Sage Advice - Creature Evolutions

[Warder]

There's a new Sage Advice about how they're handling creatures going forward:

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/creature-evolutions

One of the interesting bits is that they aren't getting rid of alignment, which I expected them to! They're bringing it back, if a bit nerfed in purpose. Hopefully it's enough of a middle ground for everyone to be "fine" with it, if not jubilant.

There's another section that has me concerned though, and I wanted to check what you guys thought about it. I've often complained about how everything in D&D 5e feels more and more samey, and from what I can tell it looks like they're taking another huge leap in homogenizing races - this time it's not about mechanics, but rather they're changing all races to have roughly the same age span and also the same size! These are the relevant quotes:


New character races lack an Age trait. We instead now provide the following text about a character’s life span: “The typical life span of a player character in the D&D multiverse is about a century, assuming the character doesn’t meet a violent end on an adventure. Members of some races, such as dwarves and elves, can live for centuries.”


Also, rather than suggesting height and weight in a race, we provide the following text: “Player characters, regardless of race, typically fall into the same ranges of height and weight that humans have in our world. If you’d like to determine your character’s height or weight randomly, consult the Random Height and Weight table in the Player’s Handbook, and choose the row in the table that best represents the build you imagine for your character.”

I need help figuring this out. I've understood the reasoning behind earlier changes even if I haven't agreed with the execution, but I don't understand where this is coming from at all. What purpose does this serve? Am I just being blind and missing important context, or are halflings and goliaths the same size now? Or is this a "no lore implications at all, just freedom for players to do whatever they want" sort of thing? Please use the Help Action on me, because I need Advantage for this particular Arcana check.

[strangebloke]

I need help figuring this out. I've understood the reasoning behind earlier changes even if I haven't agreed with the execution, but I don't understand where this is coming from at all. What purpose does this serve? Am I just being blind and missing important context, or are halflings and goliaths the same size now? Or is this a "no lore implications at all, just freedom for players to do whatever they want" sort of thing? Please use the Help Action on me, because I need Advantage for this particular Arcana check.

feels like this is a lore justification for mechanical homogenization?

Conventionally people would argue that you need ability mods in place because halflings and goliaths aren't the same size and that should be reflected. This could be trying to get ahead of that? Of course, Saying that all player races are "within normal human range" still allows for 3 foot halflings and 9 foot goliaths, it just also allows for 9 foot halflings and 3 foot goliaths.

I disagree with mechanical homogenization because I think its less interesting, but this feels even worse, as races are perhaps even more important to determining a character's aesthetics and this cuts into that.

[Unoriginal]

There's a new Sage Advice about how they're handling creatures going forward:

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/creature-evolutions

One of the interesting bits is that they aren't getting rid of alignment, which I expected them to! They're bringing it back, if a bit nerfed in purpose. Hopefully it's enough of a middle ground for everyone to be "fine" with it, if not jubilant.

There's another section that has me concerned though, and I wanted to check what you guys thought about it. I've often complained about how everything in D&D 5e feels more and more samey, and from what I can tell it looks like they're taking another huge leap in homogenizing races - this time it's not about mechanics, but rather they're changing all races to have roughly the same age span and also the same size! These are the relevant quotes:





I need help figuring this out. I've understood the reasoning behind earlier changes even if I haven't agreed with the execution, but I don't understand where this is coming from at all. What purpose does this serve? Am I just being blind and missing important context, or are halflings and goliaths the same size now? Or is this a "no lore implications at all, just freedom for players to do whatever they want" sort of thing? Please use the Help Action on me, because I need Advantage for this particular Arcana check.


I'm expecting those changes to be left on the cutting room's floor once the internet crowd react to them and then make clear they did not want all their characters to be nondescript 5x5x5 cubes of stats.

Same way on how they didn't include alignments for monsters... for one book, before going the "the PHB and the MM already state that, but as a reminder those are only 'Typically X alignment' suggestions" route.

[PhoenixPhyre]

feels like this is a lore justification for mechanical homogenization?

Conventionally people would argue that you need ability mods in place because halflings and goliaths aren't the same size and that should be reflected. This could be trying to get ahead of that? Of course, Saying that all player races are "within normal human range" still allows for 3 foot halflings and 9 foot goliaths, it just also allows for 9 foot halflings and 3 foot goliaths.

I disagree with mechanical homogenization because I think its less interesting, but this feels even worse, as races are perhaps even more important to determining a character's aesthetics and this cuts into that.

Yeah. And this will be one thing I put my foot down on--races are way more firmly in the DM's purview than any other mechanical bit. Because they're not just abstract names for archetypes that may not exist as organizations or even anything anyone in-setting would call themselves, but races absolutely have to.

I mean, if for specific races you want to leave it open-ended, go ahead. But applying it by blanket to all races going forward is...stupid. And one example of why my expectations for "5.5" are so low.

[Felhammer]

De-coupling Races/Lineages from a very important mechanical benefit, like ability score improvement, is a good change. That issue has been a problem for decades in D&D. It is why 3E has so many different variants on the same race with slightly tweaked ability score improvements (like the Gold Dwarf, whose primary role for many groups was to let a player play a dwarf who did not have a bad Charisma). This was an even bigger issue in 4E, where ability score bonuses from races really mattered for many builds. So, to me, de-coupling the race/lineage and ability score improvements is a net positive for the hobby. It means people will feel more comfortable making weird combinations of race/lineage and class, which is a big positive... Even if it means the game will feel more homogenized.

Letting players pick their languages is an interesting idea. I know it is part of a larger issue with people (especially on Twitter) wanting to de-couple race/lineage from culture. It is a minor change that will not greatly affect the game but it is a nice one.

The changes to Alignment seem reasonable. For me, I have never adhered very closely to the idea that every member of a race/lineage is X/Y alignment. I always took it to mean "typically" for the "assumed/generic setting for D&D." Individuals were always variable, with alignments unique to their own upbringing and life experiences. That is, until I started talking to people online about this and realized some people were... Very fervent about their beliefs that those alignment tags were immutable. :smalleek: So yes, this feels like a good middle ground.

I must have missed the controversy over the Age issue. Can someone clue me in on that issue?

The height/weight issue seems like something that some would find difficult to deal with (especially if you want to run a character outside the recommended guide rails). I never really used those tables for PC generation but I often times found myself using the tables when generating NPCs that I did not have a good physical description for.

The changes to the stat block are a net positive to the game, especially for the audience that 5E has cultivated. Monsters typically have a shelf life of 5 rounds. Putting the "good stuff" front and center is - IMO - what should have been done from day 1.

[Tanarii]

Same way on how they didn't include alignments for monsters... for one book, before going the "the PHB and the MM already state that, but as a reminder those are only 'Typically X alignment' suggestions" route.
If the reprint Orcs, Hobgoblins, and Goblins as "any alignment" instead of "typically X Evil" then we'll know they still gave in to the April 2020 social media / internet furor.

[Felhammer]

If the reprint Orcs, Hobgoblins, and Goblins as "any alignment" instead of "typically X Evil" then we'll know they still gave in to the April 2020 social media / internet furor.

Given that Monsters of the Multiverse will be out in three months, I seriously doubt they would announce this and then back track.

[P. G. Macer]

If the reprint Orcs, Hobgoblins, and Goblins as "any alignment" instead of "typically X Evil" then we'll know they still gave in to the April 2020 social media / internet furor.

They also mentioned that they were going to reclassify many humanoids as other creature types, which they had already hinted at doing with gnolls, so either orcs et al. are going to be “any alignment” or no longer humanoid.

I was initially supportive of WotC’s plans when they announced the Diversity Statement in 2020, but as time has passed and I’ve seen what the changes actually are, I’ve become more and more discontent, first with the Tasha’s Ability Score Increase changes, then making them optional in name only, and now this. I initially dismissed fears of homogenization out of hand, but with the current plans for age and size I have to now eat crow.

[strangebloke]

They also mentioned that they were going to reclassify many humanoids as other creature types, which they had already hinted at doing with gnolls, so either orcs et al. are going to be “any alignment” or no longer humanoid.

I was initially supportive of WotC’s plans when they announced the Diversity Statement in 2020, but as time has passed and I’ve seen what the changes actually are, I’ve become more and more discontent, first with the Tasha’s Ability Score Increase changes, then making them optional in name only, and now this. I initially dismissed fears of homogenization out of hand, but with the current plans for age and size I have to now eat crow.

Right?

It's like, you want to acknowledge that DND is a forty year old game with some art and preconceptions that are extremely ""yikes"" in today's climate? Great! You want to redefine lore to be less troublesome and more truly fantastical? I'm all for it!

...You want to get rid of races as a mechanical decision altogether? Even for abilities that basically nobody finds to be "problematic"?

...You want to deny that goliaths are usually larger than halflings because... something?

Honestly its more baffling than anything and I've no idea why they'd do this. Wait. Wait. GUYS. ...Does this mean the PHB halfling might have been a Goliath all along????

[Felhammer]

Right?

It's like, you want to acknowledge that DND is a forty year old game with some art and preconceptions that are extremely ""yikes"" in today's climate? Great! You want to redefine lore to be less troublesome and more truly fantastical? I'm all for it!

...You want to get rid of races as a mechanical decision altogether? Even for abilities that basically nobody finds to be "problematic"?

...You want to deny that goliaths are usually larger than halflings because... something?

Honestly its more baffling than anything and I've no idea why they'd do this. Wait. Wait. GUYS. ...Does this mean the PHB halfling might have been a Goliath all along????

If the only thing making you want to be a particular race was the fact that it got +2 to one stat, then it was a poorly designed and inspired race.

[Hael]

I already disagreed with the custom race stat block change (and years ago I disagreed with removing the gender based stat scores), and this is just another move towards removing race based stats/abilities/features altogether and just making it DM fiat.

Ok, the reason I didn't like those changes before had nothing to do with RP, perceived realism or world building, and everything to do with mechanical optimization and game design.

It's simply more fun when you have constraints and differing abilities sets on PCs. Its one of the reasons I absolutely abhor standard array and point buy systems. Having everything 'samey' is anethema to TRPGs longevity. Yea it makes it easier for lazy developers to balance, but it ends up being extremely boring in the long run.

[strangebloke]

If the only thing making you want to be a particular race was the fact that it got +2 to one stat, then it was a poorly designed and inspired race.

I mean, it does inform the sorts of characters you build with such a race? Like even if you build a tiefling barbarian, you're going to be a more charismatic guy than normal. If you're building a tiefling in a CHA-focused-class you might be more inclined to pick up half-feats and that might be something special. Like this isn't an important thing, its just the character building minigame, but it is part of the game.

It isn't like the other racial features are less bad somehow. If anything the +2 ability scores are the least offensive part of any race option. Stuff like the Half-Orc's ability to shrug off immense pain is way way more offensive to someone who cares about this sort of thing.

But ultimately this isn't the biggest deal, and if I was running at a table using these rules I wouldn't be upset (except from where it caused balance issues). Races are mostly important because of aesthetics and how they fit into the setting, and the stat mods and abilities are only really important as they play into that.

[Amechra]

Letting players pick their languages is an interesting idea. I know it is part of a larger issue with people (especially on Twitter) wanting to de-couple race/lineage from culture. It is a minor change that will not greatly affect the game but it is a nice one.

As someone who already does this in their home game... no one would bring up the "issue" if they bothered to offer races that weren't just humans in funny make-up.

I say this as someone who offers sequentially hermaphroditic worms who breathe through their skin as a playable race.

[Christew]

What purpose does this serve? Am I just being blind and missing important context, or are halflings and goliaths the same size now? Or is this a "no lore implications at all, just freedom for players to do whatever they want" sort of thing?
Mechanically this doesn't seem to do anything at all really. The age disclaimer still admits that some races are longer lived than others. The size disclaimer recommends human range, but that is something like under two feet to almost nine feet in height and something like 5-1400 pounds in weight.

I don't see lore implications (save that they are going to supply less of it). I see less work in writing/publishing and a reduced possibility of future age/body shaming accusations for WotC. Just stuffing a little bit extra under the "ask your DM" umbrella.

[TyGuy]

Magical creatures that have a strong moral inclination (angels, demons, devils, undead, and the like) have an alignment preceded by the word “Typically.” For example, a demon’s stat block says “Typically Chaotic Evil,” since it is typical for a D&D demon to be chaotic evil. That one word—“typically”—reminds the DM that the alignment is a narrative suggestion; it isn’t an existential absolute. The holy can fall, and the fiendish can rise. Members of certain organizations—charitable knighthoods or diabolical cults, for example—also sometimes get the “Typically” treatment.
Don't fiends turn into celestials and vice versa with alignment shifts??? Looking at you Zariel...

[Tanarii]

Given that Monsters of the Multiverse will be out in three months, I seriously doubt they would announce this and then back track.
Depends on how you interpret "Generic Humanoids" to be getting "any alignment".

[Thunderous Mojo]

If the reprint Orcs, Hobgoblins, and Goblins as "any alignment" instead of "typically X Evil" then we'll know they still gave in to the April 2020 social media / internet furor.

