section in D&D?

You need species descriptions, at the very least. Otherwise everyone is just Human, and I can just look outside for that.


Would we need a races section to have races in D&D?

It's important to have the species section, because it provides less-creative DMs and players with ideas and hooks with which to make their characters and stories.

Is race important?
Uhh...Is the difference between High Elf, Wood Elf and Drow, really all that significant? Probably not.

[EggKookoo]

I would say that as a basis for ASI, yes, race is rapidly losing significance.

I'm fine with that. I'd prefer the mechanical properties of a race choice to come more in the form of small handful of features instead of changes to ability scores. And then just let us add one +1 and one +2 to our rolled or point-bought or the standard array if we want to customize there.

[Dr. Cliché]

Allow me to answer the OP's question with an image:

https://i.imgur.com/U4XURA6.jpg

[DwarfFighter]

What do you people think? Do we need a races section in D&D? Would we need a races section to have races in D&D?

Have players become so worn-out and blasé with 5e that the core races and classes no longer have value? I'm tempted to simply nix the use of Tasha's if that's the case. If the group can't play without it, it clearly means we're done with 5e and it's time to put that aside and find a different game, with a new system and new setting.

I was hoping Tasha's would add to the game, not kill it.

-DF

[Dr. Cliché]

I was hoping Tasha's would add to the game, not kill it.

Removing content from a game because you're suddenly terrified of causing offence is not how you add to a game.

[Ettina]

Actually, with how you've proposed earlier, I'd be down. Make each race more distinct from each other, floating ASIs, and would we really need subraces? I mean, the most notable subraces in (core) 5E is drow versus regular elf, and you could literally split them off seperately.

In Pathfinder, instead of subraces, each race just has a bunch of options for alternate racial features they can pick. They even suggest certain packages reflecting certain subraces of elves.

[Dr. Cliché]

In Pathfinder, instead of subraces, each race just has a bunch of options for alternate racial features they can pick. They even suggest certain packages reflecting certain subraces of elves.

I really like the Pathfinder system.

It seems like a good balance of giving players options but also maintaining a level of control and theme for the different races.

[EggKookoo]

I was hoping Tasha's would add to the game, not kill it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the Tasha's rule we're talking about, but I believe it does add to the game. Even if the Tasha approach became standard and they did away with PHB-style races, you can still recreate them using the Tasha system, can't you? And if you're the DM, you can still restrict what players can build just like you can say "no dwarf PCs in my setting" or whatever other houserule you want to implement.

Unless I'm not following what people are complaining about...

[t209]

Ability score increases have pretty much always been super important and extremely boring part of race selection so Tasha's has been a step in the right direction even though it's not the only way they could do it.

If the goal is to have the races to feel/play different then they need to avoid ability scores and focus on actual features. If you want to play a Dwarf because you want to feel like you are super hardy/tough, then a Constitution boost is the least interesting way of doing it, whereas something like the Goliath ability Stone's Endurance, or the Half-Orc Relentless Endurance does as good if not better job at being tough and isn't boring. Or take the Elf's trance ability, if you are a GOO Warlock being able to take 4 SR during a normal LR means you can fire off tons of spells like Sending, Clairvoyance, Scrying, Contact Other Plane, that's going to make you feel/play differently compared other races.


In Pathfinder, instead of subraces, each race just has a bunch of options for alternate racial features they can pick. They even suggest certain packages reflecting certain subraces of elves.


Savage Worlds, most specifically Savage Rifts, uses a race builder that includes such things as racial Edges and Hindrances, but it also includes varying starting stats (and stat maximums) based upon race and race-specific skill boosts. Many of these things are only of greatest importance at the start of the game, but some have lingering effects.
Yeah, thinking along that line for race ideas.

[Dr. Cliché]

Even if the Tasha approach became standard and they did away with PHB-style races, you can still recreate them using the Tasha system, can't you?

What do you mean "even if"? It's already become the standard in all published material.

As for recreating races with it, perhaps you'd be kind enough to give me the base racial traits for:
• Dhamphir
• Hexblood
• Fairy
• Owlfolk
• Rabbitfolk
• Reborn

[EggKookoo]

What do you mean "even if"? It's already become the standard in all published material.

All published material being... Tasha's? Candlekeep?

UA isn't "published material."


As for recreating races with it, perhaps you'd be kind enough to give me the base racial traits for:
• Dhamphir
• Hexblood
• Fairy
• Owlfolk
• Rabbitfolk
• Reborn

I'm referring to recreating PHB races using the Tasha approach. You can't replicate a hill dwarf if you're given freedom to put the ASIs where you want?

Again, I may be misunderstanding the complaint here.

[Theodoxus]

What do you mean "even if"? It's already become the standard in all published material.

As for recreating races with it, perhaps you'd be kind enough to give me the base racial traits for:
• Dhamphir
• Hexblood
• Fairy
• Owlfolk
• Rabbitfolk
• Reborn

Why do you need static attribute bonuses for these? Or, I suppose the actual question is, why do you need WotC to hold your hand in assigning static bonuses for these?

Dhamphir, solely based on their lore and write up in Van Richten's, I'd say use whatever their base race was.
Hexblood, solely based on their lore and write up in Van Richten's, I'd say use whatever their base race was.
Fairy, not yet in an official book, but I'd go with +2 Cha, +1 Dex (maybe vice versa); possibly +1 to each Cha, Dex, and Int.
Owlfolk, not yet in an official book, but I'd go with +2 Wis, +1 Dex; possibly +1 to each Dex, Int, and Wis.
Rabbitfolk, not yet in an official book, but I'd go with +2 Dex, +1 Con; possibly +1 to each Cha, Con, and Dex.
Reborn, solely based on their lore and write up in Van Richten's, I'd say use whatever their base race was. Possibly add +1 to Con on top. Maybe.

Not hard. Feel free to disagree, that's the great thing about these flexible attributes, it doesn't matter. :smallwink:

[HappyDaze]

What do you mean "even if"? It's already become the standard in all published material.

It's presented as an optional rule. It should not have become standard in ongoing releases, as it is an optional rule (the standard rules in new releases should follow the standard rules as given in the PHB).

Regardless, while newer releases may treat it as a standard, that doesn't mean it is universally accepted at all tables. There are almost certainly more D&D groups playing from the PHB than there are playing from PHB + Tasha's Crock of Excrement.

[Amnestic]

It's presented as an optional rule. It should not have become standard in ongoing releases, as it is an optional rule (the standard rules in new releases should follow the standard rules as given in the PHB).

It is following the standard, that being the standard set by variant humans in the PHB :)

[quindraco]

All published material being... Tasha's? Candlekeep?

UA isn't "published material."

Van Richten's.

[Segev]

It is laziness, at best. I could say more about suspected motives and the implications thereof, but "lazy, sloppy design" is its own indictment and more than sufficient.

If you really want to make these new races have entirely undifferentiated stats, be bold and give them no bonuses at all. Instead, give them an extra or better trait(s).

[Sorinth]

It is laziness, at best. I could say more about suspected motives and the implications thereof, but "lazy, sloppy design" is its own indictment and more than sufficient.

If you really want to make these new races have entirely undifferentiated stats, be bold and give them no bonuses at all. Instead, give them an extra or better trait(s).

I would say it's the complete opposite and is actually very smart design wise because now the racial features actually matter. Pre-Tasha's the most important consideration for race was the stat bonuses, the racial features were secondary at best and often had little to no impact since if they didn't lineup with the class focus they were useless/never used. Now with floating ASIs the most important consideration are those racial features and so you can get creative with race/class combinations in a way you couldn't before.

[HappyDaze]

It is following the standard, that being the standard set by variant humans in the PHB :)

Explain what you mean, because the smile does not do that. The variant human is a specific (and specific beats general, remember), but there is nothing in the PHB allowing other races to use the variant human rules (as they are not humans) and not all DMs use/allow the variant human.

[HappyDaze]

I would say it's the complete opposite and is actually very smart design wise because now the racial features actually matter. Pre-Tasha's the most important consideration for race was the stat bonuses, the racial features were secondary at best and often had little to no impact since if they didn't lineup with the class focus they were useless/never used. Now with floating ASIs the most important consideration are those racial features and so you can get creative with race/class combinations in a way you couldn't before.

That's not universally true. I have seen plenty of players that valued some racial traits (like darkvision) above the ability modifiers and they have selected races with less than ideal ASMs so they could get those other traits. I have also seen players avoid mechanically strong options (like a hobgoblin wizard) because of the roleplaying issues they might cause.

[Sorinth]

That's not universally true. I have seen plenty of players that valued some racial traits (like darkvision) above the ability modifiers and they have selected races with less than ideal ASMs so they could get those other traits. I have also seen players avoid mechanically strong options (like a hobgoblin wizard) because of the roleplaying issues they might cause.

Sure it's not universally true but the point remains. In fact in even highlights why it's actually quite smart solution rather then a lazy change. A player selecting a race for mechanical reasons benefits from floating ASIs because it opens up more options and makes racial features more prominent. A player selecting a race for RP reasons also benefits from floating ASIs since the character isn't being hindered (Relatively) for going with a non-standard race/class choice.

[KorvinStarmast]

and not all DMs use/allow the variant human.1. My first 5e DM (2014) did not allow vHuman(at all) nor feats (until 4th level) as we began the game. But a year later, when he was DMing in a shared world with me, those prohibitions were off when the three DMs agreed that there was no reason for our group to have such a restriction.
2. My most recent campaign GM does not allow vHuman. So, my bard is a regular human. It works.
3. I have always allowed vHuman as a DM, but very few of my players have chosen it.

[Dienekes]

I would say it's the complete opposite and is actually very smart design wise because now the racial features actually matter. Pre-Tasha's the most important consideration for race was the stat bonuses, the racial features were secondary at best and often had little to no impact since if they didn't lineup with the class focus they were useless/never used. Now with floating ASIs the most important consideration are those racial features and so you can get creative with race/class combinations in a way you couldn't before.

I'd agree, if they actually went through and remade the racial features to be balanced with each other regardless of ASIs.

And if they actually made the changes fit the fluff of the races. Yes elves have excellent vision and hearing but now we can turn their natural adeptness at Perception into Intimidation because... reasons.

That is what makes it lazy. Not that there isn't a good idea in it, but that they didn't work through it before they released it to the wild.

[Amnestic]

Explain what you mean, because the smile does not do that. The variant human is a specific (and specific beats general, remember), but there is nothing in the PHB allowing other races to use the variant human rules (as they are not humans) and not all DMs use/allow the variant human.

Right, Variant Human is a specific race with floating stats.

Just as dhampir, reborn, etc. are specific races with floating stats.

Just like half elves had two floating stats.
Just like warforged had one floating stat.

Those specific races have it. V.Human and Half-Elves were in the PHB even, setting the precedent that floating stats may exist on races to a greater or lesser degree, which we now see occurring with the dhampir, reborn, etc.

In addition to those specific listed races, you can choose to use Tasha's optional rule so all races have them, if you so desire.

[Tanarii]

They were very clear in the UA for them all that they're following the Tasha standard.

[Sorinth]

I'd agree, if they actually went through and remade the racial features to be balanced with each other regardless of ASIs.

And if they actually made the changes fit the fluff of the races. Yes elves have excellent vision and hearing but now we can turn their natural adeptness at Perception into Intimidation because... reasons.