You can have Orcs be always Evil in your campaign.

*WotC has made it abundantly clear, from first release of the books to just now in this Sage Advice article, that the DM has final say on creatures alignments.*

Also, it is called Listening...not "giving in"...based off the demographics of whom is playing D&D now....your opinion, is likely not the majority opinion.

{Scrubbed}


Right?
Honestly its more baffling than anything and I've no idea why they'd do this. Wait. Wait. GUYS. ...Does this mean the PHB halfling might have been a Goliath all along????

No, it now means you can play a Halfling like the Old Took, (or like the taller Pipen and Merry after Ent-drink)...now a halfling Barbarian can count as Medium sized, (tall as a dwarf like the Old Took) and able to use Heavy Weapons.

To be honest, I don't know if WotC is getting rid of the Small size for PCs, but it might be nice to remove the Weapon Use and Grappling Limitations imposed on Small Characters.

[Xihirli]

Monster statblocks losing alignment makes them setting-agnostic, if anything. No effect on most gameplay.
I mean, it's not as if a DM is ever going to introduce a monster on accident. Generally, a DM will know which creatures are there to be evil and die, be evil but able to be reasoned with, be good and helpless, etc. etc.

Goblins being typically evil in FR shouldn't necessarily be included in their statblock, because you're either going to use the same statblock in a game set in The Goblin Wood setting, or you're custom making every monster and you actually never opened the monster manual. Volo's included a brief rundown of a goblin society in FR already, and I actually liked it. The monster manual and its expansions can never account for every setting their monsters can be used in, so having a line between the statblock (portable between settings) and the flavor text on the side seems like a pretty good idea as a consistent rule. Shame they haven't been doing it the whole time.

[P. G. Macer]

Don't fiends turn into celestials and vice versa with alignment shifts??? Looking at you Zariel...

Not always; theAbbot in Curse of Strand is a fallen deva with a LE alignment, but still retains the Celestial type. Additionally LE celestials frequent appearances in Ravnica and Theros, and the Empyrean in the Monster Manual has a 25% chance to be Neutral Evil.

[Zevox]

I'm just confused by the age and height/weight things, honestly. Especially since the comments about age still acknowledge some races living longer, so it's not like they're trying to take that away... they're just not going to include specific information about how long each race lives on average from now on? Why? What purpose could that possibly serve? :smallconfused:

And the height/weight thing is bizarre just because it's obviously false. For some races one of their most obvious, best-known traits is how they're significantly shorter (Halflings, Gnomes, Dwarves) or taller (Goliaths, Firbolgs, Dragonborn) than most other races (and consequently would logically also be lighter or heavier on average respectively). Hell, Halflings literally get their name from that fact. And again, I don't see a purpose it serves to pretend like that's not the case.

I say this as someone who is totally fine with removing stat boosts from races - that makes sense to me as you can just as easily explain them as representing areas where your individual character is particularly gifted, rather than things that your race is generally better at than average, and there's numerous obvious reasons to go in that direction. These particular changes make no such sense in any way. :smallconfused:

[ProsecutorGodot]

I was going to argue that the Height and Weight option might be done tactfully enough to avoid oddities, perhaps exclusive to the races that would have the option to be small or medium... But in my research I noticed that this is already an option for Fairy, a small race. The only guidance it offers is "be like a human, look at this chart" so you end up at least twice as tall as a Halfling while being treated as the same size mechanically.

Not too concerned about the age thing though, most races were within 20 years under a century anyway. There are very few outliers as far as short lived races go, although Aarakocra are winning pretty big here and more than tripling their lifespan. This seems like mostly a DM thing to worry about, player characters are very often just a snapshot of a handful of years of their life anyway, we almost never have to concern ourselves with dying a natural death.

[Greywander]

I find the age thing especially baffling. Racial alignments as well. Did anyone ever take them as anything more than just a suggestion? This is useful information that can help you to understand that race and the cultures they create. What if we need to know the lifespan for a newer race? Will that info ever be printed? What about a DM trying to figure out how to RP a city of X race, with alignments no longer being given?

[GentlemanVoodoo]

Well, more silliness from WOTC. Not surprised.

[ProsecutorGodot]

What about a DM trying to figure out how to RP a city of X race, with alignments no longer being given?

They were only ever useful as shorthand and as time went on the descriptions went from "X profession Gnomes are Lawful, Y profession Gnomes are Chaotic, Gnomes are Good Hearted and even Z profession Gnomes are usually more playful than malicious" to "They are Good, sometimes Lawful Good".

It's not like typical behavior is being phased out because the shorthand is gone, there's still more than enough information about a race and their society outside of the alignment blurb.

As an example - the new race, Harengon, does have a very short description, however within that description you're given plenty of information. They're fey creatures, they love freedom and traveling, they bring the exuberance of the fey realm with them and are adept at learning new languages. Sounds like a nomadic tribe to me!

[diplomancer]

The most interesting bit to me, mechanically, was the session where it said a monster's big magical ability will usually not be a spell anymore. Big stealth nerf to Counterspell and Dispel Magic.

[Selrahc]

I'm just confused by the age and height/weight things, honestly. Especially since the comments about age still acknowledge some races living longer, so it's not like they're trying to take that away... they're just not going to include specific information about how long each race lives on average from now on? Why? What purpose could that possibly serve? :smallconfused:


It means they don't have to waste book layout space with extremely repetitive tables, which I'd call a win.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Big stealth nerf to Counterspell and Dispel Magic.

True, at least for Counterspell. I expect that Dispel Magic will still be about as useful as it is now, it's not really a combat spell and the change seems to be primarily focused on making NPC combat options easier.

I might not mind that much either, except that I also expect for some NPC to have Counterspell of their own and a player is going to feel mighty displeased at the idea that their offensive spells are being shut down while the enemies are (probably) immune to Counterspell.

[Kuu Lightwing]

feels like this is a lore justification for mechanical homogenization?

Conventionally people would argue that you need ability mods in place because halflings and goliaths aren't the same size and that should be reflected. This could be trying to get ahead of that? Of course, Saying that all player races are "within normal human range" still allows for 3 foot halflings and 9 foot goliaths, it just also allows for 9 foot halflings and 3 foot goliaths.

I disagree with mechanical homogenization because I think its less interesting, but this feels even worse, as races are perhaps even more important to determining a character's aesthetics and this cuts into that.

Players: "Hey, Wizards, isn't it strange, that a small person like a Halfling can get as strong as giant Goliath?"
Wizards: "We hear you loud and clear, now Halflings can get just as big as Goliaths!"
Players: ...

[Thunderous Mojo]

True, at least for Counterspell. I expect that Dispel Magic will still be about as useful as it is now, it's not really a combat spell and the change seems to be primarily focused on making NPC combat options easier.
l.

Dispel Magic also becomes generally more useful, if it can dispel any Magical effect instead of just spells. The Dispel Magic text itself doesn't indicate it absolutely only works on spells.....that particular interpretation of Dispel Magic may be retired by the Design Team.

I also want to point out that creatures and NPCs also will have tags, such as:
Druid, or Cleric, or Wizard etc.

One can already see this in action in Wilds Beyond the Witchlight.

There is an evil adventuring group lead by a Sorcerer. The Sorcerer has a Rechargeable, Magical, Fireball-like attack. We know the NPC is a sorcerer, so it wouldn't take too much imagination to infer that their not-exactly Fireball spell still narratively counts as a spell...and can be Counterspelled.

The idea is that NPC members of a class are built to be interesting challenges, not carbon copies of Player Characters. It shuts down the pedantic argument of:

"Why can this NPC cast a spell and attack? A Player Character couldn't do that"

Now, the system is making it clear, NPCs are not designed in the same way as PCs. Magic use is varied, and might express itself differently in different people.

3e D&D is well and truly, dead...

[Millstone85]

Don't fiends turn into celestials and vice versa with alignment shifts??? Looking at you Zariel...
LE celestials frequent appearances in Ravnica and Theros, and the Empyrean in the Monster Manual has a 25% chance to be Neutral Evil.There is also Eberron's radiant idol, another lawful evil celestial.

And you can see the gradual retcon from the PHB to the MM to this SA:

PHB p122 "Alignment is an essential part of the nature of celestials and fiends. [...] If it somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil."
MM p6-7 "Fiends are creatures of wickedness [...] If an evil celestial is a rarity, a good fiend is almost inconceivable."
SA 10/21 "a demon’s stat block says Typically Chaotic Evil [...] The holy can fall, and the fiendish can rise."

Now, risen fiends aren't a new thing for D&D. One 2e book, Planes of Conflict, had an entire legion of them in Bytopia, led by the risen hamatula K'rand Vahlix. But I do not know if they counted as fiends, celestials or both.

[loki_ragnarock]

The size and age thing comes down to lazier design. That's it.

That they decided to keep the size charts as is cements that notion to me; according to the size charts as they exist now, Yao Ming isn't a human. A conversation I've had before about some of the absurdities of the game's assumptions subtly dehumanizing actual humans led to that thought.

And *that's* the part they're leaning into?

It's just laziness. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Warder]

The size and age thing comes down to lazier design. That's it.

That they decided to keep the size charts as is cements that notion to me; according to the size charts as they exist now, Yao Ming isn't a human. A conversation I've had before about some of the absurdities of the game's assumptions subtly dehumanizing actual humans led to that thought.

And *that's* the part they're leaning into?

It's just laziness. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I guess that's a fair explanation.

Thanks for the replies everyone, I got my Advantage though I'm pretty sure I still failed my knowledge check for this decision. What this thread has taught me is that I'm not alone in my confusion and that makes me feel better, at least - I was convinced that there was some sort of controversy I had completely missed, and I feel that I at least kind of have my finger on the pulse of current D&D. I suspect that the answer lies closer to lazy/simplified design with a sprinkle of "player empowerment" and a dash of the continual effort to make the DM deal with more and more of the ambiguity that pops up in game.

Overall this Sage Advice felt all over the place to me. Some things made a lot of sense to me, others I don't understand at all. With some introspection on my part, perhaps the truth is that I don't understand WotC's design direction as well as I thought I did.

[Dork_Forge]

To be honest, I don't know if WotC is getting rid of the Small size for PCs, but it might be nice to remove the Weapon Use and Grappling Limitations imposed on Small Characters.

Maybe in another edition it would be, but smaller races clearly have more powerful suites of abilities with their size and potentially movement to balance that.

Just look at the Halfling, they get fantastic abilities, if they have no disadvantages then they suddenly just outclass most options.

This also doesn't say (unless I misread) that it would alter speed, so you can end up with a Goliath sized Halfling that still moves Halfling speed?


This is just weird and never needed to be done, at the very least not mid edition.

[Ralanr]

I expect them to turn gnolls into fiends despite it only being lorewise in FR for them to be fiends. Which mechanically just makes hold person or other humanoid targeting spells pointless against them.

Other than that, my main complaints about these changes are sort of superfluous? I liked having ability score modifiers because it helped me paint what the basic standard of the race is (If a race has a wis mod are their culture likely to be more druidic/clerical, etc) but that can be explained in fluff text. I like knowing long lifespan races to showcase their view on time and how the world changes, which is great for NPCs.

Weight and Height are the least bothersome for me, but I still wish they had them because I am terrible at using these statistics and some adventures want character weights.

"Yes my Str 20 human is totally 6'8 and 150lbs, why do you ask?" No joke I've probably made a mistake like this before.

[Unoriginal]

I expect them to turn gnolls into fiends despite it only being lorewise in FR for them to be fiends.

In 5e, the default lore for all Gnolls is that they come from hyenas transformed by a Demon Prince's power (either by Yeenoguh directly affectig them or due to eating corpses that have been affected by a Fang of Yeenoguh). It is not because FR follows the default lore on this point that it is FR lore.


If the only thing making you want to be a particular race was the fact that it got +2 to one stat, then it was a poorly designed and inspired race.


What if the only thing making you *not* want your character to be a particular species is that it got +2 to one stat you don't care about for what you have in mind? Is it also poor design and inspiration?

[Ralanr]

In 5e, the default lore for all Gnolls is that they come from hyenas transformed by a Demon Prince's power (either by Yeenoguh directly affectig them or due to eating corpses that have been affected by a Fang of Yeenoguh). It is not because FR follows the default lore on this point that it is FR lore.

Well, the default lore of 5e is based around the FR. I know the gnolls in Eberron aren't fiends (though used to worship them) and can reproduce through regular means.

I haven't heard this 5e's explaination for gnolls anywhere outside the context of FR, primarily because 5e lore is, again, heavily based in FR.

[Unoriginal]

Well, the default lore of 5e is based around the FR.


Untrue. They released a whole book showing that the FR lore differs in many points.

5e lore is 5e lore, the Gnolls didn't use to be demonspawns in most past editions, FR or otherwise, and they did reproduce like most humanoids.



I know the gnolls in Eberron aren't fiends (though used to worship them) and can reproduce through regular means.