That is what makes it lazy. Not that there isn't a good idea in it, but that they didn't work through it before they released it to the wild.

I'm not sure it was really feasible for them to remake all the races, so I'm willing to chalk up a few outliers as the cost of keeping things simple and straight forward which is important for any design/re-design.

The Elf perception thing for example stems from the original mistake of giving proficiency in perception rather then giving something like Keen Senses or the Eagle totem eyesight feature. And although irrelevant to your point Intimidation is a bad example since Fey creatures quite often have abilities to cause the Frightened condition so it actually makes sense that some elves with a little bit of extra Fey-ness in their blood could use that to help their Intimidation check.

[Segev]

I'm not sure it was really feasible for them to remake all the races, so I'm willing to chalk up a few outliers as the cost of keeping things simple and straight forward which is important for any design/re-design.

The Elf perception thing for example stems from the original mistake of giving proficiency in perception rather then giving something like Keen Senses or the Eagle totem eyesight feature. And although irrelevant to your point Intimidation is a bad example since Fey creatures quite often have abilities to cause the Frightened condition so it actually makes sense that some elves with a little bit of extra Fey-ness in their blood could use that to help their Intimidation check.

THey should have saved any major re-design for a full 5.5 or 6e. That's part of why this is lazy/sloppy. If it were done with sincere desire to improve the game, it wouldn't be done with a slap-dash "sure, pick whatever" "optional rule" that is not really optional going forward. It certainly isn't solving any genuine problems in the mechanics. And it doesn't actually open up new concepts so much as just change which ones are now optimal.

[Ettina]

That's not universally true. I have seen plenty of players that valued some racial traits (like darkvision) above the ability modifiers and they have selected races with less than ideal ASMs so they could get those other traits. I have also seen players avoid mechanically strong options (like a hobgoblin wizard) because of the roleplaying issues they might cause.

Some examples of characters I've built choosing races for their traits rather than stats:

Deekeek, aarakocra barbarian/fighter, built around the idea of flying, grappling and dropping people. Chosen for flight, natural attack is also a bonus. Dex +2 Wis +1 is helpful for Deekeek's defenses but doesn't directly aid her combat effectiveness.

Amaryllis Tosscobble, stoutheart halfling wizard (divination)/sorcerer (wild magic), built around manipulating luck and fate. Chosen for halfling luck and the bountiful luck racial feat. Again, Dex +2 Con +1 is helpful for defenses but not directly relevant to her build. (Come to think of it, lightheart would have been a better choice - I chose her race when I was just planning to go wizard 20.)

Konari Derra, kalashtar barbarian (bear totem), built for resistance to everything and also RP reasons. Chosen for psychic resistance and having a quori spirit, I fluffed that Konari's connection with their quori is malfunctioning and instead of actually communicating properly, the quori can just take over when Konari's in mortal danger (rage). Wis +2 helps with defenses a bit, Cha +1 is utterly useless to Konari (who actually dumped that stat, but dumped Int even more).

Linguist, changeling sorcerer/cleric/fighter/ranger/rogue/druid, built for having the most languages known (19-25, depending on what you count as a known language) that I could pack into a lvl 20 build. Chosen because changelings start with three languages and change appearance plus being a polyglot helps sell disguises really well (helps that Linguist is a mastermind rogue and therefore good at mimicking speech patterns, too). Cha +2 and Dex +1 are somewhat helpful, but Linguist's highest casting class is ranger (they're mostly a ranger/rogue/fighter, the rest are dips) and they've got mediocre Wisdom.

[Sorinth]

THey should have saved any major re-design for a full 5.5 or 6e. That's part of why this is lazy/sloppy. If it were done with sincere desire to improve the game, it wouldn't be done with a slap-dash "sure, pick whatever" "optional rule" that is not really optional going forward. It certainly isn't solving any genuine problems in the mechanics. And it doesn't actually open up new concepts so much as just change which ones are now optimal.

Ignoring whether floating ASIs improve the game or not, let's assume that WotC sincerely believes that it is an improvement.

Why is it lazy for them to not wait until 6e to start implementing that? If anything wouldn't waiting for 6e be the lazy approach? They have this solution that they believe will improve the game, but they don't use it until 6e sounds like a way lazier approach then adding it as an optional rule.

As for not being optional going forward, again if they really believe floating ASIs is a better design for races why wouldn't they use that for future races they create? Sticking to what they believe is bad/worse design despite there already being precedent in the PHB for floating ASIs sounds like a very lazy approach. If the results of whatever research they do tells them that Half-Elf and V. Human are the most popular races because they have floating ASI then what good reason is there for not using floating ASIs when making a new race?

[Dienekes]

Ignoring whether floating ASIs improve the game or not, let's assume that WotC sincerely believes that it is an improvement.

Why is it lazy for them to not wait until 6e to start implementing that? If anything wouldn't waiting for 6e be the lazy approach? They have this solution that they believe will improve the game, but they don't use it until 6e sounds like a way lazier approach then adding it as an optional rule.

As for not being optional going forward, again if they really believe floating ASIs is a better design for races why wouldn't they use that for future races they create? Sticking to what they believe is bad/worse design despite there already being precedent in the PHB for floating ASIs sounds like a very lazy approach. If the results of whatever research they do tells them that Half-Elf and V. Human are the most popular races because they have floating ASI then what good reason is there for not using floating ASIs when making a new race?

This is the reasoning why we get a bunch of half completed products, and designers hand waving their mistakes away to fix it later.

No, it is not lazy to work through and correct your designs before releasing them to the public.

[Menji]

Unfortunately.

Let's just all play characters with 10s across the board, the same racial abilities, etc.

{scrubbed}

[Sorinth]

This is the reasoning why we get a bunch of half completed products, and designers hand waving their mistakes away to fix it later.

No, it is not lazy to work through and correct your designs before releasing them to the public.

Just to be clear you think if WotC recognizes that there's a better way to do something they should continue to use the old/bad way for all new content within that edition?

[Theodoxus]

Ignoring whether floating ASIs improve the game or not, let's assume that WotC sincerely believes that it is an improvement.

Why is it lazy for them to not wait until 6e to start implementing that? If anything wouldn't waiting for 6e be the lazy approach? They have this solution that they believe will improve the game, but they don't use it until 6e sounds like a way lazier approach then adding it as an optional rule.

As for not being optional going forward, again if they really believe floating ASIs is a better design for races why wouldn't they use that for future races they create? Sticking to what they believe is bad/worse design despite there already being precedent in the PHB for floating ASIs sounds like a very lazy approach. If the results of whatever research they do tells them that Half-Elf and V. Human are the most popular races because they have floating ASI then what good reason is there for not using floating ASIs when making a new race?

I suspect this is exactly what they're doing, and I also suspect, with the amount of backlash they're getting, it'll be scrapped instead of improved upon like Segev suggested... but also because of Segev's attitude being felt by a large number of vocal opponents, WotC will say the change isn't wanted. Damned if you do, etc.

I haven't done a deep dive on the races released since Tasha's via UA, but I'm curious if they're considered mechanically stronger than most PHB races with floating ASM. Is it possible the WotC is doing exactly what Segev wants with new races and perhaps working in the background to rebuild the older races for a .5 or 6 launch?

[rlc]

If 5.5 ever became a thing,


That’s what Tasha’s was.

[Segev]

Just to be clear you think if WotC recognizes that there's a better way to do something they should continue to use the old/bad way for all new content within that edition?

If they believe it is truly better, is it not worth doing right?

If this is truly all they think is needed to improve it, then they are simply wrong. May as well say that classes should get ASIs and feats every other level to enable more conCepts.

[Second Wind]

Can we agree to make the perfect the enemy of the good?

[Sorinth]

If they believe it is truly better, is it not worth doing right?

If this is truly all they think is needed to improve it, then they are simply wrong. May as well say that classes should get ASIs and feats every other level to enable more conCepts.

If you think they are wrong then that's one thing, but you claimed they were lazy which is a completely different. Why is it lazy to start using a new approach if you believe it's better? Especially given there is already precedent in the PHB for this new approach.

[Beelzebubba]

Hot take here - I think all they're doing is giving better rule support for the kind of home-brewing we did in the 80's.

The game back then was much less structured, so it felt a lot easier just to build your own stuff, and the zeitgeist of the time (i.e. building your own stuff from Radio Shack parts, Legos / Erector Sets / science kits being popular geek toys) lent itself to that quite nicely.

Nowadays, the game is much more holistically structured, and new players coming in are much less likely to home-brew, if the sample size of the players I know who are new holds true.

So, giving explicit rules support for it gives guidelines for people to expand beyond the races if they want, and lessening the chance they break the game in the meantime.

They're not moving beyond races - strong archetypes are still the foundation of the game. This is all 'Optional Healing Rules in the DMG' level stuff.

[Tanarii]

This is all 'Optional Healing Rules in the DMG' level stuff.
Except this "optional" rule is now the standard.


Can we agree to make the perfect the enemy of the good?
In the case of Tasha's, its bad is the enemy of good.

[P. G. Macer]

If you think they are wrong then that's one thing, but you claimed they were lazy which is a completely different. Why is it lazy to start using a new approach if you believe it's better? Especially given there is already precedent in the PHB for this new approach.

I’m not Segev, but the reason it’s lazy is that (contrary to what Crawford has claimed) races were balanced with fixed ASIs in mind. The two most obvious cases are the Mountain Dwarf and the Yuan-Ti Pureblood. The former has its double +2s balanced with a sub race trait that is anti-synergistic with those ASIs, as armor proficiencies are largely redundant on the classes that want racial boosts to Strength and Constitution (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, some Clerics). The latter has the anti-synergistic combination of +2 CHA and +1 INT as the only thing attempting to hold it back from broken (not that it succeeds, as many DMs straight-up ban it regardless, myself among them).

The reason this change is specifically lazy is that since races have fixed ASIs as a balancing feature (even those with full or partial flexibility, such as Variant Human, Half-Elf, Warforged, and Changeling, use the versatility of their ASIs as an attempted power boost), that means saying “eh, do whatever” in many circumstances unbalances certain races, such as MD and YTP. If WotC truly gave a darn about this going the way forward rather than chasing a trend (which may or may not turn out to be a fad), they would wait until the de jure 5.5e (not de facto like Tasha’s) or 6e and implement it there, with the races designed with flexible ASIs in mind, and not stick 2 pages in the next available product after the events of May/June 2020.

[greenstone]

I fear this is so.

There has been a lot of discussion about removing bonuses and penalties races, some of which I agree with, a lot of which I don't. It has left me with the question, what is the point (in the game rules) of race?

If we can't put ability scores or other features next to "orc", then why have "orc" in the game at all? An "orc" becomes just a "human with green skin", which seems somehow more racist to me.

I would really like to see rules-based support for different races being, well, different. I want there to be something in the mechanics that makes an elf different to a human different to a gnome, to help me play an elf differently to a dwarf differently to a dragonborn (rather than what happens at the moment, which is "an elf/dwarf/whatever is just a stat bump that I can use to min/max.").

[Sorinth]

I’m not Segev, but the reason it’s lazy is that (contrary to what Crawford has claimed) races were balanced with fixed ASIs in mind. The two most obvious cases are the Mountain Dwarf and the Yuan-Ti Pureblood. The former has its double +2s balanced with a sub race trait that is anti-synergistic with those ASIs, as armor proficiencies are largely redundant on the classes that want racial boosts to Strength and Constitution (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, some Clerics). The latter has the anti-synergistic combination of +2 CHA and +1 INT as the only thing attempting to hold it back from broken (not that it succeeds, as many DMs straight-up ban it regardless, myself among them).

The reason this change is specifically lazy is that since races have fixed ASIs as a balancing feature (even those with full or partial flexibility, such as Variant Human, Half-Elf, Warforged, and Changeling, use the versatility of their ASIs as an attempted power boost), that means saying “eh, do whatever” in many circumstances unbalances certain races, such as MD and YTP. If WotC truly gave a darn about this going the way forward rather than chasing a trend (which may or may not turn out to be a fad), they would wait until the de jure 5.5e (not de facto like Tasha’s) or 6e and implement it there, with the races designed with flexible ASIs in mind, and not stick 2 pages in the next available product after the events of May/June 2020.

I agree to an extent that they sort of of used the ASIs to try and balance things but at the same time they clearly failed. Compare Yuanti to Tiefling, they both have the same +2 Cha, +1 Int yet I don't think anyone suggests that the other features are balanced, or that Tiefling was a powerhouse of abilities that was only balanced through poor ASI distribution. I think your point would have more merit if with Tasha's changes it actually unbalanced the race/class combinations. Is Mountain Dwarf now the premier race chosen by players? I don't know have any stats but I have my doubts that's the case. I can certainly believe they are more popular with Tasha's but I think it's still well within norm.

It's also worth noting that many complaints are about how Tasha's is not actually optional and is forced upon people since all new races follow the floating ASIs. It's worth noting that the balance concern doesn't hold up in these cases since the races were built with floating ASIs in mind. So if you do have balance concerns with the floating ASIs then you can simply not use the optional rules presented in Tasha's and don't have to worry about new races with floating ASIs since they are built with that already in mind.

[Sorinth]

I fear this is so.

There has been a lot of discussion about removing bonuses and penalties races, some of which I agree with, a lot of which I don't. It has left me with the question, what is the point (in the game rules) of race?

If we can't put ability scores or other features next to "orc", then why have "orc" in the game at all? An "orc" becomes just a "human with green skin", which seems somehow more racist to me.

I would really like to see rules-based support for different races being, well, different. I want there to be something in the mechanics that makes an elf different to a human different to a gnome, to help me play an elf differently to a dwarf differently to a dragonborn (rather than what happens at the moment, which is "an elf/dwarf/whatever is just a stat bump that I can use to min/max.").

Isn't that already the case?

An elf gets Trance that can create something different. An Elf GOO Warlock for example is going to feel a lot different then a Human GOO Warlock because every LR the Elf is going to be able to take 4 SR and therefore cast multiple Sending, Scrying spells and still have their normal slots for the day.

Meanwhile the Goblin Warlock is probably going to take spells that allow them to take advantage of being able to BA Hide in combat so again it's going to feel different from the other races. While the Tortle Warlock can be a Pact of Blade Gish without feeling like they have to take Hexblade.

Now admittedly they probably can do a better job creating those differences and make them more interesting, but the focus on ASI actually took away from the racial differences so the floating ASIs are at least a step in the right direction.

[Addaran]

I don't have that book, so i haven't seen the custom lineage. But floating ASIs for everyone is a definitive win in my mind. Lets you pick whatever race without being too worried if you're optimized enough or not. Only +4 to hit is horrible when you're unlucky with dice.




Should the significant mechanical differences be unique to the race or acquirable through other means? And if they are acquirable through other means, then couldn't we manage race as part of the character's description?

Dragonborn can breathe fire, a dragon blood sorcerer w/ subtle spell can accomplish similar with burning hands. Could we then say the concept of dragonborn could be better handled by a custom lineage dragon blood sorcerer? And since custom lineage is just a cluster of mechanics to make the math work, we could just give everyone a cluster of features to make the math work. This would mean we would be intentionally blurring the line between class features and racial abilities as needed, maybe the ranger's Primal awareness to sense creatures within a mile is because they are a wolfman with a good sense of smell. Races would exist from this point as a matter of description and context.

This is kinda what is flagging in my mind, Racial abilities tend to not be unique or are very niche. goblin and Nimble Escape is a great example, the better trait of the Goblin is not unique, anyone with 2 levels in rogue has it. so any 2nd level rogue could pass as a goblin mechanically. And once that is the case would I not be able to just RP a goblin?

I've been checking a lot of M&M lately and i really prefer points-buy Ã* la carte style of character creations. ( Shadowrun is another i've played) Doesn't matter if you get a skill or special ability from background ,race or class. Doesn't matter if someone has a race with only one weak ability and the other spend half his points on the race, as long as the totals are equal. Those kind of system are more fun IMO, cause you can do pretty much any concept you want while still being as effective/optimized. You don't have a problem with paying double for a feature ( goblin rogue) and you can freely divorce an elf raised by elves from an elf raised by humans.

[KorvinStarmast]

Let's just all play characters with 10s across the board, the same racial abilities, etc.
IIRC, the mean of 4d6k3 is 12.25, and the mean of 3d6 is 10.5 (https://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/). Why not start with all 12's for PCs? :smallbiggrin:
Can we agree to make the perfect the enemy of the good? Heh-that got a grin out of me.

[Ettina]

An elf gets Trance that can create something different. An Elf GOO Warlock for example is going to feel a lot different then a Human GOO Warlock because every LR the Elf is going to be able to take 4 SR and therefore cast multiple Sending, Scrying spells and still have their normal slots for the day.

This may or may not work depending on how you rule Trance. The official rules are ambiguous about whether elves have a 4-hour long rest or an 8-hour long rest involving 4 hours of Trance and 4 hours of light activity. If the latter interpretation is in play, your elf warlock isn't going to be taking extra short rests.

[EggKookoo]

IIRC, the mean of 4d6k3 is 12.25, and the mean of 3d6 is 10.5 (https://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/). Why not start with all 12's for PCs?

Frankly I think a 5.5e could do worse than to say all PCs start with 3 10s and 3 12s, apply some kind of ASI based on your initial class choice (maybe no ASI when multiclassing), and then 2 +1s that the player can apply as desired. Plus a number of non-ASI race features like trance or whatever.

[KorvinStarmast]

Frankly I think a 5.5e could do worse than to say all PCs start with 3 10s and 3 12s, apply some kind of ASI based on your initial class choice (maybe no ASI when multiclassing), and then 2 +1s that the player can apply as desired. Plus a number of non-ASI race features like trance or whatever.
13th Age does something like that. A +2 for race that you choose from a few choices, and a +2 for your class (again, you can choose from a few).

[Xervous]

I've been checking a lot of M&M lately and i really prefer points-buy Ã* la carte style of character creations. ( Shadowrun is another i've played) Doesn't matter if you get a skill or special ability from background ,race or class. Doesn't matter if someone has a race with only one weak ability and the other spend half his points on the race, as long as the totals are equal. Those kind of system are more fun IMO, cause you can do pretty much any concept you want while still being as effective/optimized. You don't have a problem with paying double for a feature ( goblin rogue) and you can freely divorce an elf raised by elves from an elf raised by humans.

I’m generously assuming you mean karma build method, rather than the degenerate build point or priority systems. Due to the function of attribute caps and the accessibility of cyberware (in the good editions of SR) you are incentivized to pick a metatype for long term play if you care about numbers. The beauty of Shadowrun is in how probability is obfuscated. Opposed dicepools are nowhere near as clean cut as 1d20+mod vs DC, and I’ve found that this leads to less griping over numbers so long as no two characters are mercilessly competing on the same niche.

[Addaran]

I’m generously assuming you mean karma build method, rather than the degenerate build point or priority systems. Due to the function of attribute caps and the accessibility of cyberware (in the good editions of SR) you are incentivized to pick a metatype for long term play if you care about numbers. The beauty of Shadowrun is in how probability is obfuscated. Opposed dicepools are nowhere near as clean cut as 1d20+mod vs DC, and I’ve found that this leads to less griping over numbers so long as no two characters are mercilessly competing on the same niche.

I kinda had forgotten about how heavily important races were for stats in SR. I was just thinking in general since M&M is so fresh. If you don't count races though, i think it didn't matter if your bonus game from abilities or skills. And since you decided where to put points, you could trade abilities for skills, vice versa, or even more money to get implants or adept points to have enhanced abilities/skills.

[Morty]

Isn't that already the case?

An elf gets Trance that can create something different. An Elf GOO Warlock for example is going to feel a lot different then a Human GOO Warlock because every LR the Elf is going to be able to take 4 SR and therefore cast multiple Sending, Scrying spells and still have their normal slots for the day.

Meanwhile the Goblin Warlock is probably going to take spells that allow them to take advantage of being able to BA Hide in combat so again it's going to feel different from the other races. While the Tortle Warlock can be a Pact of Blade Gish without feeling like they have to take Hexblade.

Now admittedly they probably can do a better job creating those differences and make them more interesting, but the focus on ASI actually took away from the racial differences so the floating ASIs are at least a step in the right direction.

Yeah, if the goal is to make races substantially different, racial ASIs didn't actually do anything to make it happen. 4E racial powers did the best job of it in D&D's history, even though 4E races also had ASIs and a pile of useless fiddly abilities. But given how skittish WotC still are about anything with a whiff of 4E to it, this might not happen.

[loki_ragnarock]

What do you people think? Do we need a races section in D&D? Would we need a races section to have races in D&D?

I've kind of tuned out of the argument of the moment because I've been letting my subconscious think about this question.

I think I have to take the first question in two parts, because it colors my answers considerably.

1a. (Do we need a races section?) 1b. (in D&D?)
1a. No, I think most of us are on a perpetual treadmill for food, clothing, shelter, that sort of thing, so need is probably too strong a word. However, if we've made it past those physiological and psychological needs to find space for hobbyist gaming? It's not a requirement for hobbyist gaming, at all. A world need not have elves or tabaxi or yuan-ti, nor need a system have any mechanical difference between them were they present. There are fantasy fictions aplenty that lack some or all of those races, and to pretend to be a character in such a fantasy fiction need not include all the kitchen sink of things Gygax threw into his melting pot.
1b. Oh, that's more specific. YES. D&D isn't just some role-playing system. It's a behemoth, the grandsire, the alpha (if not the omega). It's a grand tradition as much as it is a living system, and the grand tradition has races as very specific, defining parts of what makes the system what it is. Be it the Elf as a distinct class or Elf as a distinct race, D&D has Elf. And while the specific meaning of Elf has changed a bit over time, the grand tradition dictates that Elf mean something. That it fills a particular niche, or lends itself to a particular niche. Abandoning that is abandoning tradition that makes Dungeons and Dragons what it is, rather than C&S or Hackmaster or RIFTS or GURPS or Savage Worlds or Cypher.
If you remove the distinctions of fantasy races/species from the game, it's a different game than D&D. Is a gar even a gar without thick scales and a swim bladder that functions as a primitive lung?