That makes Eberron the exception to the default, it doesn't mean the default is FR.

[Warder]

Yes, the default setting in 5e is and always has been "the D&D multiverse". I understand why people believe it's FR since early products were so FR-focused, but it's a common misunderstanding that WotC has tried in vain to clarify.

[Sception]

The article said more races would get to choose between medium and small, not /all/ races. Goliaths are conceptually defined by their tallness, they're not going to have a small option. Halflings are conceptually defined by their smallness. They're not going to have a medium option.

Humans, on the other hand? Some real life humans would fall in the 'small' size category. Why shouldn't players making human characters have that option?

Re height/weight being based on physical build rather than race - that just makes sense to me.

All positive changes here, imo.

[Imbalance]

So is my 3' tall Tiefling with 5' gazelle horns considered small or medium...?

[Keravath]

The size and age thing comes down to lazier design. That's it.

That they decided to keep the size charts as is cements that notion to me; according to the size charts as they exist now, Yao Ming isn't a human. A conversation I've had before about some of the absurdities of the game's assumptions subtly dehumanizing actual humans led to that thought.

And *that's* the part they're leaning into?

It's just laziness. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I don't think it is laziness at all. Consider, they already have all the tables, they have text listing differences going back to basic D&D in the 1970s. It is WORK to remove these references and differences rather than leaving them included. Removing these differences is a conscious decision having nothing to do with laziness in my opinion.

I think the fundamental problem is that a game which includes "differences based on race" isn't an acceptable statement for some of the target audience these days. "Race" is a word with real world meaning even when it is being applied to fantasy "races".

The game has classified these "races" as "humanoids" in many cases. These "humanoids" are in many cases capable of reproducing (half-orc, half-elf) etc ... so fundamentally, most of these "races" in D&D are essentially "human" at a basic level. However, the game then insists that some of these "humans" are always or usually "evil". Some of these "humans" live longer than others. Some of these "humans" are larger or smaller than others due to differences in their "sub-type" - halfling, goliath, gnome etc.

These differences are then often used in games to drive narratives where the evil orcs slaughter whole villages (Orcs and goblins in the Lord of the Rings), someone makes fun of the short characters (Gimli running across the plains), weak willed humans (Boromir), stubborn dwarves, lightfooted halflings ... the list is long and it is the nature of the genre of fantasy fiction upon which D&D is based.

I think someone at Hasbro/WOTC decided that D&D should provide the tools to build the campaigns without imposing the lore making it possible for one table to recreate the Lord of the Rings if they wish and another to recreate Alice in Wonderland. As a result, source materials won't specify alignment since it becomes a setting dependent DM tool. Similarly differences in "races" are also not lore set in stone but something that individual players and DMs can take out and modify for their game world. It also makes it easier for D&D to dodge politically sensitive issues like race, gender, culture and other stereotypes. So, I definitely think it was a conscious decision and not design laziness.

The question remains whether it is a "good" decision. A vast amount of fantasy fiction is based upon the "racial" stereotypes of long lived dextrous elves, shorter stubborn dwarves with great endurance and a propensity for ale and many other similar stereotypes - some of this may have been popularized with the Lord of the Rings but there are many other sources of fantasy with similar characterizations.

By homogenizing the "characters", D&D avoids political issues while making the lore of the game less fascinating to people raised on reading fantasy fiction. The players have to choose to follow a stereotype or not. Depending on their background, the players may be unaware of pre-existing stereotypes, but then, why would a player choose to make their character and Elf? or a Dwarf? or a Halfling?

If these "races" are not differentiated by typical size, lifespan, culture and other factors then why do they have different mechanical benefits? Why would a medium size halfling be able to hide behind other creatures? Why would a half orc be more durable or do more damage on critical hits? Why would a gnome have advantage on mental stat saving throws?

Anyway, the impression I have is that the publisher wants to reduce "racial" differences to make sure the game is a-political as much as possible but they run a risk of alienating some of their consumers who are used to the lore that is embedded within the game from the history of fantasy fiction within which the game has developed.

[Dienekes]

Hmm honestly, as presented here it looks more like just stripping race from having any real meaning other than some relatively minor abilities.

But then, that’s the path that’s been going down for awhile so it’s not really a surprise. Kind of the opposite of what I like, but whatever.

Allowing for dwarfism to be presented in the game seems nice enough though.

[Millstone85]

I wonder if...
We’ve also gotten strict about which monsters get the Humanoid creature type. This type is now reserved for creatures who are humanlike in their moral and cultural range. As we update older books, we’ll reassign some Humanoids to other creature types. When Monsters of the Multiverse is released, you’ll see that some former Humanoids are now Monstrosities, Fey, and other types. will synergize poorly with the recent release of playable fey races.

[t209]

The age part... I don't understand the need to change that. Seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Height and Weight no longer being defined just seems odd. I can't imagine a single reason this change is system-wide, unless they plan to make Small/Medium a system-wide choice as well.

I don't like what seems to be lore-consuming homogenization. D&D can incorporate a lot, but it isn't a generic game. And enforcing humans in hats down to the level of lifespans and size is going too far, IMO.
Consider the amount of "A 20 year old Elf kid? Wait a minute, I don't want to go to jail for that".

[Thunderous Mojo]

Maybe in another edition it would be, but smaller races clearly have more powerful suites of abilities with their size and potentially movement to balance that.

Just look at the Halfling, they get fantastic abilities, if they have no disadvantages then they suddenly just outclass most options.

This also doesn't say (unless I misread) that it would alter speed, so you can end up with a Goliath sized Halfling that still moves Halfling speed?

The idea, I think is that WotC isn't going to dictate what characters look like. American society, certainly doesn't uphold being short and stout as the pinnacle of of pulchritude.

If you want Halflings to look like Hobbits...cool, if you want them to look like Kender...cool, if want halflings to look like Dark Sun cannibalistic Halflings...cool.

As a DM, if a player wants to play a Seven Foot tall Halflings my first question is going to be: Why?

The likely in game explanation for the unusual variance in size would be a curse, if I agreed to the change.

I'm not sure why someone would want to play a medium sized Stout Halfling...but essentially the designers may have concluded it won't damage the game's mechanical balance.

We are two years away, so I expect there to be some changes to the plans that WotC has revealed.


I expect them to turn gnolls into fiends .

This is where having creatures have Keywords might come into play. Gnolls could be Humanoids with the Demon Keyword.

Gnolls thus would lack the moral autonomy that characterizes other Humanoids. The Demon Keyword could also make gnolls susceptible to abilities that affect Demons...without making them count as Extraplanar creatures for the purposes of Banishment.

[Xervous]

I wonder if... will synergize poorly with the recent release of playable fey races.

I have double digit percentage expectations they’re going to flag a race as non humanoid and have it blow up in their face when people read too much into it.

[Sorinth]

I assume the size thing is just to make all races the same size category for mechanics. Essentially allowing Halfling/Gnome Heavy weapons and allowing them to be grapplers. That seems like a good thing even if they are doing it in a bit of a strange way. Though they might need to change Lightfoot being able to hide behind a creature.

A halfling monster wrangler that grapples and captures exotic beast kind of sounds like a fun character which would now be easier to make.

[Imbalance]

I have double digit percentage expectations they’re going to flag a race as non humanoid and have it blow up in their face when people read too much into it.

Better yet, actual humans get switched to monstrosity as fitting commentary.

[Segev]

If the only thing making you want to be a particular race was the fact that it got +2 to one stat, then it was a poorly designed and inspired race.

This seems a misrepresentation of the position you are ostensibly opposing. It's not that +2 to a stat is "the only thing" that makes you want to be a particular race. It's that the race doesn't feel right if it's no better or worse at some obviously-defining trait than any other race. e.g., the problem that the 9 foot tall ogre is no stronger than the 2 foot tall gnome. Or, more to the point, that on average, 9 foot tall ogres are pretty much exactly as strong as 2 foot tall gnomes.

Moreover, I would argue the converse point is being made BY your argument - which you may or may not have intended - which is to say that if a lack of a +2 to a particular stat means you just can't play that race as a particular class, then either that class or that race are VERY poorly designed in 5e, where a +1 is important but not essential to base functionality.


I'm willing to give their 5.5 thing a chance even if they strip all stat bonuses out of races, but they will have to do a bang-up job redesigning races from the ground up to make up for having the core stats all be the same regardless of race. Races will need to have the physical distinctions covered by traits without the aid of stat shifts. The simplification of stat shifts to a +2 and a +1 (or sometimes two +2s) already made it hard to squeeze some racial archetypes ("really big and strong" and "really itty bitty") into PC chasses. Removing them altogether can work if done well, but the motivation for doing so when they did it had nothing to do with game balance, and it showed in how sloppily they implemented it.

Done right, even monster manual monsters should be constrained to the same stat limits as PCs, and anything requiring stats outside those bounds to represent should instead be specialized traits. Of course, this would require a complete rethinking of Belts of Giant Strength and their iconic effects, because giants would be reduced to the same scale as PCs, and would need a trait called "Giant Strength" that does...something...to make their strength iconic again while leaving the number ranging from 8 to 20. (Okay, likely 18 to 20, but still.)

[Telwar]

I assume the size thing is just to make all races the same size category for mechanics. Essentially allowing Halfling/Gnome Heavy weapons and allowing them to be grapplers. That seems like a good thing even if they are doing it in a bit of a strange way. Though they might need to change Lightfoot being able to hide behind a creature.

A halfling monster wrangler that grapples and captures exotic beast kind of sounds like a fun character which would now be easier to make.

The easiest way to let halflings/gnomes/kobolds use 2h weapons is to remove the Heavy tag entirely.

Grappling would be another thing, but I learned not to bother with that in 3.5.

[Segev]

The easiest way to let halflings/gnomes/kobolds use 2h weapons is to remove the Heavy tag entirely.

Grappling would be another thing, but I learned not to bother with that in 3.5.

Grappling is actually pretty nice in 5e, if you build for it. It's a lot easier to resolve, as it's just an opposed Strength (Athletics) check. (The victim can choose Dexterity (Acrobatics) to defend, instead, if he likes.)

[Kuu Lightwing]

Grappling is actually pretty nice in 5e, if you build for it. It's a lot easier to resolve, as it's just an opposed Strength (Athletics) check. (The victim can choose Dexterity (Acrobatics) to defend, instead, if he likes.)

It also really doesn't do much, compared to 3.5e version.

[JackPhoenix]

Weight and Height are the least bothersome for me, but I still wish they had them because I am terrible at using these statistics and some adventures want character weights.

"Yes my Str 20 human is totally 6'8 and 150lbs, why do you ask?" No joke I've probably made a mistake like this before.

It's worse for those who live in the 99% of world countries that use civilized units of measurements, and have no context for what 6'8" means without translating it first.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Hmm honestly, as presented here it looks more like just stripping race from having any real meaning other than some relatively minor abilities.

To my way of thinking a +2/+1 to ability scores was never exiting to me.
Gnomes getting Minor Illusion, or an Eladrin's Fey Step ability, are examples of what I find interesting abilities.

Having an 18 Dexterity doesn't make you feel any more 'Elf-y' than any other Character with an 18 Dexterity. It is the 'minor abilities', like being able to Hide more easily, or cast a Cantrip that allows actually different gameplay to evolve between different Racial options.


I wonder if... will synergize poorly with the recent release of playable fey races.

I don't see why there would be any issues. The Monster Manual entry is expressing the typical alignment. Even the Jedi Order had one dude with a Purple Light Saber...exceptions to the norm abound.🃏

In the Buffyverse...vampires lose their souls when they become undead. Yet 2 PC-like vampire protagonists where featured. Both of these vampire protagonists had regained their souls......in game terms, both had regained their Humanoid Keyword.

[Marcloure]

What about a DM trying to figure out how to RP a city of X race, with alignments no longer being given?

What is the alignment of a mostly human city? Take that answer and apply to orc cities, elven cities, dwarven cities, etc. Or yet: make your own instead of following what a book says.

[Wildstag]

Honestly its more baffling than anything and I've no idea why they'd do this. Wait. Wait. GUYS. ...Does this mean the PHB halfling might have been a Goliath all along????

The male halflings in the PHB can't be Goliaths unless they're trans, since amab goliaths can't grow hair on their head, that's something afab goliaths get exclusively.

Granted, none of that is explained explicitly in 5e's lore, just in the 3.5 lore for Goliaths from Races of Stone. So that could have been thrown out entirely, but I don't find that likely since they clearly seem to use that description on the backend for all of their artwork. In 5e, there is still no art of a Goliath that shows any hair on their head. On the other hand though, Goliath's skin patterns have been made to look more crafted and tattoo-like than like random mottling. Also they did away with "Goliaths don't get ink", because the VGtM Goliath clearly has ink on the left side of his face. And lastly, Goliath artwork lost the lithoderms that were common to them in 3e when they were first released.