2. Would we need a races section to have races in D&D?
Someone pointed out that you could have racial classes instead, which might be a great idea. If you are concerned about niche protection, or the idea that being a specific race means something very specific, it's a solve. But then the "classes" section is just the default races section, so it's still there, just shifted about a bit. Regardless of shifting, it needs to be there somewhere; if elves or tabaxi are the only ones that can cast spells of X or Y school of magic or are prohibited from X or Y school of magic - another way to provide the distinction - then you've shifted the races section to the magic section.
A races section is more honest, much easier to parse than shifting the specific mechanics to other sections without *some* bullet point header to guide people; it's just easier than flipping through to the magic section to discover gnomes are the only ones what can use illusions, or the like, when you can just turn to the races section and look at the bullet points that make it distinct, regardless of what those bullet points are.


What is vestigial in perhaps a different system is a defining feature of the living fossil that is D&D.

If you veer too far, it's not a living fossil anymore.

[ZRN]

LudicSavant said it really well above. I'll add the following points:

Racial ability score bonuses and penalties, at least since 3e with standardized modifiers, do a terrible job of establishing or reinforcing a "feel" for each race. I'm a hulking brutish orc arm-wrestling a feeble little gnome, and the great benefit I get is that I succeed 5% more often due to my +2 strength?

That said, due to 5e's conflation of ASIs and feats, it actually feels pretty bad (comparatively) to play a non-"optimized" race. Most classes in 5e are SAD, so being 2 points worse in your primary stat means you're basically 5% worse at everything your character is supposed to be good at. And when you spend a feat to catch up with the preferred-race baseline, that just means you're missing out on an actual fun, active feat that would probably better define your character.

It's the racial abilities that do a much more interesting job of defining the different races than ability score differences.

[Ettina]

That said, due to 5e's conflation of ASIs and feats, it actually feels pretty bad (comparatively) to play a non-"optimized" race. Most classes in 5e are SAD, so being 2 points worse in your primary stat means you're basically 5% worse at everything your character is supposed to be good at. And when you spend a feat to catch up with the preferred-race baseline, that just means you're missing out on an actual fun, active feat that would probably better define your character.

Maybe a better solution than floating ASIs for everyone would be separate ASI and feat progression, like 3.5e.

[ZRN]

Maybe a better solution than floating ASIs for everyone would be separate ASI and feat progression, like 3.5e.

If I were going to do any heavy lifting in adjusting feats/ASIs, like for a 6e, I'd probably make ability scores affect skills and saving throws but not much else. It'd be nice to be able to play a foolish cleric, clumsy rogue, etc. without just crippling your character. But I might be in the minority on that opinion.

[Xervous]

Maybe a better solution than floating ASIs for everyone would be separate ASI and feat progression, like 3.5e.

Comprexity bad, hurt palyer bran. Though let’s release this as an optional rule that’s totally new and awesome for 5e, because we’ve really never done this before.

Terming feats as optional was what put them on the same track as ASIs. Would just take another optional rule, ignoring the fact that feats aren’t generally considered optional by various WotC venues and presentations.

[BoutsofInsanity]

It makes me hopeful for the future whenever they get around to it.

Racial ability scores are stupid anyway. There are better ways to showcase races differences than with a static bonus to a stat. Further, racial stat modifiers restrict classes and punish for playing against type. It also doesn't make sense anyway, since a Drow Priestess isn't going to be less wise than a human Priest. They just will have less elsewhere. Which punishes creativity.

Racial Features are the way that showcases the differences between races. Half-Orc just absolutely crushes this in my opinion. Stopping from death at 1 hit point and brutal critical are just absolutely smashing abilities that feel fun and flavorful. They are easy to remember for all half-orcs in a setting.

Dwarves being resistant to poison is another one. Alcohol? Poison. Dwarves drink more than other people. Why? Poison resistance. Easy.

------

Transitioning away from racial modifiers and into other abilities will go a long way in really making races feel unique and different. It breeds diversity in character design, fosters healthier game play with impactful abilities, and will eventually give races a more unique and identifiable identity.

Already we are talking about being able to distinguish cultural background abilities like "Dwarf Weapon Training" from "Poison Resistance" which is forcing new players and DM's to think through how they game. 5e is designed around "YOUR TABLE". All Tasha's has really done, is given the tools, albeit mediocrity, to customize your game to your table.

Half - Orcs are no longer defined by brute strength. Half Orcs are now defined by the ability to literally just stand up. Which in my opinion is way more interesting than a static bonus to strength.

[Tanarii]

LudicSavant said it really well above. I'll add the following points:

Racial ability score bonuses and penalties, at least since 3e with standardized modifiers, do a terrible job of establishing or reinforcing a "feel" for each race. I'm a hulking brutish orc arm-wrestling a feeble little gnome, and the great benefit I get is that I succeed 5% more often due to my +2 strength? Ability score modifiers do make sense if on average there is an actual physical or psychological difference between the races. OTOH I agree that it's possibly not enough in some cases, and especially since it's often outweighed by the deviation, especially when it comes to adventurers.

I've mostly comes to terms with the rare Str 18 Halfling or Gnome, which are the biggest verisimilitude breakers for me. :smallamused:

Its worth noting though, if you were really a hulking half orc, youd have a high str stat before adding the bonus. The point is that a half-orc and elf that hulk the same amount, the half orc has minorly more hulk.


That said, due to 5e's conflation of ASIs and feats, it actually feels pretty bad (comparatively) to play a non-"optimized" race. Most classes in 5e are SAD, so being 2 points worse in your primary stat means you're basically 5% worse at everything your character is supposed to be good at. And when you spend a feat to catch up with the preferred-race baseline, that just means you're missing out on an actual fun, active feat that would probably better define your character.Thats a perception issue. And one mostly IMX restricted to the online char op community.

OTOH it's not a terrible argument. There are other ways to do the same thing that work better from a char op and non-char op perspective.

[ZRN]

Ability score modifiers do make sense if on average there is an actual physical or psychological difference between the races. OTOH I agree that it's possibly not enough in some cases, and especially since it's often outweighed by the deviation, especially when it comes to adventurers.

It's this latter part that makes me think it's not worth it. If we're going to think of it in terms of broad statistics, then not only should some fantasy races be stronger or smarter than others, but some should be just way more powerful than others: a minotaur can easily kill a kobold. But when we make them player character races, we have to "balance" them. If we're trying to maintain verisimilitude, here's the basic justification for that: a level 1 minotaur is a pretty average minotaur, whereas a level 1 kobold is already the Lancelot of kobolds, more capable than 99% of his race. So why shouldn't Lance the Wonder Kobold start with a decent strength score?

[Tanarii]

It's this latter part that makes me think it's not worth it. If we're going to think of it in terms of broad statistics, then not only should some fantasy races be stronger or smarter than others, but some should be just way more powerful than others: a minotaur can easily kill a kobold. But when we make them player character races, we have to "balance" them. If we're trying to maintain verisimilitude, here's the basic justification for that: a level 1 minotaur is a pretty average minotaur, whereas a level 1 kobold is already the Lancelot of kobolds, more capable than 99% of his race. So why shouldn't Lance the Wonder Kobold start with a decent strength score?
Honestly, I feel it would serve better to have racial maximums and minimums that adjustments.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Honestly, I feel it would serve better to have racial maximums and minimums that adjustments.

Harkening back to 2e, are we? I can respect that. Honestly, that way makes more sense (imho) for what ASIs try to accomplish. On the other hand, you'd need to have an entire other table of racial maximums, and that'd just add more complexity to a game that they're trying to streamline.

[CapnWildefyr]

Honestly, I feel it would serve better to have racial maximums and minimums that adjustments.

What you are pointing out is true. The problem is that 5e is about giving, not taking away. There are no choices, really, because it's all a blurred mess. I don't think it fits philosophically in 5e, but yes, species would mean more as a choice if you applied negative consequences:

some species can't have as high physical stats as others, like strength, or the stats are made relative to size
you can't play every class with every species
you can't play every subclass with every species
you restrict feats to be human or half-human only, EXCEPT for 1-3 racial feats (and no more than that)
some species don't even get racial feats at all because they get flame breath or whatever
Yes, humans have to get something substantial, or else they're irrelevant, so they always get feats AND ASIs


Etc. The idea is that you give something up. Want that bonus dodge as a goblin? you give something up for it.

I don't know if adding restrictions could be made to work, but right now, all we do is pick between flavors of ice cream, and then go eat cake with it. There is no decision on whether it's ice cream or frozen yogurt or a fruit bowl, and we always get the cake too.

Speaking of food, even having dietary restrictions would be something. Want to play a tabaxi? OK, but you can only eat raw meat, not even dried meat. Want to play an elf? OK, but you can't eat iron rations, you need whatever. Something to provide a real distinction besides what benefits you get. (I can just imagine a character trying to herd a small flock of chickens into TOA or similar, telling his companions "What? What if I get hungry!"? :smallbiggrin:

My example with food may be a bit much, but my point is that when you always give and never restrict anything, you cause this big blur. The only reason now to pick a species is (1) for the bennies (2) you actually want to roleplay based on the fluff.

[EggKookoo]

I've mostly comes to terms with the rare Str 18 Halfling or Gnome, which are the biggest verisimilitude breakers for me. :smallamused:

This is where size should have some impact. A Str 18 halfling is weaker than a Str 18 human, due to the Small size cutting the halfling's lifting/dragging power in half. Really, it should also affect Str checks and saving throws and it doesn't. Even if they didn't want to make it impact melee attacks (which I can see an argument for), impacting those other rolls could be enough to convey the difference in mass and raw power.

[Segev]

If you think they are wrong then that's one thing, but you claimed they were lazy which is a completely different. Why is it lazy to start using a new approach if you believe it's better? Especially given there is already precedent in the PHB for this new approach.Okay, fine, I can accept that it's not lazy if they genuinely think that this is all they need to do to make things as good as this new design revelation can make it. But I will say that I have greater faith in their intelligence and their understanding of game design than to accept that they genuinely think this is better. If my faith is misplaced, then this is even worse than I thought, because it reveals that the game designers are no longer competent enough to be trusted with releasing any material at all.


This is where size should have some impact. A Str 18 halfling is weaker than a Str 18 human, due to the Small size cutting the halfling's lifting/dragging power in half. Really, it should also affect Str checks and saving throws and it doesn't. Even if they didn't want to make it impact melee attacks (which I can see an argument for), impacting those other rolls could be enough to convey the difference in mass and raw power.Thing is, given the reasons listed by the devs for the change, having such size-based differences really just recreates the "problematic" elements they're ostensibly trying to solve.

[EggKookoo]

Thing is, given the reasons listed by the devs for the change, having such size-based differences really just recreates the "problematic" elements they're ostensibly trying to solve.

Oh yeah, I know their silly reasoning. I have trouble understanding how it's problematic for a small creature to have a disadvantage against a large creature in terms of mass and strength. I guess it's the new math...

[Sorinth]

This is where size should have some impact. A Str 18 halfling is weaker than a Str 18 human, due to the Small size cutting the halfling's lifting/dragging power in half. Really, it should also affect Str checks and saving throws and it doesn't. Even if they didn't want to make it impact melee attacks (which I can see an argument for), impacting those other rolls could be enough to convey the difference in mass and raw power.

Should it really impact most saving throws/skill checks? I have my doubts about that especially given most strength saving throws are about being knocked prone and in theory the lower center of mass would help and a lot of strength checks can be things like climbing a cliff where the smaller weight values means less strength would be needed.

Opposed rolls like for grapple, yeah I can see the argument for that.

I think a big reason they don't want size to have too much impact on these types of things since it's common to go up against large creatures. And so even the medium strength based characters to be at disadvantage so often that it will take away from them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think a big reason they don't want size to have too much impact on these types of things since it's common to go up against large creatures. And so even the medium strength based characters to be at disadvantage so often that it will take away from them.

Yeah. Shades of 3.5e grapplers all needing to find ways of getting super-enlarged, otherwise just not having their shtick just flat denied or being at severe disadvantage.

Players and NPCs are asymmetric. And that's fine.

[deljzc]

It's this latter part that makes me think it's not worth it. If we're going to think of it in terms of broad statistics, then not only should some fantasy races be stronger or smarter than others, but some should be just way more powerful than others: a minotaur can easily kill a kobold. But when we make them player character races, we have to "balance" them. If we're trying to maintain verisimilitude, here's the basic justification for that: a level 1 minotaur is a pretty average minotaur, whereas a level 1 kobold is already the Lancelot of kobolds, more capable than 99% of his race. So why shouldn't Lance the Wonder Kobold start with a decent strength score?

Well, all this started when we opened up almost all bipedal, sentient species as racial options to be PC's. I've always been really against that, but I'm a traditionalist. I like Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Orc and that's it. I'm not even a big fan of Dragonborn or Teifling.

It's like the game wanted its cake and to eat it too. It wants all these cool "monsters" open to becoming PC's but then in the same breath wants PC's to ignore racial/species differences when they create them.

Arguably, that basic point doesn't work. When the monster stat blocks between two acceptable PC races are literally 1/4 CR vs. a 3-4 CR, trying to just argue "well, there really isn't ANY difference in PC races", doesn't make sense and never will.

Part of the reason races were restricted to PC's was at least Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome and Half-Orc were similar. Not equal, but similar to the point they didn't have obscene advantages or disadvantages over the other. Now we have kobolds and lizardmen and Githyanki and things that fly and who knows what else. It's silly once we started going down that path. And something I really haven't liked at all. Sure, I know that's my opinion, but I strongly feel that way, even if I'm in the minority. Once we started blending monsters into available PC's all hell broke loose. And now we're kind of stuck.

[Snowbluff]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Noooooooo.

Honestly, I think the changes with the Tasha's rules actually opens up the game quite a bit. I prefer considerations for a build's species to be qualitative rather than quantitative.

For example, Leonin are a natural choice for fear oriented builds. The new dragon born UA are a hilarious meme option for the new bladesinger by allowing for both of your attacks to be replaced with a special ability. Tortles are a fun way around lack of armor. Whether or not I even use the base fluff provided by DnD (and I'll be honest and say I greatly prefer running my own setting), I like providing options such as these as little kits that places can use to individualize their builds.

[Tvtyrant]

On that note, one nice thing is there will likely be less pressure to include every race for mechanical reasons. Excluding derpy races from a campaign is a lot easier if they aren't mechanically unique and needed for specific builds (Tortles for Barbarian/Rogues for instance.)

[EggKookoo]

Yeah. Shades of 3.5e grapplers all needing to find ways of getting super-enlarged, otherwise just not having their shtick just flat denied or being at severe disadvantage.

It's not how the edition was designed, I know, but it's easily solved.

New base rule: you have disadvantage on contested Strength checks against a creature larger than you, and you have advantage on contested Strength checks against a creature smaller than you.

Then modify the Grappler feat to include: You are considered one size larger than you are when determining your Strength for grappling. Then perhaps certain class or race features have similar wording. For example, Powerful Build might also include contested Strength checks as well as lifting/dragging weight.

This doesn't prevent a halfling with Grappler from being able to grapple an orc without penalty, but if the orc also has this property in some way (perhaps from Powerful Build), it resets it.

[CapnWildefyr]

It's not how the edition was designed, I know, but it's easily solved.

New base rule: you have disadvantage on contested Strength checks against a creature larger than you, and you have advantage on contested Strength checks against a creature smaller than you.



One or the other, not both. Why give a +10?

[EggKookoo]

One or the other, not both. Why give a +10?

Oh that's true. I wasn't thinking. Ok, so disadvantage on checks against creatures larger than you.

[Sorinth]

Okay, fine, I can accept that it's not lazy if they genuinely think that this is all they need to do to make things as good as this new design revelation can make it. But I will say that I have greater faith in their intelligence and their understanding of game design than to accept that they genuinely think this is better. If my faith is misplaced, then this is even worse than I thought, because it reveals that the game designers are no longer competent enough to be trusted with releasing any material at all.

Thing is, given the reasons listed by the devs for the change, having such size-based differences really just recreates the "problematic" elements they're ostensibly trying to solve.

Out of curiosity do you also hate the changes made for the Ranger?

To me they are clear improvements over the old version, but I wouldn't say it's fixed all the issues and did all that they could possibly do. But given that it's an improvement I'm glad they released it rather then waiting for 6e.

[Segev]

Yeah. Shades of 3.5e grapplers all needing to find ways of getting super-enlarged, otherwise just not having their shtick just flat denied or being at severe disadvantage.

Players and NPCs are asymmetric. And that's fine.The solution to this tends to be some sort of feat or other feature that lets characters ignore size differences or count as larger for these specialized purposes. The grappling specialist SHOULD be able to overcome natural weaknesses of his own and advantages of others in a heroic game, but some should take more investment than others based on other build choices.


Out of curiosity do you also hate the changes made for the Ranger?

To me they are clear improvements over the old version, but I wouldn't say it's fixed all the issues and did all that they could possibly do. But given that it's an improvement I'm glad they released it rather then waiting for 6e.

Actually, yes, I do. I think they're relatively flavorless and still not good enough. Favored Foe was at least "good enough" in UA that I could see it serving the mechanical purpose of stepping level 1 Ranger up to where it needs to be. I have some conceptual issues with making hunter's mark a "class feature" with the trappings of a spell, but it did the job decently and wasn't wildly out of place. The new version is too weak, conflicts with hunter's mark while requiring you to buy hunter's mark if you want it - essentially making you choose a weaker feature or a spell or doubling down on investment for lesser returns - and is also rather boringly not compatible with the Ranger's TWF schtick (even if that's not well-supported by the chassis to begin with).

The canny explorer is too little, spread over too many levels, and weirdly stacks with Favored Enemy if you choose to take the base ability despite being the one with greater overlap (due to bonus languages). I won't knock bonus languages, but I will say it's weird that an entire level 1 ranger feature is nothing but those.

The fixes in TCE for Ranger don't do enough, don't really feel "ranger-y," and still (in the not-ranger-y vein) seem confused as to what they really are trying to accomplish, play-style wise.

Either the two level 1 PHB features need strengthening into something that can actually influence overall playstyle (rather than, at best, negating the very thing that Ranger should shine in), or they need to come up with a seriously good non-ribbon feature to STACK with them, rather than replace one of them with. I won't try to make suggestions here; that's multiple other threads' worth of discussion. But that's the general problem with Ranger 1: It isn't a complete class level.

This has nothing to do with the lazy and sloppy design inherent to TCE's "racial customization" options.

If all they'd done was introduce the new "custom race" option, I'd shrug that it's a bit strong and obsoletes Variant Human, but one could argue that V. Human was just the first of the "custom races." It would have been a better way to approach all the supposed game-related reasons they had for it.

It wouldn't have let them quite get their PR move designed to polarize people in, though. Ironic, isn't it?

[Sorinth]

This has nothing to do with the lazy and sloppy design inherent to TCE's "racial customization" options.

This I find strange. Wasn't a large part of your criticism for races that they were lazy because they didn't address every single concern/edge case and that they either should've redone all the races with floating ASIs in mind or waited for a 5.5/6e where they could it all together? So why is it different with the Ranger?

[Segev]

This I find strange. Wasn't a large part of your criticism for races that they were lazy because they didn't address every single concern/edge case and that they either should've redone all the races with floating ASIs in mind or waited for a 5.5/6e where they could it all together? So why is it different with the Ranger?

No. My criticism for their laziness is that they do not achieve their stated goal very well, they unbalance something that was previously better-balanced, and they are clearly rushed out there for PR purposes rather than to actually do something they genuinely think is a pure "better way to do things."

The changes made by the "optional" rules require more thought than this slap-dash effort to implement without breaking anything.

The Ranger rules in TCE are an attempt to give better, more useful options than the PHB did, but they fail at that goal.

My issues with the Ranger options in TCE are different than those with the racial "options" in TCE.

[Sorinth]

No. My criticism for their laziness is that they do not achieve their stated goal very well, they unbalance something that was previously better-balanced, and they are clearly rushed out there for PR purposes rather than to actually do something they genuinely think is a pure "better way to do things."

The changes made by the "optional" rules require more thought than this slap-dash effort to implement without breaking anything.

The Ranger rules in TCE are an attempt to give better, more useful options than the PHB did, but they fail at that goal.

My issues with the Ranger options in TCE are different than those with the racial "options" in TCE.

Considering it's an optional rule it doesn't unbalance anything since you can simply not play with it. Any future races that use these new rules are designed with the rules in mind so again no balance issues (Beyond the normal they often suck at balancing things).

Both arguably failed to achieve the stated goal.

So it really just comes down to your perception that they made the ASI changes for PR purposes but there's really nothing to support that view beyond you not liking the change. There are plenty of people who view it as an attempt to give better more useful options then the PHB did and was successful to a varying degree. You're also assuming because the optional rules are simple that no thought was put into it, yet it's far more likely they had many meetings, had internally tried many different things before finally settling on what they did. In general having things look/be simple actually takes work. Anyways I'm sure I won't change your perception here so I'm fine with dropping the conversation.

[ZRN]

No. My criticism for their laziness is that they do not achieve their stated goal very well, they unbalance something that was previously better-balanced, and they are clearly rushed out there for PR purposes rather than to actually do something they genuinely think is a pure "better way to do things."


Now, I don't work at WOTC and have no special insight here, but this seems like a really unlikely reading.

I think what happened is that, due to the unique cultural moment (BLM, etc), WOTC was feeling the heat from a lot of people online about perceived racism in their products, especially their back catalog, so they put together a quick PR story saying, "Look, we get that there's some problematic older stuff, but hey, Matt Mercer and Keith Baker made campaign settings WITHOUT all the dark-skin elves except the Token Exception being innately evil incest-monsters, and also in our upcoming stuff we're making some rules changes so player characters don't feel limited by their race."

I don't see any real evidence that the race changes in Tasha's were driven primarily by those PR concerns, any more than Matt Mercer's less-evil drow were a response to BLM. The various creators were just at work creating new stuff more in keeping with their contemporary understanding of race and culture and how those things should interact in fiction, and they took the PR opportunity to highlight those effort when they were getting roasted on Twitter.

If you've got a better way to rework racial ability score bonuses WITHOUT invalidating the existing published material and WITHOUT being longer than a couple paragraphs (so that you can easily fit it into AL rules, etc.), then congratulations, you're a better game designer! But I don't think sitting on the rules for another year or more (until the next big rules book after Tasha's) would make anything easier.

[Tanarii]

I thought WotC Devs confirmed that the floating ability scores were added purely in response to the April 2020 internet furor?