And really, Goliaths also lost their language for the most part, since the list of Goliath birth names includes the letter "r" in a few, and that wasn't one of the original thirteen letters in their language (which interestingly enough was heavily modeled after one of the polynesian or perhaps Hawaiian language).

Nowadays they're just designed to be "big human barbarian but with slight differences". They've become homogenized to the point that they're not really distinct in any way that they used to be.

Which honestly is kinda par for the course with lore in 5e.


I think the fundamental problem is that a game which includes "differences based on race" isn't an acceptable statement for some of the target audience these days. "Race" is a word with real world meaning even when it is being applied to fantasy "races".

The game has classified these "races" as "humanoids" in many cases. These "humanoids" are in many cases capable of reproducing (half-orc, half-elf) etc ... so fundamentally, most of these "races" in D&D are essentially "human" at a basic level. However, the game then insists that some of these "humans" are always or usually "evil". Some of these "humans" live longer than others. Some of these "humans" are larger or smaller than others due to differences in their "sub-type" - halfling, goliath, gnome etc.

These differences are then often used in games to drive narratives where the evil orcs slaughter whole villages (Orcs and goblins in the Lord of the Rings), someone makes fun of the short characters (Gimli running across the plains), weak willed humans (Boromir), stubborn dwarves, lightfooted halflings ... the list is long and it is the nature of the genre of fantasy fiction upon which D&D is based.

I think someone at Hasbro/WOTC decided that D&D should provide the tools to build the campaigns without imposing the lore making it possible for one table to recreate the Lord of the Rings if they wish and another to recreate Alice in Wonderland. As a result, source materials won't specify alignment since it becomes a setting dependent DM tool. Similarly differences in "races" are also not lore set in stone but something that individual players and DMs can take out and modify for their game world. It also makes it easier for D&D to dodge politically sensitive issues like race, gender, culture and other stereotypes. So, I definitely think it was a conscious decision and not design laziness.

This just emphasizes the laziness argument though.


PHB p11: Every character belongs to a race, one of the many intelligent humanoid species in the D&D world. The most common player character races are dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans.


PHB p17: Humans are the most common people in the worlds of D&D, but they live and work alongside dwarves, elves, halflings, and countless other fantastic species. Your character belongs to one of these peoples.

The design team already wrote that "race = species". Instead of emphasizing their earlier argument and just going forward with changing the word "race" to "species", they upend everything to instead kowtow to people that clearly haven't actually read the book. This is in literally the first chapter, the chapter you'd expect people to read if they were new to the game. If they choose not to read it, it's the consumer's fault, not the producer's.

And noone genuinely cares about anachronism in games. If they called every kind of creature "species", they could just say "that's the arcane/academic terminology, and the common folk use 'race' instead". If anachronism mattered, we wouldn't have magic or Iron-Man-esque artificers or any of the other numerous contemporary fantasy archetypes.

It really does just amount to laziness.


It's worse for those who live in the 99% of world countries that use civilized units of measurements, and have no context for what 6'8" means without translating it first.

P.S. Statistically speaking, if you have access to a D&D PHB, you also have access to the internet where you can just search a conversion. Even without needing one, I can tell you that 6'8" is 80 inches tall. Since the conversion rate is 2.5cm to 1 inch, you're left with 200 cm or 2m. Not using such resources seems bizarre to me. It's a tool at your disposal, that's the "civilized" thing to do.

P.P.S. The only uncivilized measurement system is using rocks to determine weight. Whatever caveman society created that is just bizarre. :smalltongue:

[KorvinStarmast]

I expect them to turn gnolls into fiends Finally, a good idea, but does it needlessly overcomplicate things? (See Below)

Other than that, my main complaints about these changes are sort of superfluous?
Yes, and zero value added.

They're not going to have a medium option.
They should get rid of all races that are of Large or small size. Good bye to halflings, gnomes, kender, kobolds, goblins, and good riddance. Plenty of choices with elves, orcs, lizardfolk, dragonborn, humans. Mechanically simpler.

As a DM, if a player wants to play a Seven Foot tall Halflings my first question is going to be: Why? Likewise.

This is where having creatures have Keywords might come into play. Gnolls could be Humanoids with the Demon Keyword.
Please, no, but the 'shape shifter' thing has been struggling to get out of the bag since Eberron, right?

Gnolls thus would lack the moral autonomy that characterizes other Humanoids. The Demon Keyword could also make gnolls susceptible to abilities that affect Demons...without making them count as Extraplanar creatures for the purposes of Banishment. Or, just don't overcomplicate things and leave them as humanoids who are generally evil due to being the spawn of fiends. It's not that complicated.

Better yet, actual humans get switched to monstrosity as fitting commentary.
Ruins too many things mechanically, given what a lot of spells do.

The easiest way to let halflings/gnomes/kobolds use 2h weapons is {snip} ... is to play a race that isn't too small to wield them effectively.
There's a nice half orc over there, if you need to have the word half in the PC's race label

[Xervous]

What is the alignment of a mostly human city? Take that answer and apply to orc cities, elven cities, dwarven cities, etc. Or yet: make your own instead of following what a book says.

But I bought this book so we could use someone else’s ideas. We can use our own ideas without a book. Orderly dwarves, creepy halflings, commune trending kobolds, that’s the start of something fantastical . If the goal is to sell nothing that offends, why, they’ve realized they can package and sell nothing!

[Marcloure]

But I bought this book so we could use someone else’s ideas. We can use our own ideas without a book. Orderly dwarves, creepy halflings, commune trending kobolds, that’s the start of something fantastical . If the goal is to sell nothing that offends, why, they’ve realized they can package and sell nothing!

And why exactly the idea they sell must say that hobgoblin or orc societies are evil, instead of saying they can be as good or as evil as any human society? They are selling their idea, and their idea is that orcs, dwarves, elves and other folks can be good and can be evil. I bet in your game you can make an interesting human society even without the book telling you anything about their usual alignment. Same with any other folk.

At the same time, the same way you can say "humans of Thay are all evil", you can still say "all orcs of Someplace are evil".

[Kuu Lightwing]

To my way of thinking a +2/+1 to ability scores was never exiting to me.
Gnomes getting Minor Illusion, or an Eladrin's Fey Step ability, are examples of what I find interesting abilities.

Having an 18 Dexterity doesn't make you feel any more 'Elf-y' than any other Character with an 18 Dexterity. It is the 'minor abilities', like being able to Hide more easily, or cast a Cantrip that allows actually different gameplay to evolve between different Racial options.

<snip>


Surely the same argument you use for 18 Dex, can be applied to almost every ability cause most of them draw from the same pool? Being able to casting Minor Illusion doesn't make you any more "Gnomy" than anyone who learned to cast Minor illusion and so on?

In some cases the abilities actually work against the logic. Like for example being able to hide more easily surely would be useful for a Rogue, but Rogue already gives you ability to do so, so it's actually a redundant ability. In that case having +2 to DEX actually works better to emphasize that Goblins are better at Rogue stuff.

[JackPhoenix]

And why exactly the idea they sell must say that hobgoblin or orc societies are evil, instead of saying they can be as good or as evil as any human society? They are selling their idea, and their idea is that orcs, dwarves, elves and other folks can be good and can be evil. I bet in your game you can make an interesting human society even without the book telling you anything about their usual alignment. Same with any other folk.

At the same time, the same way you can say "humans of Thay are all evil", you can still say "all orcs of Someplace are evil".

Because what's the point of having orcs if they are just ugly green humans? The books have to work with both limited space and generic non-specific setting. To sell the idea of an orc, it does have to describe how they are different from a human, an elf or an hobgoblin. "They are just like humans, but they use different stats (and not even that, now)" is not enough.

[Sigreid]

All in all I think they've lost their minds and vision so it's all becoming a gray much over time.

[Segev]

It also really doesn't do much, compared to 3.5e version.

I can't speak to the 3.5 version; it was always so complicated I never bothered with it. But the 5e version can let you hold somebody prone, which gives you advantage on attacks against them, and makes it very hard for them to get away since they need to use an action to break your grapple before they can spend half their movement getting un-prone. This makes it very easy to chase them back down and re-grapple them. You also definitely get an OA when they leave your space, since they used their action to break the grapple and thus don't have one for Disengaging.

[Marcloure]

Because what's the point of having orcs if they are just ugly green humans? The books have to work with both limited space and generic non-specific setting. To sell the idea of an orc, it does have to describe how they are different from a human, an elf or an hobgoblin. "They are just like humans, but they use different stats (and not even that, now)" is not enough.

Absolute alignment is not the most interesting way to differentiate societies, and we can use examples to show that you sure can have different people without touching alignment. WoW is an easy example: it has got evil and good orcs, dwarvens, humans, and elves, and yet the folks are all very different and still enter conflict with each other.

[Amnestic]

What is the alignment of a mostly human city?

Since humans are Typically Evil I'd assume it would likewise be Evil.

[Xervous]

And why exactly the idea they sell must say that hobgoblin or orc societies are evil, instead of saying they can be as good or as evil as any human society? They are selling their idea, and their idea is that orcs, dwarves, elves and other folks can be good and can be evil. I bet in your game you can make an interesting human society even without the book telling you anything about their usual alignment. Same with any other folk.

At the same time, the same way you can say "humans of Thay are all evil", you can still say "all orcs of Someplace are evil".

They can sell whatever they want. The market is changing and they’re chasing the latest trend because money. Similarly I can choose to not purchase products that either fail to deliver or are irrelevant to my goals and desires. So what am I doing? Lamenting capitalism and what could have been.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I can't speak to the 3.5 version; it was always so complicated I never bothered with it. But the 5e version can let you hold somebody prone, which gives you advantage on attacks against them, and makes it very hard for them to get away since they need to use an action to break your grapple before they can spend half their movement getting un-prone. This makes it very easy to chase them back down and re-grapple them. You also definitely get an OA when they leave your space, since they used their action to break the grapple and thus don't have one for Disengaging.

The "get them prone to get an advantage" use case is somewhat situational - for example my current party mostly consists of ranged attackers, so getting someone prone will disadvantage more people than it would help. Which, side note, applies to a lot of options cited as "great" for martials that prone the target. But the only thing that grappling does in 5e is restricting movement.

For example 5e grapple also does nothing to restrict spellcasters while in 3.5e grappling severely limits the spellcasting options of someone being grappled. You can also pin the opponent without having to get a feat in 3.5e :P
Of course rules for grappling are a bit too complex in 3.5e (and have too many steps), but I feel like 5e grapple is too... "light" of a condition. Would be nice to have options to restrict enemy's actions, not just movement.

[ZRN]

I get why they'd want to change Age, since it seems like pretty much every table comes up with a different answer for how long e.g. elves live. Let that be an actual conversation with the DM.

The height and weight thing is obviously silly. They're called "halflings" for a reason. It's also counterproductive because lots of people will have a hard time guessing what a reasonable weight for an adult gnome is or whatever.

As to the broader alignment changes: good! It makes sense that you can generalize morality for groups of like-minded people (e.g. members of X cult or soldiers of X army) but not for entire races. Orcs and elves and cat-people might have very different (biologically driven) instincts and attitudes and perceptions of the world around them, but if they aren't able to make basic moral choices, they're not really "humanoid" in a way that makes sense to us, so they should probably be categorized as something else.

[Unoriginal]

The "get them prone to get an advantage" use case is somewhat situational - for example my current party mostly consists of ranged attackers, so getting someone prone will disadvantage more people than it would help. Which, side note, applies to a lot of options cited as "great" for martials that prone the target. But the only thing that grappling does in 5e is restricting movement.

Well, one could argue that getting enemies prone will make it harder for them to reach the ranged PCs, and such allow them to stay ranged attackers.

So it's still useful.

[Amnestic]

The height and weight thing is obviously silly. They're called "halflings" for a reason.

Humanocentric linguisitics mostly.

Halflings don't call themselves 'halflings' after all.

[Segev]

The "get them prone to get an advantage" use case is somewhat situational - for example my current party mostly consists of ranged attackers, so getting someone prone will disadvantage more people than it would help. Which, side note, applies to a lot of options cited as "great" for martials that prone the target. But the only thing that grappling does in 5e is restricting movement.

For example 5e grapple also does nothing to restrict spellcasters while in 3.5e grappling severely limits the spellcasting options of someone being grappled. You can also pin the opponent without having to get a feat in 3.5e :P
Of course rules for grappling are a bit too complex in 3.5e (and have too many steps), but I feel like 5e grapple is too... "light" of a condition. Would be nice to have options to restrict enemy's actions, not just movement.I'm pretty sure restricting caster options is meant to be in the realm of "make up additional combat actions using shove and grab as guidelines," but yes, more guidance there would be nice.

Even so, if they're grappled, you can drag them where you want them, and you can ready your action to hit them when they start casting, which can force concentration checks. Since you're attacking them with advantage (unless you choose to not make them prone to make it easier for ranged allies to hit them), you'll probably hit and they then can fail to cast.

It's still quite useful, in other words. It's just not its own mini-game; instead, it's a tactic that mixes in with the rest of whatever you're doing.


Well, one could argue that getting enemies prone will make it harder for them to reach the ranged PCs, and such allow them to stay ranged attackers.

So it's still useful.This, too: if they're prone, even if that means your allies are at disadvantage to hit them from range, they're not striking back unless the grappled guy is a ranged attacker. In which case you probably want to improvise an action to strip him of his ranged weapon or its ammo or something.



I do agree that you shouldn't need a feat to pin somebody, and if you do spend a feat on grappling, it shouldn't cripple you to use it.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I'm pretty sure restricting caster options is meant to be in the realm of "make up additional combat actions using shove and grab as guidelines," but yes, more guidance there would be nice.

Even so, if they're grappled, you can drag them where you want them, and you can ready your action to hit them when they start casting, which can force concentration checks. Since you're attacking them with advantage (unless you choose to not make them prone to make it easier for ranged allies to hit them), you'll probably hit and they then can fail to cast.

It's still quite useful, in other words. It's just not its own mini-game; instead, it's a tactic that mixes in with the rest of whatever you're doing.

This, too: if they're prone, even if that means your allies are at disadvantage to hit them from range, they're not striking back unless the grappled guy is a ranged attacker. In which case you probably want to improvise an action to strip him of his ranged weapon or its ammo or something.



I do agree that you shouldn't need a feat to pin somebody, and if you do spend a feat on grappling, it shouldn't cripple you to use it.

Well my point is that it doesn't do much, not that it doesn't do anything. Surely grappling can be useful in certain situations, but personally I feel like it takes a bit too much effort to set up some benefits instead of, well... just attacking the enemy.

Like for example you suggested to ready action to attack the enemy if they cast spells, but to do so you need to first grapple them using your attack action (well at least part of it, assuming you do have Extra Attack) then shove them (Extra Attack), then next turn you Ready using your action again, and then you finally get to hurt the wizard as they cast the spell. That takes two actions and a reaction to set up, assuming they didn't just Misty Step away after you grappled them, cause you used your action on that turn and couldn't Ready. I would probably have better chances just attacking the wizard instead.

[KorvinStarmast]

Since humans are Typically Evil I'd assume it would likewise be Evil. False. Per the Basic Rules (p 20 and 21) and the PHB.

Human Traits
It’s hard to make generalizations about humans, but your human character has these traits. {snip}
Alignment. Humans tend toward no particular alignment. The best and the worst are found among them.

Although some humans can be xenophobic, in general their societies are inclusive. Human lands welcome large numbers of nonhumans compared to the proportion of humans who live in nonhuman lands.

[Amnestic]

False.

Hmm, no I'm pretty sure that a warmongering conquering race that is so consistently militarised and brutal as humans are in D&D lore is definitely typically evil. Though I'm sure some exceptions exist for the sake of adventurers, there's little doubt that the regimes that so embrace power structures which allow innocents to suffer and endorses discrimination based upon the circumstances of one's birth (socio-economically, I mean) can only be Typically Evil.

[Unoriginal]

Hmm, no I'm pretty sure that a warmongering conquering race that is so consistently militarised and brutal as humans are in D&D lore is definitely typically evil.

The Elves and the Dwarves are far more militarized than the Humans, in the D&D lore.

[Anymage]

Hmm, no I'm pretty sure that a warmongering conquering race that is so consistently militarised and brutal as humans are in D&D lore is definitely typically evil. Though I'm sure some exceptions exist for the sake of adventurers, there's little doubt that the regimes that so embrace power structures which allow innocents to suffer and endorses discrimination based upon the circumstances of one's birth (socio-economically, I mean) can only be Typically Evil.

I do wonder where neutrals would fit into a "if you aren't part of the solution you're part of the problem" outlook.

We could discuss the validity of such an outlook in the real world. (Except let's not because that would be really close to crossing board rules.) In a D&D world where neutrals exist you kind of have to accept that being morally noncommittal is possible.


Because what's the point of having orcs if they are just ugly green humans? The books have to work with both limited space and generic non-specific setting. To sell the idea of an orc, it does have to describe how they are different from a human, an elf or an hobgoblin. "They are just like humans, but they use different stats (and not even that, now)" is not enough.

I would not mind at all if WotC were willing to downplay two words that tried to encapsulate all of moral philosophy into a tic-tac-toe board. I wouldn't even mind if they excised it entirely, although I'm not holding my breath on that one.

I would expect them to detail what makes other humanoid races actually different instead of just skins with different racial features. Culture and psychology can be different without needing to rely on alignment tags. And I'd be awfully let down if the last dozen goblin tribes we'd met were all craven and evil but the "typically" in their stat block was used as a fig leaf.

It all comes down to whether WotC can better fill in the info that's being left out in the name of appeasing twitter. I guess we'll have to see in upcoming books.

[Ralanr]

The Elves and the Dwarves are far more militarized than the Humans, in the D&D lore.

But are they expansionist?

No, seriously, Idk. I assumed dwarves and elves prefer to stay in their areas and shoot anyone that tries to take those areas.

[Unoriginal]

But are they expansionist?

No, seriously, Idk. I assumed dwarves and elves prefer to stay in their areas and shoot anyone that tries to take those areas.

I don't recall D&D humans being portrayed as more expansionist than elves and dwarves.

The only expansionists in D&D tend to be evil overlord types, regardless of the species.

[strangebloke]

DND lore is part of the setting and part of the product that is this tabletop game system. There are a lot of systems that attempt to be 'generic' systems; DND is not one of them. You can of course deviate from the lore in your own game, hell, DND releases detailed guides on deviations from their ""standard"" setting, called "setting guides." Eberron is a setting where orcs aren't evil, and they've released a guide for it.

personally I do genuinely favor settings like eberron in part for this reason. I think orcs that are sometimes evil sometimes not to be more compelling because humanoid enemies are more interesting than arghly barghly monsters whose motivation is "muh evil god told me to do this."

But this is a step beyond that's just.... really pointless.

[Segev]

Hmm, no I'm pretty sure that a warmongering conquering race that is so consistently militarised and brutal as humans are in D&D lore is definitely typically evil. Though I'm sure some exceptions exist for the sake of adventurers, there's little doubt that the regimes that so embrace power structures which allow innocents to suffer and endorses discrimination based upon the circumstances of one's birth (socio-economically, I mean) can only be Typically Evil.

Wow, you must have REALLY low opinions of orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, and kobolds, then.

[animewatcha]

I looked at the spellcasting section and immediately thought...

Instead of something like Glitterdust, we shall now have

"Blinding Light"
"Holy Nova"
"Gleaming Eye Scorcher"!!!
"Rainbow Spark Fountain"
"Holy Light"
"Super Nova of Colour"
"Rainbow Missiles"
"Healing Blast"
"Blazing Dazzling Bolt of Lightning Sparks"
"Curtain of Brightness"
"Blinding Heal"
"Luminous Flare"
"Luminescent Flash"
"Magical Light River of Radiant Brightness"

[loki_ragnarock]

It's worse for those who live in the 99% of world countries that use civilized units of measurements, and have no context for what 6'8" means without translating it first.

80 inches translates to .01 repeating furlongs.

For context.

[Dienekes]

To my way of thinking a +2/+1 to ability scores was never exiting to me.
Gnomes getting Minor Illusion, or an Eladrin's Fey Step ability, are examples of what I find interesting abilities.

Having an 18 Dexterity doesn't make you feel any more 'Elf-y' than any other Character with an 18 Dexterity. It is the 'minor abilities', like being able to Hide more easily, or cast a Cantrip that allows actually different gameplay to evolve between different Racial options.

I'd agree with caveats. I don't really think just getting one cantrip makes Gnomes feel particularly gnomish, it's something. But that's about the bare minimum.

Just to continue the exploration of Dexterity and Elves, increasing an ability score is pretty much the least interesting means of exploring anyone's agility. All it is, is a +1 to some stats. When one thinks of a highly agile creature, they think of fast movement, sliding through and around opponents, dashing around the battlefield. All of which the Dexterity modifier doesn't really handle. Of course it increases acrobatics checks and dexterity saving throws, but to actually get the feel of something dancing around the battlefield the Rogue's Cunning Action does a much better job. And anyone can get that. Someone with Dexterity of 5 can get that, if they wanted.

However, in the game it does mean that the character is dexterous. And having an 8 Dex elf, the creatures of natural grace and agility feels off. Let's say that in the future the elves do get some ability that makes them feel naturally agile. But they still don't really have a lower limit on their Dexterity, then I question what the ability score even means anymore. If they are not actually tied to a player being dexterous.

Now other games, have set races as having a stat minimum. Whether or not you make it your best stat, all Elves must have a 12 in Dex, all Dwarves a 12 in Con, or whatever we can consider above the average. Which I think could work to at least partially get fluff and mechanics aligned, though i think people would balk at this a bit.

Or we accept that the game is basically a bunch of numerical mush and all of it doesn't really mean anything and races are just a smattering of relatively minor abilities. Which is where I think they're going. Especially after the release of Feywild, where Faeries and Harengon the later is probably the closest to getting some unique interesting abilities to make a player feel like a rabbit, if we ignore the puns. And even that I don't think is particularly great.

[Mjolnirbear]

I already disagreed with the custom race stat block change (and years ago I disagreed with removing the gender based stat scores), and this is just another move towards removing race based stats/abilities/features altogether and just making it DM fiat.

Ok, the reason I didn't like those changes before had nothing to do with RP, perceived realism or world building, and everything to do with mechanical optimization and game design.

It's simply more fun when you have constraints and differing abilities sets on PCs. Its one of the reasons I absolutely abhor standard array and point buy systems. Having everything 'samey' is anethema to TRPGs longevity. Yea it makes it easier for lazy developers to balance, but it ends up being extremely boring in the long run.

I find it hard to think of anything on these forums I disagree with more.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It's simply more fun when you have constraints and differing abilities sets on PCs. Its one of the reasons I absolutely abhor standard array and point buy systems. Having everything 'samey' is anethema to TRPGs longevity. Yea it makes it easier for lazy developers to balance, but it ends up being extremely boring in the long run.

Two characters can have a perfect array of 20 down the board and still be diverse in their roleplay and mechanical strengths. Whether or not things end up "samey" is up to the players in exactly the same way that it's up to the players whether they'll have unique and different PC's given penalties.

Also, people tend to avoid penalties in my experience, with enough wide sweeping penalties you're likely to see a lot more of the options that aren't penalized.

From a marketing standpoint - I suppose we'll have to wait and see, but complaints about homogeny have been growing for years on forums like these yet 5e continues to grow and grow. 5e is currently so successful that they're designing the next iteration of the game to still support it.

[Mjolnirbear]

I'm pretty sure restricting caster options is meant to be in the realm of "make up additional combat actions using shove and grab as guidelines," but yes, more guidance there would be nice.

I call the check a grapple check, and can now be used to Restrain (locks, needs both hands), Choke (the suffocation part of the suffocation rules, needs both hands, and either restrained or surprised), and Throw (as shove, but more distance, more damage, size and Strength matter, lose Grappled status). My party doesn't use them much but loved throwing enemies off Soarsleds in Sharn. They're generally simple and use existing rules, except Throw.


Even so, if they're grappled, you can drag them where you want them, and you can ready your action to hit them when they start casting, which can force concentration checks. Since you're attacking them with advantage (unless you choose to not make them prone to make it easier for ranged allies to hit them), you'll probably hit and they then can fail to cast.

As I understand it, this doesn't work unless the caster concentrates on the spell (such as hold person) in which case it still comes into effect. In general readied actions cannot interrupt anything; the guidelines is they still happen after the trigger. Any effects on such a spell that happen immediately still happen.

My response to this was to say "....ok, then Restrained forces a check which makes you lose the spell if you fail". So martiales still have an anti-spellcaster option.

[Thunderous Mojo]

It also really doesn't do much, compared to 3.5e version.
Not to get into the weeds of 3e but wasn't grappling a Full Round Action in 3e?

In 5e any character with Extra Attack can grab with one hand, use their target as Cover, and still stab their grappled foe with their Extra Attack.

If the Grappled foe breaks free of the grapple, that is the foe's action, and if the foe runs to shelter, outside of your threatened area, it is Opportunity Attack time. You can even move half your speed while dragging your target.

My memory of 3e Grappling was it made you a Fly Catcher.

Surely the same argument you use for 18 Dex, can be applied to almost every ability cause most of them draw from the same pool? Being able to casting Minor Illusion doesn't make you any more "Gnomy" than anyone who learned to cast Minor illusion and so on?

A gnome that has a non- spell casting class is casting Magic, where most characters with a different race will not be casting at all.

A Gnome Cleric or Druid, has access to a Cantrip that most other characters of the same class will not.

A Gnome Arcane Caster is getting for free, a Cantrip that is viewed as Must Have by many. If you add in the Fade Away feat from XGtE, and I would say gnomes are distinctive even from a High Elf that also chose to select Minor zillusion.