[EggKookoo]

I thought WotC Devs confirmed that the floating ability scores were added purely in response to the April 2020 internet furor?

It's hard to know for sure. As a player, I've often thought the way D&D handled race felt... clunky. But for me I wanted them to more cleanly separate the obvious biological characteristics from the social ones, and perhaps take a stand on which is which (like stonecunning).

I objected to the Tasha floating ASIs initially, feeling them to be unnecessary overreactions to topical real-world emotion. But once I got over that I realized I like them, and not because they're an alleged salve for those same emotions. I like that a PC can break the norm for its species. It's another thing to justify why you're out there risking your life adventuring instead of living a nice cozy life with your people.

[Dork_Forge]

Now, I don't work at WOTC and have no special insight here, but this seems like a really unlikely reading.

I think what happened is that, due to the unique cultural moment (BLM, etc), WOTC was feeling the heat from a lot of people online about perceived racism in their products, especially their back catalog, so they put together a quick PR story saying, "Look, we get that there's some problematic older stuff, but hey, Matt Mercer and Keith Baker made campaign settings WITHOUT all the dark-skin elves except the Token Exception being innately evil incest-monsters, and also in our upcoming stuff we're making some rules changes so player characters don't feel limited by their race."

I don't see any real evidence that the race changes in Tasha's were driven primarily by those PR concerns, any more than Matt Mercer's less-evil drow were a response to BLM. The various creators were just at work creating new stuff more in keeping with their contemporary understanding of race and culture and how those things should interact in fiction, and they took the PR opportunity to highlight those effort when they were getting roasted on Twitter.

If you've got a better way to rework racial ability score bonuses WITHOUT invalidating the existing published material and WITHOUT being longer than a couple paragraphs (so that you can easily fit it into AL rules, etc.), then congratulations, you're a better game designer! But I don't think sitting on the rules for another year or more (until the next big rules book after Tasha's) would make anything easier.

I think this would be more convincing if the rules didn't surface quickly after in AL and literally amount to 'just do what you want!'

It's a rule that doesn't take more than five minutes to draft and write and there has been absolutely zero indication of any balance concern regarding them.

IMO if they were going to do this then they'd have been better off allowing you to change one of your stat bumps (the smallest of them), that should preserve the core of what they were meant to achieve to begin with whilst not being a completely unhinged mess mechanically and stamping all over the Human/Half Elf's schtick.

Edit: Oh and it would have been more convincing had they not lied about it being an optional rule. If every race going forwards works like that and the 'optional rule' is AL legal then it's about as optional as feats and multiclassing, but harder for some DMs to say no to.

[ZRN]

I think this would be more convincing if the rules didn't surface quickly after in AL and literally amount to 'just do what you want!'

It's a rule that doesn't take more than five minutes to draft and write and there has been absolutely zero indication of any balance concern regarding them.

IMO if they were going to do this then they'd have been better off allowing you to change one of your stat bumps (the smallest of them), that should preserve the core of what they were meant to achieve to begin with whilst not being a completely unhinged mess mechanically and stamping all over the Human/Half Elf's schtick.

Edit: Oh and it would have been more convincing had they not lied about it being an optional rule. If every race going forwards works like that and the 'optional rule' is AL legal then it's about as optional as feats and multiclassing, but harder for some DMs to say no to.

I think the rules surfaced quickly after because they'd already been working on them and did enough testing to decide that they're reasonably balanced. I guess possible that they just tossed them out there with zero balance testing, but that seems unlikely, and honestly I think "completely unhinged mess" is a huge overstatement of their impact. Half-elves and variant humans are still quite good! Lots of archetypical character types now work better than they did before, and it's not like any new "broken" builds surfaced because of those rules (that I'm aware of).

[LudicSavant]

I thought WotC Devs confirmed that the floating ability scores were added purely in response to the April 2020 internet furor?

They've been talking about such things since at least as early as 2019.

[Dork_Forge]

I think the rules surfaced quickly after because they'd already been working on them and did enough testing to decide that they're reasonably balanced. I guess possible that they just tossed them out there with zero balance testing, but that seems unlikely, and honestly I think "completely unhinged mess" is a huge overstatement of their impact. Half-elves and variant humans are still quite good! Lots of archetypical character types now work better than they did before, and it's not like any new "broken" builds surfaced because of those rules (that I'm aware of).

-It's a change that had a unviersal upward swing in terms of power apart from standard and Variant Humans, unwarranted overall creep imo

-It made the best races better with the exception of V.Human and entered Mountain Dwarf into one of the best races based on stats and a very strong option overall based on the general Dwarf package. Dragonmarks alone are a huge Pandora's box, before you get to outliers like Yuan-Ti and Satyrs.

-It utterly errodes Human's niche as being a versatile and adaptive race/species

-It removes the feeling of going against the grain and being different, (again imo) counter to what they're meant to actually achieve

-All it achieves is something any given player could have discussed with their DM. This didn't need to be an optional rule it could have just been a little too tip on the side. 'Hey, you can always talk to your DM if you want x to have y and z' 5e is the edition for rulings over rules after all

[Amdy_vill]

I think so at least in a mechanical sense. I think races will stay around as lore but I think in future editions and as this edition goes on we will look at "Races" as lore and "Linages" are mechanical options.

Example: I play an orc but I use the Ruthless Linage, a hypothetical linage focused around combat similar to Orcs and dwarves.

I kinda like this idea as it makes playing odd ideas easier. If you want to play a half-dragon kobold just use a draconic linage, an angel or Half angel you an aasamiar like linage.

I think making your race a piece of flavor and your abilities a choice would let more interesting builds and characters exist.

[Ionathus]

I wholeheartedly believe that race will always be a feature of D&D, because it's conceptually distinctive -- even if it becomes mechanically less important.

In my current campaign, the two veterans picked a half-elf and a halfling, and the two newbies picked a genasi and a dragonborn, and have really been "leaning in" to the differences those races offer. This is mostly in regards to RP opportunities, but it's also made them easier to spot in a crowd, more intimidating, more/less useful when utility skills are required...they are both absolutely loving it.

In the other games I recently played in, we had a loxodon and a warforged and a tortle and some changelings. I have a friend who played her first D&D game recently and she was absolutely ecstatic about playing the sexiest tiefling temptress she could possibly create.

For players who prioritize the mechanics and the crunch? It's unlikely to matter as racial differences become less significant. But when most people think of modern D&D, I do think they imagine the opportunity to play somebody entirely different from who they are in real life.

[Sorinth]

-It's a change that had a unviersal upward swing in terms of power apart from standard and Variant Humans, unwarranted overall creep imo

-It made the best races better with the exception of V.Human and entered Mountain Dwarf into one of the best races based on stats and a very strong option overall based on the general Dwarf package. Dragonmarks alone are a huge Pandora's box, before you get to outliers like Yuan-Ti and Satyrs.

-It utterly errodes Human's niche as being a versatile and adaptive race/species

-It removes the feeling of going against the grain and being different, (again imo) counter to what they're meant to actually achieve

-All it achieves is something any given player could have discussed with their DM. This didn't need to be an optional rule it could have just been a little too tip on the side. 'Hey, you can always talk to your DM if you want x to have y and z' 5e is the edition for rulings over rules after all

Although there is a degree of power creep it's still well within the boundaries that existed before. It's not like the numbers for bounded accuracy have changed in any way. I very much disagree that it made the best races better. The "bad" races benefited from this change way more then the good races did. It's a very small boost to something like Yuan-Ti, whereas something like Gnome, Genasi, Tortle gets a much bigger boost.

[Dork_Forge]

Although there is a degree of power creep it's still well within the boundaries that existed before. It's not like the numbers for bounded accuracy have changed in any way. I very much disagree that it made the best races better. The "bad" races benefited from this change way more then the good races did. It's a very small boost to something like Yuan-Ti, whereas something like Gnome, Genasi, Tortle gets a much bigger boost.

Creep is additive, each new instance of it has potential to spiral through creep that has come before it and a perfect example of this is the Dragonmarks. Pick your stats to taste and you have some pretty good abilities, a nice ribbon and pretty much whatever spells you want that weren't already on your list.

As for good races getting better:

I'm not really sure how you can argue this to be honest, the only one left out was V. Human. Unless you don't consider 'now universally applicable' to be 'better'? Previously Half Elves made excellent Cha dependent (to some degree) characters, now they may excellent anything and their wide spread of stats can facillitate even heavily MAD builds easily, whilst opening the way to another previous instance of creep: Elven Accuracy.

The Yuan-Ti was once held back by incredibly niche stats, now the only thing holding them back is being labelled as 'monstrous' which let's be honest, holds very little weight now compared to when they were released, and a DM's willingness to allow Magic Resistance (which itself was made more 'normal' by the addition of the Satyr).

Creep is arguably inevitible, but with more creep coming out you at least know that it won't likely be game wide, something like this is not just game wide but it changes a fundamental design principle a significant amount of content was designed around (seriously, race bloat in 5e is massive compared to everything else).

[schm0]

Are they? With Tasha's they certainly took a step in that direction. In my opinion, it's the wrong direction and removes a large chunk of verisimilitude.

The idea of a vaguely humanoid paper doll where the player plays dress up with ability scores, skills and ribbons sounds incredibly boring to me.

[Segev]

I don't see any real evidence that the race changes in Tasha's were driven primarily by those PR concerns


I thought WotC Devs confirmed that the floating ability scores were added purely in response to the April 2020 internet furor?

WotC made the following statement (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/diversity-and-dnd):

"Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game - orcs and drow being two of the prime examples - have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. Despite our conscious efforts to the contrary, we have allowed some of those old descriptions to reappear in the game. We recognize that to live our values, we have to do an even better job in handling these issues. If we make mistakes, our priority is to make things right."

They go on to list how they're going to improve, including the following bullet point:

"Later this year, we will release a product (not yet announced) that offers a way for a player to customize their character’s origin, including the option to change the ability score increases that come from being an elf, a dwarf, or one of D&D's many other playable folk. This option emphasizes that each person in the game is an individual with capabilities all their own."

This product was TCE.

I do not think there's any question that this was driven by PR, unless you dispute that there were PR concerns in the statement quoted above.

[Sorinth]

Creep is additive, each new instance of it has potential to spiral through creep that has come before it and a perfect example of this is the Dragonmarks. Pick your stats to taste and you have some pretty good abilities, a nice ribbon and pretty much whatever spells you want that weren't already on your list.

As for good races getting better:

I'm not really sure how you can argue this to be honest, the only one left out was V. Human. Unless you don't consider 'now universally applicable' to be 'better'? Previously Half Elves made excellent Cha dependent (to some degree) characters, now they may excellent anything and their wide spread of stats can facillitate even heavily MAD builds easily, whilst opening the way to another previous instance of creep: Elven Accuracy.

The Yuan-Ti was once held back by incredibly niche stats, now the only thing holding them back is being labelled as 'monstrous' which let's be honest, holds very little weight now compared to when they were released, and a DM's willingness to allow Magic Resistance (which itself was made more 'normal' by the addition of the Satyr).

Creep is arguably inevitable, but with more creep coming out you at least know that it won't likely be game wide, something like this is not just game wide but it changes a fundamental design principle a significant amount of content was designed around (seriously, race bloat in 5e is massive compared to everything else).