In some cases the abilities actually work against the logic. Like for example being able to hide more easily surely would be useful for a Rogue, but Rogue already gives you ability to do so, so it's actually a redundant ability. In that case having +2 to DEX actually works better to emphasize that Goblins are better at Rogue stuff.

This is true only in the case of the Goblin. A Wood Elf's features are complimentary with being a Rogue. In play this means a power gamer won't play a Goblin Rogue....but will play a goblin of any other class.🃏

If someone does decide to play a Goblin Rogue, their character isn't really hampered, the character is just not optimized for a broad range of abilities.

A Goblin Rogue through Fury of the Small has a damage boost compared to other rogues of a different race.

[Sigreid]

I get why they'd want to change Age, since it seems like pretty much every table comes up with a different answer for how long e.g. elves live. Let that be an actual conversation with the DM.

The height and weight thing is obviously silly. They're called "halflings" for a reason. It's also counterproductive because lots of people will have a hard time guessing what a reasonable weight for an adult gnome is or whatever.

As to the broader alignment changes: good! It makes sense that you can generalize morality for groups of like-minded people (e.g. members of X cult or soldiers of X army) but not for entire races. Orcs and elves and cat-people might have very different (biologically driven) instincts and attitudes and perceptions of the world around them, but if they aren't able to make basic moral choices, they're not really "humanoid" in a way that makes sense to us, so they should probably be categorized as something else.

Originally, back in the olden days, they were categorized as something else. Humans were humans. Elves and dwarves etc. were demi humans. Orc and goblins and such were Humanoids, basically identifying them as monsters in a somewhat human-ish shape so after you beat them up you could use their gear.

[strangebloke]

Stat modifiers inform default assumptions about what kinds of archetypes you can build. They're a gentle nudge, not a hammer. You can get 20 in any stat with any race in 5e, some just take a bit longer, and you don't ever need a 20 in the first place. This sort of low fence is good for the design of 5e because it allows you to either play into the archetype and receive a minor bonus, or play out of the archetype and be rewarded by the joy of "breaking archetype."

Is this the hugest thing? No. But the "why do you care" argument cuts both ways. If you think its an irrelevant point wrt character design, then it logically follows that its... an irrelevant point wrt character design. The fluff issues of goliaths being stronger on average (but only slightly, and among adventurers only if both characters were trying to have max STR) is very very small, especially when the sum total of abilities was always supposed to reflect training as well as basic physiology.

My favorite races are the ones where the stats push you one way but the abilities you get push you another way. The classic example here is the mountain dwarf. The strength and constitution modifiers reflect the hard, martial lifestyle of a mountain dwarf, both their culture and their physiology. But this is also reflected by them having medium armor proficiency. All things together, they make a fantastic race choice for fighters, barbarians, rogues, wizards, sorcerers, rangers, paladins.... basically all the races! But almost no build will use their strength and their armor, or if it does its something very non-standard to begin with, like a battle-ax wielding, plate-armored sorcerer.

Does this sort of make dwarves into a species-of-hats? A mono-cultured species that all trains in the same things and has the same religious and cultural mores? Well... sorta? But not entirely. After all there are many other dwarf subtypes that could reflect different cultures and I've pretty frequently seen a DM homebrew a new culture into their setting if they found the conventional dwarves too restrictive.

All this to say that I'm not mad. It just feels like WotC is tilting at windmills here, changing or getting rid of things that simply aren't important out of a fear of... something. I'm not sure what. But currently races represent about 3 levels worth of abilities at level 1 and are a huge part of character creation, and dispensing with any kind of descriptive element to them beyond "this is a tiefling" seems to be removing a LOT of content from the game. Maybe 5.5e will have some non-race paradigm for character creation, but at this point in the game's lifespan this feels very weird.

[Hytheter]

Like for example you suggested to ready action to attack the enemy if they cast spells, but to do so you need to first grapple them using your attack action (well at least part of it, assuming you do have Extra Attack) then shove them (Extra Attack), then next turn you Ready using your action again, and then you finally get to hurt the wizard as they cast the spell. That takes two actions and a reaction to set up, assuming they didn't just Misty Step away after you grappled them, cause you used your action on that turn and couldn't Ready. I would probably have better chances just attacking the wizard instead.

And that's assuming your DM even lets you attack them during the casting (RAW reactions go after the trigger unless stated otherwise) and also rule that casting a non-concentration spell requires mechanical concentration which can be broken (which has no rules basis, otherwise you wouldn't be able to cast new spells while concentrating). That's two actions, a reaction, two rounds of 'mother-may-I' for one attack that might stop them from casting one spell, and not even their first choice spell...

You probably could have just killed them by this point anyway.

[Tanarii]

My favorite races are the ones where the stats push you one way but the abilities you get push you another way. The classic example here is the mountain dwarf. The strength and constitution modifiers reflect the hard, martial lifestyle of a mountain dwarf, both their culture and their physiology. But this is also reflected by them having medium armor proficiency. All things together, they make a fantastic race choice for fighters, barbarians, rogues, wizards, sorcerers, rangers, paladins.... basically all the races! But almost no build will use their strength and their armor, or if it does its something very non-standard to begin with, like a battle-ax wielding, plate-armored sorcerer.
Mountain Dwarves make awesome bladelocks.

[JackPhoenix]

Absolute alignment is not the most interesting way to differentiate societies, and we can use examples to show that you sure can have different people without touching alignment. WoW is an easy example: it has got evil and good orcs, dwarvens, humans, and elves, and yet the folks are all very different and still enter conflict with each other.

Yet, if WoW used alignments, you know what label would a typical member of a race whose members (with like 5 exceptions) are perfectly fine with starting unprovoked wars, invading other people's lands, genocide and slavery get. Sure, there are exceptions... just like in D&D... but alignment is perfectly usable shorthand to describe typicall behavior of an average member.

[chainer1216]

I already disagreed with the custom race stat block change (and years ago I disagreed with removing the gender based stat scores)

I don't think this is the well thought out and reasoned defense you think it is.

[Ralanr]

My favorite races are the ones where the stats push you one way but the abilities you get push you another way. The classic example here is the mountain dwarf. The strength and constitution modifiers reflect the hard, martial lifestyle of a mountain dwarf, both their culture and their physiology. But this is also reflected by them having medium armor proficiency. All things together, they make a fantastic race choice for fighters, barbarians, rogues, wizards, sorcerers, rangers, paladins.... basically all the races! But almost no build will use their strength and their armor, or if it does its something very non-standard to begin with, like a battle-ax wielding, plate-armored sorcerer.




My DM in college told me the armor profiencies pushed dwarves to be better clerics. Every time I see a new cleric released with heavy armor proficiency, I think back on that moment and how badly I disagreed.

They made good battle mage wizards IMO. lol.

[Sception]

I never cared for armor proficiency as a racial trait due to how badly that synergized with exactly the sort of classes that thematically it should theoretically encourage. It seems like weapon and armor proficiencies in general aren't going to be a racial thing going forward, and personally I'm happy with that.

[Sigreid]

I think the best way to explain it as I see it is that if you're going to have multiple non-human intelligent species available as player characters; what you really should think about and include is not a few petty ways they are different from humans, but the ways in which they are alien, incapable of being human. Goes the other way too, your elves should be incapable of being just humans with pointy ears and your humans should be incapable of being elves. This is especially true if you're going from a lore where the different peoples were created by individual gods who were essentially creating a large number of Mini-Mes. Imperfect reflections of themselves, but reflections of themselves none the less. And that should be more than just a cultural or individual choice.

[Dr. Cliché]

In another thread, I commented that WotC would blend all the races into a gelatinous mass in 5.5e.

{Scrubbed}

Barely a week later and I can't help but feel rather vindicated, given that this is almost exactly what WotC have just announced.

Now every race is a 5'x5'x5' cube of flesh. But it's okay, you can stick a nametag on them and write whatever race you want! So you can be a 5'x5'x5' cube of 'human' or a 5'x5'x5' cube of 'halfling' or even a 5'x5'x5' cube of 'goliath'!

Doesn't that sound exciting?


I suppose one good thing is that this is certainly encouraging me to research alternative game systems, so that I'll have something to jump ship to when this pile of tripe becomes the norm.

[Amnestic]

In another thread, I commented that WotC would blend all the races into a gelatinous mass in 5.5e.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed}

[Dr. Cliché]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}



the line about races being homogenised ("1 race wearing different hats") is still there.

{Scrubbed}

[Ralanr]

Now every race is a 5'x5'x5' cube of flesh. But it's okay, you can stick a nametag on them and write whatever race you want! So you can be a 5'x5'x5' cube of 'human' or a 5'x5'x5' cube of 'halfling' or even a 5'x5'x5' cube of 'goliath'!


I doubt the ability score assignment change will really result into that. And even if it did, there's nothing stopping people from using the original PHB to say no. There are plenty of people who still play 3.5e after all.

[Amnestic]

Ah yes, I forgot. Despite WotC repeatedly and expressly calling out these changes as being politically motivated, I'm not allowed to point out that they're politically motivated.

Truly this is a perfectly logical and sensible stance. :smallconfused:

{Scrubbed}

Don't really know why this change affects anything.

The ASI stuff is old news at this point, and doesn't matter (after all it can't be minor and thus doesn't matter while also being so build defining that all other racial traits don't matter for the purpose of homogenisation)

Racial ages are basically never relevant unless you are specifically an aaracockra and specifically fighting a ghost creature that can age you to death.

Racial size likewise not really a big deal to me. The tallest recorded human we know of was almost 9' tall and the shortest was below 2' tall, per google. Seems pretty reasonable to open up a bit more leeway in height doesn't it when you've got such a wide potential range, even if most races hover around the 5-6' mark.

[Ralanr]

Honestly to me, racial sizes started to matter less and less when every small player race after the PHB seemed to get the full 30 movement speed, leaving gnomes, halfings, and dwarves (who are medium) stuck at 25 feet for no real reason.

At this point, small serves only to prevent those races from using heavy weapons like a maul or most polearms. But if we're being honest, those races don't even need those weapons to be effective. A halfling barbarian can use a battleaxe just fine, and might be one of the few that actually bothers to use the D10 portion of it. I guess they also miss out on reach, but that's not a super game breaker anyway.

[strangebloke]

Mountain Dwarves make awesome bladelocks.
yeah!

And that's the cool part, dwarves and elves are both good for pretty much every class because of how they're designed. Meaning that any dwarven or elven character concept pretty much works, its just going to have a bit of a uniquely elven/dwarven flare. Which is IMO how things should be.

I don't think this is the well thought out and reasoned defense you think it is.
Yeah, I want to be clear. I don't like 5x5x5 generic fantasy adventuremen.

But I also really don't want to bring back gender templates.

My DM in college told me the armor profiencies pushed dwarves to be better clerics. Every time I see a new cleric released with heavy armor proficiency, I think back on that moment and how badly I disagreed.

They made good battle mage wizards IMO. lol.
If you want a cleric, that's what hill dwarves are for ;)

I never cared for armor proficiency as a racial trait due to how badly that synergized with exactly the sort of classes that thematically it should theoretically encourage. It seems like weapon and armor proficiencies in general aren't going to be a racial thing going forward, and personally I'm happy with that.

I mean the lack of synergy is why its cool. It allows for loads of potential character concepts that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

[Ralanr]

I mean the lack of synergy is why its cool. It allows for loads of potential character concepts that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

Kind of why I'm annoyed that Half-orc racial traits are just barbarian-lite. They're useful to have in general, but they also scream "Barbarian players" with a hot pink neon sign overhead.

[Telok]

Racial ages are basically never relevant unless you are specifically an aaracockra and specifically fighting a ghost creature that can age you to death.

To be honest, thats because all the other age related stuff has been removed a little at a time with each new edition.

When youth, middle, and old age have effects it matters. When character species is more than hair color & ear shape, it can matter. When characters can start play at middle or old age it matters. When spells like Haste age you a year or Wish ages you five years, it matters. When more than one specific and very rarely used monster can age you it matters. Once all those things go away... it stops mattering.

[Wildstag]

To be honest, thats because all the other age related stuff has been removed a little at a time with each new edition.

When youth, middle, and old age have effects it matters. When character species is more than hair color & ear shape, it can matter. When characters can start play at middle or old age it matters. When spells like Haste age you a year or Wish ages you five years, it matters. When more than one specific and very rarely used monster can age you it matters. Once all those things go away... it stops mattering.

Also when planar time differences are dropped as well. But yeah, basically every aspect of the game that involved age is gone now. I guess that means an old and senile wizard is just as hale as they were in their young adulthood?

Weird.

[Ralanr]

Also when planar time differences are dropped as well. But yeah, basically every aspect of the game that involved age is gone now. I guess that means an old and senile wizard is just as hale as they were in their young adulthood?

Weird.

Eh, I feel like age is better represented through narrative than mechanics.

[Thunderous Mojo]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

The fans and players of Dungeons and Dragons do not constitute a political party. No governmental agency told Hasbro what to do with their work product in regards to changes to D&D.

The designers of D&D listened to their consumer base, and made changes to their product...which is part of Capitalistic Innovation.

I empathize with and acknowledge your feelings of distress that the changes made to the game are not to your liking...but my reading of the rules of this board indicate political discussions are not permitted here.

I'm sure there is some website on the internet where you and others can talk about your disgust with WotC's stances in the terms that you might want to use, that is just not possible on GitPG.

Part of what makes this board reliably nice to read, is we all sacrifice some topics we might like to discuss, to ensure civility.

In terms of topics we can discuss on this board, Alignment is confirmed to still be part of the game.

WotC listened to the feedback that stated that an Alignment entry is still an useful tool for DMs in terms of Roleplaying a creature.

The game has never said you can't have Orcs be irredeemably evil in your game, if that is what you wish...and still empowers Gaming Groups to run the game they want.

As a consumer I did not like what TSR did to the Forgotten Realms with the Time of Troubles...so I stopped buying FR products....others are free to take similar actions.

[Wildstag]

Eh, I feel like age is better represented through narrative than mechanics.

You want narrative to rule over mechanics, there are systems for that. At least for D&D, the mechanics exist to provide logic to the narrative. Having age affect other systems (such as ability scores) is how that logic works. Otherwise there's no real purpose to age. Everyone might as well be unaging, and noone should ever be described as "frail old man" because there's no mechanics to actually support that.

It's not like you can make a human with less than 9 Constitution, so there's no logic behind a description of "frail". Congratulations, they're the same as every commoner, from the time they reach maturity to the day they die because their arthritis renders them immobile.

Divorcing some of these penalties from the game system means the narrative has less support from the system to make it believable.

[Ralanr]

You want narrative to rule over mechanics, there are systems for that. At least for D&D, the mechanics exist to provide logic to the narrative. Having age affect other systems (such as ability scores) is how that logic works. Otherwise there's no real purpose to age. Everyone might as well be unaging, and noone should ever be described as "frail old man" because there's no mechanics to actually support that.

It's not like you can make a human with less than 9 Constitution, so there's no logic behind a description of "frail". Congratulations, they're the same as every commoner, from the time they reach maturity to the day they die because their arthritis renders them immobile.

Divorcing some of these penalties from the game system means the narrative has less support from the system to make it believable.

By this logic, WOTC should have never gotten rid of racial penalties.

I don't disagree that age can have a mechanical effect. It had it in previous editions, and it had it in other games (Shadowrun has it. It sucks because it only uses it for humans and not shorter races but I digress). But age as a mechanical effect is likely just not worth the effort when you're pushing for a simpler mechanical game, which 5e is.

[strangebloke]

Kind of why I'm annoyed that Half-orc racial traits are just barbarian-lite. They're useful to have in general, but they also scream "Barbarian players" with a hot pink neon sign overhead.
yeah for sure. I'd argue that Dwarves/Elves/Humans are well-designed in that they can pretty much be used for any character concept you like. Tieflings too, actually. But then half-orcs and dragonborn and a few others are "play this race for this class." Which is IMO lame.

Also when planar time differences are dropped as well. But yeah, basically every aspect of the game that involved age is gone now. I guess that means an old and senile wizard is just as hale as they were in their young adulthood?

Weird.
feels like at least there could be some kind of optional module for this sort of thing. "If a PC character ages, the DM may choose to apply the following penalties and bonuses."

Divorcing some of these penalties from the game system means the narrative has less support from the system to make it believable.

The biggest recurring problem in this fandom is that people fail to realize that DND is EMPHATICALLY not a narrative-based generic fantasy adventure simulator.

like you can use it for stuff beyond dungeon crawls. I run DND games mostly centered on political intrigue. But the system isn't there to hold your hand for such things.

[Ralanr]

yeah for sure. I'd argue that Dwarves/Elves/Humans are well-designed in that they can pretty much be used for any character concept you like. Tieflings too, actually. But then half-orcs and dragonborn and a few others are "play this race for this class." Which is IMO lame.

It is. At least dragonborn are getting an update (one we have to buy but I digress again). Half-orcs are still very useful, but it's annoying that their abilities are just barbarian-lite.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I run DND games mostly centered on political intrigue. But the system isn't there to hold your hand for such things.

I'm honestly very thankful for this.

In the past, when RPGs want to add rules elements to areas like this, we receive a bunch of tables and charts, and circumstance modifiers....which does provide a framework...but often this framework becomes the monolithic way of handling those areas.

As I get older, I appreciate, and want more 'Rules Lite' games.

I love old school Traveller, but as an adult I don't really want to spend hours going over Profit and Loss rules for my fictional business...when I could be working on the P&L for my actual real life career.

[chainer1216]

It is. At least dragonborn are getting an update (one we have to buy but I digress again). Half-orcs are still very useful, but it's annoying that their abilities are just barbarian-lite.

If only they would release some sort of 3.5-like update to the rules to better represent their new design philosophy and make necessary adjustments.

Oh wait.

[Ralanr]

If only they would release some sort of 3.5-like update to the rules to better represent their new design philosophy and make necessary adjustments.

Oh wait.

Yeah I'm not holding out hope that they'll be changing how half-orcs are designed beyond racial adjustments. Primarily because Half-orcs haven't really fallen out of favor as a player option since introduction.

[strangebloke]

It is. At least dragonborn are getting an update (one we have to buy but I digress again). Half-orcs are still very useful, but it's annoying that their abilities are just barbarian-lite.
{Scrubbed} I'm going to but I was probably buying the book anyway because I like owning DND books.

I'm honestly very thankful for this.

In the past, when RPGs want to add rules elements to areas like this, we receive a bunch of tables and charts, and circumstance modifiers....which does provide a framework...but often this framework becomes the monolithic way of handling those areas.

As I get older, I appreciate, and want more 'Rules Lite' games.

I love old school Traveller, but as an adult I don't really want to spend hours going over Profit and Loss rules for my fictional business...when I could be working on the P&L for my actual real life career.
I mean, that wouldn't be a generic system either. A generic system would be something like FATE or GURPS or Grod's STARS system, which has rules that are intended to be extended to any possible sort of thing you might want to do. DND ALSO isn't that. It's a very specific simulator for a very specific type of game and setting. Adapting DND to LOTR, its nominal inspiration, requires rewriting significant fractions of the entire system.

[Anymage]

You want narrative to rule over mechanics, there are systems for that. At least for D&D, the mechanics exist to provide logic to the narrative. Having age affect other systems (such as ability scores) is how that logic works. Otherwise there's no real purpose to age. Everyone might as well be unaging, and noone should ever be described as "frail old man" because there's no mechanics to actually support that.

It's not like you can make a human with less than 9 Constitution, so there's no logic behind a description of "frail". Congratulations, they're the same as every commoner, from the time they reach maturity to the day they die because their arthritis renders them immobile.

Divorcing some of these penalties from the game system means the narrative has less support from the system to make it believable.

The issue is that you rarely have enough time pass in game for racial age related mods to matter. 3e age categories pretty much only mattered for people who really wanted to squeeze a few more points of Int/Wis onto their character. (Which also leads to its own realism hiccups, mind (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0218.html).)

You want to throw in magical aging effects and/or large amounts of downtime? The fact that the elf is still going strong while the human is long dead means that certain races just handle it better as an unofficial racial feature. In the end it winds up being too much hassle and people just ignore age effects in practice.

You can freely snag the tables for age related infirmity if you want them to apply. I do think there's value to the system acknowledging if there are rules that are overwhelmingly ignored in practice, and using the book space for something more productive going forwards.

[qube]

De-coupling Races/Lineages from a very important mechanical benefit, like ability score improvement, is a good change. That issue has been a problem for decades in D&D.Agree to disagree on that.

I would MUCH rather have seen fighters that attack with their intelligence stat, then eladrin with racial strength boost.

(hey, imagine - a orc fighter and a eladrin fighter NOT fighting the exact same way)

[Ralanr]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} I'm going to but I was probably buying the book anyway because I like owning DND books.



Fair. I only use that language because I like dragonborn and will end up buying the book because of it.

[Xervous]

Agree to disagree on that.

I would MUCH rather have seen fighters that attack with their intelligence stat, then eladrin with racial strength boost.

(hey, imagine - a orc fighter and a eladrin fighter NOT fighting the exact same way)

I remember having high hopes for 5e when a little blurb came out about having a breed of fighter for leveraging each ability score in a unique way.

[GooeyChewie]

Stat block:

•Creature Type - Good quality of life change.
•Alignment - I'm good with this one. I like having alignment in the game, as long as it's used as a role-playing aid rather than a straight-jacket.
•Tags - Like creature types, a good quality of life update.
•Proficiency Bonus - I've backed into proficiency bonuses on humanoid enemies before, so this one gets a thumbs up from me.
•Bonus Actions - Hopefully that'll make it easier to run more complicated enemies.
•Spellcasting - This one I think I'll need to see in practice before I can make a call on it.


Character races:

•Creature type - I'm somewhat ambivalent about this one. It'll be interesting to see what races they come up with that'll make use of it.
•Ability Score Increases - I wasn't a fan of this change when Tasha's implemented it, and I'm not a fan now. At a minimum they should continue to give "typical" ability score increases for those who want their playable races to be more distinct.
•Age - Strong dislike. With rare exception for incredibly long-lasting campaigns, age is a purely role-playing aspect of the game. One of the things which made Aarakocra fun to role-play was the concept that they only mature in three years and only live for 30, which brings up a lot of interesting questions about how your character views the world. I'll be ignoring this change, thank you very much.
•Alignment - Players were always free to choose their own alignment, so this change feels mostly cosmetic. Basically where they added "typical" to creature stat blocks, they've eliminated the typical on playable races.
•Size - Like creature type, this one matter more in terms of what they do with it than the actual change itself.
•Languages - I feel like this one should also have been changed to a "typically." Like, for Dwarves put "Common and one other language, typically Dwarvish."

[Christew]

The issue is that you rarely have enough time pass in game for racial age related mods to matter. 3e age categories pretty much only mattered for people who really wanted to squeeze a few more points of Int/Wis onto their character.
3e also featured much more support for high level play and the option to take characters past level 20. I agree that the age mechanics were mostly used for optimization, but the expanded play spectrum also increased the likelihood that age could become relevant over an adventurer's career.

[Wildstag]

By this logic, WOTC should have never gotten rid of racial penalties.

You say that like they were a bad thing? Deities created most of the playable species, and deities are minmaxers just as much as players are. Of course they'd have made their people excel at one thing even if it meant discounting another thing to do it.

Humans being the race that had no adjustments works from that sense because they don't have a creating deity.

Penalties in general aren't something that should be feared in game design. Like the phrase "you take the good with the bad", taking only the good just leaves everything more bland.


The biggest recurring problem in this fandom is that people fail to realize that DND is EMPHATICALLY not a narrative-based generic fantasy adventure simulator.

like you can use it for stuff beyond dungeon crawls. I run DND games mostly centered on political intrigue. But the system isn't there to hold your hand for such things.

Can't tell if this is agreement or disagreement with my statement. But regardless, the system isn't there to hold your hand, but it is there to elevate the experience. If the player is not as skilled a politician or diplomat as the character, the ruleset is there to fill in the gaps.

The foundational rules exist to enhance the experience and to reduce the creative workload of the game master. Not every game master is a masterful storyteller or expository genius. The rules really help those game masters out significantly.


The issue is that you rarely have enough time pass in game for racial age related mods to matter. 3e age categories pretty much only mattered for people who really wanted to squeeze a few more points of Int/Wis onto their character.

Racial age related mods shouldn't necessarily be a front-end player related issue. But as a GM, if I'm including NPCs like say, Short Round, than those "young" age modifiers matter. As is, if I make a child character in 5e, I have to modify the sheet and just tell my players "deal with it, I'm changing crap". If I want to make "Ol' MacDonald" the farmer, and have him be less strong or nimble than his teenaged grandson, I have to bs his sheet.

So on one hand, I could just say "these are his stats, deal with it", but then I'm effectively applying those age modifiers anyway. If I want the game to have replicable characters that make sense to anyone enjoying the story with minimal "because I say it's that way"s, having those kinds of modifiers makes sense.

As a player, it doesn't matter to me except for minmaxing. But I think your argument shows how little creativity you have when half the game is for the Game Master as well.

[Amnestic]

You say that like they were a bad thing? Deities created most of the playable species, and deities are minmaxers just as much as players are. Of course they'd have made their people excel at one thing even if it meant discounting another thing to do it.

Humans being the race that had no adjustments works from that sense because they don't have a creating deity.

That sounds like extremely setting specific lore to me.

[Ralanr]

You say that like they were a bad thing? Deities created most of the playable species, and deities are minmaxers just as much as players are. Of course they'd have made their people excel at one thing even if it meant discounting another thing to do it.

Humans being the race that had no adjustments works from that sense because they don't have a creating deity.

Penalties in general aren't something that should be feared in game design. Like the phrase "you take the good with the bad", taking only the good just leaves everything more bland.