Yuan-Ti was never held back by niche stats because Hexblade, Bard, Paladin are all among the better builds. The difference post Tasha's is now you can be as good as any other Fighter or Barbarian, but since that's still less powerful then the Yuan-Ti Hexadin they haven't really gained much in power. Where something like Tortle has gained considerably. Relatively speaking the weaker races gained more because they can now play any of the strong builds that they were previously at a disadvantage with.

So yes it's a universal power creep, but it's within the range of simply rolling nicely for stats. It benefits the weaker races more simply because the stronger builds are now easier for them to get.

[Dork_Forge]

Yuan-Ti was never held back by niche stats because Hexblade, Bard, Paladin are all among the better builds. The difference post Tasha's is now you can be as good as any other Fighter or Barbarian, but since that's still less powerful then the Yuan-Ti Hexadin they haven't really gained much in power. Where something like Tortle has gained considerably. Relatively speaking the weaker races gained more because they can now play any of the strong builds that they were previously at a disadvantage with.

So yes it's a universal power creep, but it's within the range of simply rolling nicely for stats. It benefits the weaker races more simply because the stronger builds are now easier for them to get.

Hexblade came out after Yuan-Ti did, but that doesn't change the fact that Int is useless to all of what you mentioned and the Paladin specifically would suffer from no Con or Str/Dex bump.

A Bard with no Dex/Con bump is also not free and clear since most of them only get light armor.

Cha/Int leaves you with a dead stat raise for everything but very, very niche and MAD multiclasses.

I agree that the Tortle has gained significantly, I'm commenting that almost everyone (poor Humans) has gained more power, which means the already stand out options have gotten more powerful. Whether or not you think the floor has raised to compensate the new ceiling is a matter of opinion, but the ceiling has certainly raised.

*Note: The Tortle as never a weak race because 17 AC is awesome

[Sorinth]

WotC made the following statement (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/diversity-and-dnd):

"Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game - orcs and drow being two of the prime examples - have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. Despite our conscious efforts to the contrary, we have allowed some of those old descriptions to reappear in the game. We recognize that to live our values, we have to do an even better job in handling these issues. If we make mistakes, our priority is to make things right."

They go on to list how they're going to improve, including the following bullet point:

"Later this year, we will release a product (not yet announced) that offers a way for a player to customize their character’s origin, including the option to change the ability score increases that come from being an elf, a dwarf, or one of D&D's many other playable folk. This option emphasizes that each person in the game is an individual with capabilities all their own."

This product was TCE.

I do not think there's any question that this was driven by PR, unless you dispute that there were PR concerns in the statement quoted above.

The thing is it's not like what they did was this brand new idea. It's something that has been discussed and wrestled with for years and years. Just because they finally pulled the trigger now doesn't mean it's all because of some twitter uproar. In fact they've taken similar steps in the past such as going from a +/- situation to only +s, and I remember hearing very similar complaints about the reasons behind the change when they did that. This is just one more step in a direction that has been years in the making, and frankly it's not going to be the last step.

[Dork_Forge]

The thing is it's not like what they did was this brand new idea. It's something that has been discussed and wrestled with for years and years. Just because they finally pulled the trigger now doesn't mean it's all because of some twitter uproar. In fact they've taken similar steps in the past such as going from a +/- situation to only +s, and I remember hearing very similar complaints about the reasons behind the change when they did that. This is just one more step in a direction that has been years in the making, and frankly it's not going to be the last step.

I think this would have been much better received had it been playested in UA since they wanted to pull it mid-edition. At the very least it's a heads up and broadcasts that they were actually trying balance.

[Sorinth]

Hexblade came out after Yuan-Ti did, but that doesn't change the fact that Int is useless to all of what you mentioned and the Paladin specifically would suffer from no Con or Str/Dex bump.

A Bard with no Dex/Con bump is also not free and clear since most of them only get light armor.

Cha/Int leaves you with a dead stat raise for everything but very, very niche and MAD multiclasses.

I agree that the Tortle has gained significantly, I'm commenting that almost everyone (poor Humans) has gained more power, which means the already stand out options have gotten more powerful. Whether or not you think the floor has raised to compensate the new ceiling is a matter of opinion, but the ceiling has certainly raised.

*Note: The Tortle as never a weak race because 17 AC is awesome

Does it matter if Hexblade came out after, this is about Tasha's isn't it?

Maybe I wasn't clear but I never denied that everyone has gained power (Except human), I was arguing that overall the bad races gained more then the good ones.

I also argued that the ceiling hasn't actually increased by much, as I said it's like rolling for stats and getting something nice. It's a boost it's just not that special/game breaking.

[Sorinth]

I think this would have been much better received had it been playested in UA since they wanted to pull it mid-edition. At the very least it's a heads up and broadcasts that they were actually trying balance.

You are probably right about that. They may have felt since floating ASIs already existed for some races that they had a good feel that they didn't need it playtested via UA, but yeah going the UA route would've potentially changed some peoples perception.

[Dork_Forge]

Does it matter if Hexblade came out after, this is about Tasha's isn't it?

I said that because you said this:


Yuan-Ti was never held back by niche stats because Hexblade, Bard, Paladin are all among the better builds.

Before Hexblade came out they were much more held back by niche stats.


Maybe I wasn't clear but I never denied that everyone has gained power (Except human), I was arguing that overall the bad races gained more then the good ones.

I half agree with this, if a race is just downright bad, then yes they're much more mechanically viable with appropriate stats. If a race had a compelling feature (like Tortle AC) then they were never bad to begin with, Tortles have made fantastic Barbarians and Str Fighters since they were released.



I also argued that the ceiling hasn't actually increased by much, as I said it's like rolling for stats and getting something nice. It's a boost it's just not that special/game breaking.

Except it isn't like rolling for stats, because now if you roll well for stats you can guarantee what you want on top of it and if you roll for stats you can move around your racial bonus to round out things as you want.

[Segev]

The thing is it's not like what they did was this brand new idea. It's something that has been discussed and wrestled with for years and years. Just because they finally pulled the trigger now doesn't mean it's all because of some twitter uproar. In fact they've taken similar steps in the past such as going from a +/- situation to only +s, and I remember hearing very similar complaints about the reasons behind the change when they did that. This is just one more step in a direction that has been years in the making, and frankly it's not going to be the last step.

"Oh, yeah, this has totally been bandied about for years. The fact that this just so happens to coincide with a bunch of others doing similar things in a time of uproar over it when it's considered the Thing To Do is just a coincidence."

Just like the Waterdhavian noble whose charitable donations to the church just suddenly happen to align with the revelation of his massive moral scandals that he needs a pious appearance to overcome is purely coincidental.

Except the only scandal in question has the noble asserting that it exists because certain others allege it, and he's found a way to blame his predecessor and anybody who supported his predecessor for it, while simultaneously branding anybody who disagrees with his rule a heretic rather than a legitimate critic.

[Witty Username]

On the Tasha's power creep discussion, I find it difficult to believe it is a serious issue on the race front. Custom lineage is the only one that risks unseating variant human as best race for most builds.

[OldTrees1]

On the Tasha's power creep discussion, I find it difficult to believe it is a serious issue on the race front. Custom lineage is the only one that risks unseating variant human as best race for most builds.

Half Elf is a contender.

And there a few species whose noncomparable features would have them outshine VHuman at 4th+

However since they are noncomparable features, they might not get as universal of utility as VHuman.

On the 3rd limb (what am I a lizardfolk now?), players are more likely to see universal utility in the noncomparable features they like. That is part of VHuman's hype.

[Ettina]

Should it really impact most saving throws/skill checks? I have my doubts about that especially given most strength saving throws are about being knocked prone and in theory the lower center of mass would help and a lot of strength checks can be things like climbing a cliff where the smaller weight values means less strength would be needed.

You can also fluff a success differently. Eg if a goliath just broke down a door with a Strength check, maybe they shoulder-checked it and it splintered into pieces. If a pixie did it, they slammed the door specifically at the hinges, using their Strength concentrated in specific spots to create two little holes that made the door fall down.

[Dankus Memakus]

To be honest, I almost wish they'd go back to races-as-classes, or at least something like 3.5's bloodline progressions. I don't want to just play a human with pointy ears-- there's very little point in picking a nonhuman race unless it's going to be a significant part of the character. And if that's the case, I definitely want more than just a couple stat modifiers and a special ability or two.

I'm probably in the minority on this one, though.

I agree that races as classes was a really cool system. I understand that alot of people won't be down for that but I'd love a system similar to 5e where I can play a dwarf class. You could do cool things with 5e style subclasses too.

[HappyDaze]

I agree that races as classes was a really cool system. I understand that alot of people won't be down for that but I'd love a system similar to 5e where I can play a dwarf class. You could do cool things with 5e style subclasses too.

If we acknowledge that WotC doesn't want to fix ability scores or alignments because they reinforce negative stereotypes, then fixing class to race in a system like D&D is likely to register as the biggest associating stereotypes to race possible. Perhaps another publisher or a small operator on DTRPG might take that route.

[Kuulvheysoon]

See, this was where the 3.5e Unearthed Arcana book was neat - it had "Racial Paragon" classes that were exactly that - basically classes as races (bit more complex than that, but that's the gist of it).

[Tvtyrant]

If we acknowledge that WotC doesn't want to fix ability scores or alignments because they reinforce negative stereotypes, then fixing class to race in a system like D&D is likely to register as the biggest associating stereotypes to race possible. Perhaps another publisher or a small operator on DTRPG might take that route.

Cultural classes would be fine though. "menzoberranzan noble" and specifically combines witchcraft, assassination and cleric magic.

Silverymoon Elf, basically a Monk//Ranger. Imaskari, wizard with artificer infusions but they eat your spellslots.

[Ionathus]

Cultural classes would be fine though. "menzoberranzan noble" and specifically combines witchcraft, assassination and cleric magic.

Silverymoon Elf, basically a Monk//Ranger. Imaskari, wizard with artificer infusions but they eat your spellslots.

(emphasis mine) At that point, you're really just talking about reflavoring an existing race/class combo, not creating or codifying a new mechanic.

[JellyPooga]

Cultural classes would be fine though. "menzoberranzan noble" and specifically combines witchcraft, assassination and cleric magic.

Silverymoon Elf, basically a Monk//Ranger. Imaskari, wizard with artificer infusions but they eat your spellslots.

An interesting development would be to model all functions of a characters build in the same way that Classes do (i.e. gaining abilities as level increases), to similar degree to one another. For example, Race, Background and Class could all easily have equal showing on the abilities gained as you level up, rather than Race and Background being largely static bonuses at level 1 (with some few exceptions offering some bonuses at higher levels, of course). Even Ability Scores could technically be modelled in a similar way, by choosing a "style" of development for your various scores. By way of illustration, it might help to think of the "Gestalt" variant rules of earlier editions, where multiple classes advanced simultaneously, except instead of advancing two Classes, you advance all of your "developmental features" (i.e. Race, Background, Class) together. It would offer a huge opportunity to expand character archetypes and builds, but would require delicate balancing and likely a large degree of streamlining to be viable.

[Tvtyrant]

(emphasis mine) At that point, you're really just talking about reflavoring an existing race/class combo, not creating or codifying a new mechanic.