Though penalties lock certain combos out of existence, especially if your focused on being a minmaxer. Why play an orc wizard when you have a -2 to int? Why even give orcs the ability to be wizards at all? If ASI's were more prevalent (like in pathfinder but it's been years since I played 1E so I can't remember how often it came up) then it could be built out easier. But they are not in 5e, so penalties served no real meaning beyond hampering a score you'd have to choose not to focus on ever.

Now I'm not saying penalties in games shouldn't exist. I'm saying sometimes removing some allows for more options to come out and flourish. You can't avoid some races being better than others simply by nature of the special features you have. But you can avoid some races being strictly worse than others because their penalties hamper them too much in the role.

[Warder]

Though penalties lock certain combos out of existence, especially if your focused on being a minmaxer. Why play an orc wizard when you have a -2 to int? Why even give orcs the ability to be wizards at all? If ASI's were more prevalent (like in pathfinder but it's been years since I played 1E so I can't remember how often it came up) then it could be built out easier. But they are not in 5e, so penalties served no real meaning beyond hampering a score you'd have to choose not to focus on ever.

Now I'm not saying penalties in games shouldn't exist. I'm saying sometimes removing some allows for more options to come out and flourish. You can't avoid some races being better than others simply by nature of the special features you have. But you can avoid some races being strictly worse than others because their penalties hamper them too much in the role.

It's funny - I don't disagree with any of the things you say here, but I think restrictions promote roleplaying rather than hamper it. Having more options is not always a good thing! Restrictions, if done right, serve as guidelines, solidifies storyline into mechanics and loosens the distinction between crunch and fluff. Like, I believe that elves zealously guarding the secrets of bladesinging makes for a great addition to a world, and picking that subclass for me doesn't mean being forced to play an elf, I see it as an opportunity to delve even deeper into elfiness.

But I realize as I type this out that this is a discussion that's been done to death and it's also a position WotC clearly doesn't agree with, as they are removing as many restrictions as they can find. I'll put them back in my personal games, that'll show those corporate eggheads! Ha-hah!

[Wildstag]

That sounds like extremely setting specific lore to me.

Not really. The humans lacking a creator is generic D&D setting information. It's the thing for at least Greyhawk, Nentir Vale, and The Forgotten Realms. The "deities minmaxing" thing is a logical extrapolation of the existing lore. Gruumsh favors strength and cares little for machinery and ingenuity. As such, his created beings have a strength bonus in exchange for an intelligence penalty. Moradin wanted his folk to be tough, but Charisma (and the ability to convince people to do things) matters less when honor rules over reason. Corellon is a graceful deity (though the Con penalty makes little sense). Yondalla created halflings to be quick and nimble but small, and with less size you have less potential strength.

The creators of the game justified mechanics with lore. When you keep the lore as is but drop the mechanics, the lore suffers.


Though penalties lock certain combos out of existence, especially if your focused on being a minmaxer. Why play an orc wizard when you have a -2 to int? Why even give orcs the ability to be wizards at all? If ASI's were more prevalent (like in pathfinder but it's been years since I played 1E so I can't remember how often it came up) then it could be built out easier. But they are not in 5e, so penalties served no real meaning beyond hampering a score you'd have to choose not to focus on ever.

Now I'm not saying penalties in games shouldn't exist. I'm saying sometimes removing some allows for more options to come out and flourish. You can't avoid some races being better than others simply by nature of the special features you have. But you can avoid some races being strictly worse than others because their penalties hamper them too much in the role.

Well sure, if ALL the game designers cared about were minmaxers, that would be a decent point. If all ANYONE cared about are minmaxers. Catering to minmaxers just seems like lazy game design to me. If the intent is "rules-light; narrative focus", than why care about the minmaxers? Those players are already engaging with the game in a way it's not intended.

What they should do is instead encourage players to play something off-color and then consider how those penalties shape the character and how that character would be played. If narrative matters that much, than it shouldn't be too hard to accept playing something that isn't "optimal", because adversity shapes innovation.

The argument to remove penalties had more to do with minmaxing than it did with non-game related modern principles. That happens because the people interested in playtesting and providing feedback for mechanics tend to be mechanic-focused players in general.

ASIs are more prevalent in 5e than they are in PF. In Pathfinder, it's a +1 every four levels. In 5e (since feats are a variant ruleset), you get +1 to two stats or +2 to one stat every four levels. They also have more impact in 5e since the cap for any given stat is 20 (with exceptions).

[Amnestic]

Not really. The humans lacking a creator is generic D&D setting information. It's the thing for at least Greyhawk, Nentir Vale, and The Forgotten Realms.

From a quick glance their creator is generally unknown, disputed, or not named. Not that they explicitly lack one.


The "deities minmaxing" thing is a logical extrapolation of the existing lore. Gruumsh favors strength and cares little for machinery and ingenuity. As such, his created beings have a strength bonus in exchange for an intelligence penalty. Moradin wanted his folk to be tough, but Charisma (and the ability to convince people to do things) matters less when honor rules over reason. Corellon is a graceful deity (though the Con penalty makes little sense). Yondalla created halflings to be quick and nimble but small, and with less size you have less potential strength.

Okay, and in the case of Eberron, where none of those exist?

[Wildstag]

Okay, and in the case of Eberron, where none of those exist?

Don't believe the propaganda! Eberron is a PMP of the multiverse, just like the rest of the planes! Gods exist, they just can't access it. But that non-access is a development of the plane, not a factory setting.

Seriously though...


That sounds like extremely setting specific lore to me.

[Tanarii]

Eh, I feel like age is better represented through narrative than mechanics.
It used to be useful, back when campaigns were large groups of players with many characters that potentially could have time that extended beyond the lifespan of a human. Or at least beyond the default age bracket that unadjusted stats were supposed to represent.

Of course, there were lots of things, include casting some spells, that could age you prematurely as well. But that wasn't the only reason age and modifiers for age brackets mattered.

[Hytheter]

I would MUCH rather have seen fighters that attack with their intelligence stat

Maybe people are ready for my Int Fighter idea after all 😏

[qube]

Now every race is a 5'x5'x5' cube of flesh. But it's okay, you can stick a nametag on them and write whatever race you want! So you can be a 5'x5'x5' cube of 'human' or a 5'x5'x5' cube of 'halfling' or even a 5'x5'x5' cube of 'goliath'!

Doesn't that sound exciting?finally I can play a gelatinous qube :D

[Kane0]

Im okay with removing racial stats and just starting everyone off with an ASI (which also removes the need for variant human, two stones with one bird). Im also okay with adjusting the floors of stats rather than the average or ceiling which might be a happy compromise for some.

However.

Im not okay with all races having the same size, speed or other base mechanics. Those things contribute to those races being unique/differentiated and not just a grab bag of sometimes thematic abilities/features with a cultural paintjob slapped over it.

Races and backgrounds are different for a reason, and should be treated as such.

[Dr. Cliché]

The fans and players of Dungeons and Dragons do not constitute a political party.

Point to where I claimed that they did. :smallconfused:



No governmental agency told Hasbro what to do with their work product in regards to changes to D&D.

You do realise that companies can make political decisions without the involvement of specific political parties, right?

{Scrubbed}




The designers of D&D listened to their consumer base, and made changes to their product...which is part of Capitalistic Innovation.

{Scrubbed}



I empathize with and acknowledge your feelings of distress that the changes made to the game are not to your liking...


{Scrubbed}


but my reading of the rules of this board indicate political discussions are not permitted here.


But that is entirely the problem - I cannot discuss this change without bringing politics into it because WotC brought politics into it.

With any other topic I would be more than happy to leave real-world politics out of it. Indeed, my entire stance is that politics *should* be left out of these games. I think one of the great things about escapist fiction like D&D is that it offers an escape from real-world politics.

However, WotC decided to bring politics into the game and completely change how races work {Scrubbed}

Hence, there is no point in my discussing the merits of this change based on flavour, mechanics or gameplay experience (as I would any other change) because those things are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if even 99% of players think that these changes make the game worse overall (and tell WotC such) because it wasn't done to improve the game in any way. It was done for explicitly political reasons so it is on those terms that I have to look at it. Anything else is utterly pointless.

{Scrubbed}

[stoutstien]

I'd rather just rip of the ability score band-aid once and for all and address the scarred reality underneath.

[Sorinth]

Im okay with removing racial stats and just starting everyone off with an ASI (which also removes the need for variant human, two stones with one bird). Im also okay with adjusting the floors of stats rather than the average or ceiling which might be a happy compromise for some.

However.

Im not okay with all races having the same size, speed or other base mechanics. Those things contribute to those races being unique/differentiated and not just a grab bag of sometimes thematic abilities/features with a cultural paintjob slapped over it.

Races and backgrounds are different for a reason, and should be treated as such.

If the only racial difference is this one is big and this one is small then I have a hard time believing that they are really all that unique/different and not as you say a paintjob slapped on them.

The difference between the races should actually make them feel and play different. Racial Stats, and Size don't do that, all they do is lock out certain concepts.

[Kuu Lightwing]

If the only racial difference is this one is big and this one is small then I have a hard time believing that they are really all that unique/different and not as you say a paintjob slapped on them.

The difference between the races should actually make them feel and play different. Racial Stats, and Size don't do that, all they do is lock out certain concepts.

Are you arguing that Halflings should not be Small?

And besides, I've seen this argument many times, but it's not a good one. It's not "the only difference" it's one of the differences. And the more differences they remove, the less unique they will become, yes.

EDIT: Also, there's a contradiction - if that locks out certain concepts then surely it's a part of what makes them feel and play different. If your goal is that it should never lock out any concept, then they also probably couldn't have significant differences, otherwise it, again, would lock out certain concepts.

[Sorinth]

Are you arguing that Halflings should not be Small?

And besides, I've seen this argument many times, but it's not a good one. It's not "the only difference" it's one of the differences. And the more differences they remove, the less unique they will become, yes.

EDIT: Also, there's a contradiction - if that locks out certain concepts then surely it's a part of what makes them feel and play different. If your goal is that it should never lock out any concept, then they also probably couldn't have significant differences, otherwise it, again, would lock out certain concepts.

I'm saying being small isn't a good defining characteristic. And for the record it wouldn't surprise be if there were halflings that were taller then dwarves, elves, humans because there is a huge range of human size.

And the counter argument is that by removing "weak" characteristic they open up more space to actually make interesting ones.

Locking out concepts doesn't do anything to make the races feel different. A Halfling S+B fighter doesn't feel different from a Dwarf S+B Fighter because they are small or because Dwarves have weapon/armour proficiencies. However if instead Dwarves were given the ability from the Dwarven Fortitude feat and Halflings were given the Bountiful Luck one, then they would actually feel and play much different even though they might have the same concept.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I'm saying being small isn't a good defining characteristic. And for the record it wouldn't surprise be if there were halflings that were taller then dwarves, elves, humans because there is a huge range of human size.
The size tables usually are ranges, not strict numbers. So there's nothing that prevents having ranges, maybe with a note that there could be outliers if you consult with your DM.
And besides, being small could be a good defining characteristic, it's just in 5e they removed pretty much every mechanical significance of actually being small other than "has disadvantage with Heavy weapons".


And the counter argument is that by removing "weak" characteristic they open up more space to actually make interesting ones.
If it's not a significant characteristic, then it's not restricting much design space. I also didn't see anything saying that "we will remove sizes, but we'll add tons of new abilities instead" so this this counterargument is just a conjecture.


Locking out concepts doesn't do anything to make the races feel different. A Halfling S+B fighter doesn't feel different from a Dwarf S+B Fighter because they are small or because Dwarves have weapon/armour proficiencies. However if instead Dwarves were given the ability from the Dwarven Fortitude feat and Halflings were given the Bountiful Luck one, then they would actually feel and play much different even though they might have the same concept.

Sure it does. If, say a Dwarf can only be a Fighter or a Cleric for example while Elf can only be a Wizard or a Rogue, then those races feel very different from each other. In fact, they would feel much more different that a Fighter with Bountiful Luck and a Fighter with Dwarven Fortitude, because a class is much more mechanical difference than a feat. You yourself used an example of feats specifically restricted to the races to point out how locking out things does not make meaningful difference.

Also, to say that it makes them play "much different" is an exaggeration. Those are minor abilities that you maybe get to use sometimes, not change your game plan as a Fighter in any significant manner.

[Tanarii]

The fans and players of Dungeons and Dragons do not constitute a political party. No governmental agency told Hasbro what to do with their work product in regards to changes to D&D.

The designers of D&D listened to their consumer base, and made changes to their product...which is part of Capitalistic Innovation.
Correction:
Wotc (not necessarily the designers, but the corporate structure) listened to an activist campaign started by non-customers which then blew up on social media / the internet in April 2020, and felt compelled to make a publicity statement of some kind. This has nothing to do with economic theories ... which I'll note, also constitute politics.

We can't discuss the details of the politics around that activist campaign, and for pretty good reason, it gets rancorous. But I'd like to think we can acknowledge its existence.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Thread closed.