Depends on how you do it. Monk especially is literally designed not to be able to use its features with other classes, but an Elf running up a wall and attacking 4 times in a second with their swords after tracking their enemies across moving water is extremely ELF.

I like JellyPooga's approach, but I also liked Legend's tracks and 4E's Path system. Having your character gain progressive track features for class, race, and background appeals to me.

[Theodoxus]

See, this was where the 3.5e Unearthed Arcana book was neat - it had "Racial Paragon" classes that were exactly that - basically classes as races (bit more complex than that, but that's the gist of it).

I did that for one campaign build. Had Eladrin Bladesingers and Dwarven Stonelords (Pathfinder Paladin alternate class features to make it spell-less) updated for 5E. Halfling Rogue/Slingers, Gnome Illusionists... I think I had some others.

My current thought that I haven't had a chance to implement is to grant each race (and probably limiting the races to the Big 6) one of 3 'classes' that both epitomize the race as well as use the three power sources I have built into my world architecture (Arcane, Divine and Primal).

So, a dwarf might be able to choose between something like an Artificer/Fighter, Cleric/Paladin or Barbarian/Rogue type mashup (they're not multiclasses in the traditional sense, but instead a full class build around elements of the two, blended. Each level, if taken in comparison to the base class would be a little weaker, but taken together open up new and interesting options.

BTW, for those curious, here's how the 12* classes line up in my world:

Arcane: Arcanist, Fighter, Sorcerer, Warlock
Divine: Bard, Cleric, Monk, Paladin
Primal: Barbarian, Druid, Ranger, Rogue

*I removed Wizard long ago from my games as a class and offer Wizardry as a 1st level feat instead that turns any caster (despite type/power source) into a Vancian caster.

[Asmotherion]

The solution lies in PF2e where you build your race with racial feats as a mini class of sorts. I think that's the best way to go about it.

[TyGuy]

The solution lies in PF2e where you build your race with racial feats as a mini class of sorts. I think that's the best way to go about it.
Buffet style options sound good on paper. But that leads to the inclination of optimizing and there being clear winner and loser options. "Package deal" options in games have better spreads of representation because one takes the good with the bad. Possibly because the "packages" have stronger themes as well.

[Asmotherion]

Buffet style options sound good on paper. But that leads to the inclination of optimizing and there being clear winner and loser options. "Package deal" options in games have better spreads of representation because one takes the good with the bad. Possibly because the "packages" have stronger themes as well.

I'd argue that, optimisation (or choosing against it) is also part of the game, and if those options are relativelly balanced, it can make your racial choice something more interesting than just "I pick Human for the extra feat" or "Half-Elf for the Cha bonus" (Pure role playing aside). You get something that's evolving as you level, because you are X race.

[OldTrees1]

I'd argue that, optimisation (or choosing against it) is also part of the game, and if those options are relativelly balanced, it can make your racial choice something more interesting than just "I pick Human for the extra feat" or "Half-Elf for the Cha bonus" (Pure role playing aside). You get something that's evolving as you level, because you are X race.

Bolded for emphasis.

What about features of different sizes?
What about downsides?
What about features that combined have a different total than the sum of their parts?

A buffet style has its advantages, and its disadvantages. So why not have both (see example from this thread)? (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25075581&postcount=38)

[da newt]

I think recent additions and options have reduced the mechanical influence of the various races and allowed for greater customization with less penalty for non-synergized race/class combos, allowing more freedom to create.

I'm a big fan of the increased opportunities / freedom to pick whatever tickles your fancy - I've always preferred to play the more unique races. My current PCs are a Goblin, a Dhampir, and a Warforged, my favorite PC (may he RIP) was a Bugbear, and I look fwd to playing Lizardfolk, Vendalkin, and hopefully a ThriKreen in the future.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Bolded for emphasis.

What about features of different sizes?
What about downsides?
What about features that combined have a different total than the sum of their parts?

A buffet style has its advantages, and its disadvantages. So why not have both (see example from this thread)? (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25075581&postcount=38)

Buffet style (which is basically just a chunky point-buy without saying that name) easily spirals out of control (the interactions that need to be considered grow factorially). Point buy systems require heavy "GM" control over what's acceptable to prevent them from exploding. Not just in the over-powered way, but also in the under-powered way.[1] Because there isn't a uniform way of assigning costs to things--the value changes not only with build but with level and other choices.

In general, "balance" and "diversity" are in tension. Multi-sided, non-uniform balance falls apart fast unless you homogenize everything to a large degree (cf 4e's "every ability is X damage + Y defined rider" and "everybody uses the same recharge and ability gain schedule" things).

[1] Personally, I believe that systems should either go all-in on point-buy or all-in on fixed-menu (classes that define their options internally). Mixing the two isn't so great.

[Witty Username]

Buffet style options sound good on paper. But that leads to the inclination of optimizing and there being clear winner and loser options. "Package deal" options in games have better spreads of representation because one takes the good with the bad. Possibly because the "packages" have stronger themes as well.

That would require the packages to be balanced, using 5e as a example that was never really the case. Dissuading optimizers I think is a lost cause, and I am not convinced that balance is served better by bundles.
As for theme, that will depend a lot on the players involved, but picking features for theme would likely involve some amount of synergistic abilities so optimization isn't necessarily the enemy.
A lot of this would depend on the design team handling it more than the method chosen.

Edit: If you didn't see the typo, you are too late.

[Theodoxus]

[1] Personally, I believe that systems should either go all-in on point-buy or all-in on fixed-menu (classes that define their options internally). Mixing the two isn't so great.

So, you've never allowed variant humans in your games? All I did was replace the feat with a list of mostly PHB race abilities.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, you've never allowed variant humans in your games? All I did was replace the feat with a list of mostly PHB race abilities.

I find feats to be generally poor design. But I also value sticking closer to the basic rules that people expect. So, just like the spell system, I suck up my gripes and move on. I've got half written homebrew that completely changes races, but it's half written due to lacking play testing and (more importantly) motivation.

[Leon]

Do races no longer serve a useful purpose in D&D?


{Scrubbed}

[Wardog]

If ASI aren't going to be tied to race, do you even need ASI at level 1?

What if you dropped them entirely, but gave other, more substantial benefits.

Like e.g. "big, strong" races get advantage on strength checks/saves, agile races get advantage on dex, etc. Possibly also give disadvantages on appropriate attributes as well.

Would that be a more effective way of mechanically representing the differences between races, rather than minor attribute bonuses that mean a half-orc is 5% better at arm-wrestling than a halfling?

[DwarfFighter]

If ASI aren't going to be tied to race, do you even need ASI at level 1?

What if you dropped them entirely, but gave other, more substantial benefits.

Like e.g. "big, strong" races get advantage on strength checks/saves, agile races get advantage on dex, etc. Possibly also give disadvantages on appropriate attributes as well.

Would that be a more effective way of mechanically representing the differences between races, rather than minor attribute bonuses that mean a half-orc is 5% better at arm-wrestling than a halfling?

I figure there is no real problem with a Str 16 Halfling and a Str 16 Half-Orc working together against NPCs or the environment, but it gets a bit weird for me when they are matching up against each other. I guess one could homebrew in special rules to make some account for difference in character size:


When making opposed ability checks, the larger character adds a +2 bonus to his Strength (Athletics) check, and the smaller character adds +2 to his Dexterity (Acrobatics) check.

I wouldn't want to modify the races specifically - too much ground to cover.

-DF

[Segev]

I figure there is no real problem with a Str 16 Halfling and a Str 16 Half-Orc working together against NPCs or the environment, but it gets a bit weird for me when they are matching up against each other. I guess one could homebrew in special rules to make some account for difference in character size:


When making opposed ability checks, the larger character adds a +2 bonus to his Strength (Athletics) check, and the smaller character adds +2 to his Dexterity (Acrobatics) check.

I wouldn't want to modify the races specifically - too much ground to cover.

-DF

I don't even have a problem with "the strongest halfling" and "the strongest half-orc" both being Str 20. Both are exceptional. The halfling just a little more so, given that the average half-orc is stronger than the average halfling. What bugs me is that we now are in a situation, due to TCE's rules becoming "the standard," where the average halfling is just as strong as the average half-orc.

[EggKookoo]

I don't even have a problem with "the strongest halfling" and "the strongest half-orc" both being Str 20. Both are exceptional. The halfling just a little more so, given that the average half-orc is stronger than the average halfling. What bugs me is that we now are in a situation, due to TCE's rules becoming "the standard," where the average halfling is just as strong as the average half-orc.

I think the intention, though, is that only PCs get that kind of flexibility. NPC halfings are still intended to be weaker than NPC orcs, on average.

[Sorinth]

I don't even have a problem with "the strongest halfling" and "the strongest half-orc" both being Str 20. Both are exceptional. The halfling just a little more so, given that the average half-orc is stronger than the average halfling. What bugs me is that we now are in a situation, due to TCE's rules becoming "the standard," where the average halfling is just as strong as the average half-orc.

The stat blocks were already race independent. So a half orc commoner already had the same stats as the halfling commoner unless the DM optionally added the racial features to the NPC stat blocks. And if they are modifying the statblock then they can still choose to assign the floating +2 asi to str for the half orc and dex for the halfling so nothing has changed.

[PhantomSoul]

I think the intention, though, is that only PCs get that kind of flexibility.

{Scrubbed}

[EggKookoo]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}


I think that's exactly it. If PCs represented the average, they would stay home being average. They wouldn't be out in the world adventuring and being exceptional.

[Elbeyon]

New idea. After character creation, the player rolls a 1d10000. If they don't roll 10000 they have to retire the character before the start of the adventure and make up a new character (who most also roll a 1d10000).

[PhantomSoul]

I think that's exactly it. If PCs represented the average, they would stay home being average. They wouldn't be out in the world adventuring and being exceptional.

{Scrubbed} You already reflect individual variation (that's the "you're exceptional" bit) and your racial ability scores add to that (except apparently you-the-character get to ignore your species and override it -- nope).

[EggKookoo]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
You already reflect individual variation (that's the "you're exceptional" bit) and your racial ability scores add to that (except apparently you-the-character get to ignore your species and override it -- nope).

I mean, except, yup. You've always been able to do this. Take a PHB dwarf. Use the standard array. Put the 8 on your Con, +2, it's 10. Put the 15 on Cha. Become a warlock. Profit.

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, again, they're apparently so ~great~ that they're undoing their species (congrats, your orc is a weakling?). Idiotic. You already reflect individual variation (that's the "you're exceptional" bit) and your racial ability scores add to that (except apparently you-the-character get to ignore your species and override it -- nope).


I mean, except, yup. You've always been able to do this. Take a PHB dwarf. Use the standard array. Put the 8 on your Con, +2, it's 10. Put the 15 on Cha. Become a warlock. Profit.

It can be even worse with rolling. Play a Half-orc wizard. You roll 18,17,15,12,7,3. You gonna toss those stats? Hell no. You're just gonna be the weakest ass Horc that ever lived. Maybe you opt to be an artificer instead, and build yourself a sweet pair of Gauntlets of Ogre Power... or maybe you just hire/charm/dominate some strong bodyguards Sherpa to haul your stuff around.

Just because PB/SA are the way char-op is done because it creates a level playing field for discussion, doesn't mean rolling is obsolete. Outside of AL, I don't encounter PB at all. YMMV.