As a sunlight sensitive person, I will be sad if they remove sunlight sensitivity

[Lasker]

As a result of the fallout from my Multiple Sclerosis I have severe photosensitivity, I often find light painful. Sometimes a little painful, sometimes spend-the-rest-of-the-day-puking-in-the-dark painful. I like that I can play a character that is like me. I like that despite having some real limitations the characters are off having adventures. I like that I can turn my lived experience into RP to give my character more depth.

I will be sad if they remove it.

[Psyren]

If you want that drawback to be a defining aspect of your character, simply ask your GM to include it. You don't even have to be a specific race to roleplay it if you don't want to.

What WotC does in the default books and what you want your character concept to be don't have to be interdependent.

[Willie the Duck]

As a result of the fallout from my Multiple Sclerosis I have severe photosensitivity, I often find light painful. Sometimes a little painful, sometimes spend-the-rest-of-the-day-puking-in-the-dark painful. I like that I can play a character that is like me. I like that despite having some real limitations the characters are off having adventures. I like that I can turn my lived experience into RP to give my character more depth.

I will be sad if they remove it.

Seems like you are a living example that this physical state does not need to come from being a non-human species.

As to whether D&D ought to have the option for playing with each character getting various physical (positive or negative or mixed) qualities, that's certainly a possibility (various other games, like GURPS, do so), but makes for a more complex character creation process.

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree with Psyren.

Ultimately, the rules provide a framework for the game. But we are all expected to go beyond the rules and implement our own take on the game at our tables.

If the rules change, a conversation with your DM should be able to resolve any issues.

[arnin77]

I don’t know what would be stopping you from playing a character with sunlight sensitivity if they did remove it.

That would be like saying your character can’t have an eyepatch and disadvantage on perception checks because it’s not included in the Sailor: Pirate background.

If you want to play a character more like you, then play one. It’s just a game. :)

[PhantomSoul]

As a result of the fallout from my Multiple Sclerosis I have severe photosensitivity, I often find light painful. Sometimes a little painful, sometimes spend-the-rest-of-the-day-puking-in-the-dark painful. I like that I can play a character that is like me. I like that despite having some real limitations the characters are off having adventures. I like that I can turn my lived experience into RP to give my character more depth.

I will be sad if they remove it.

I'll be sad about the removal too, but less personally. I like having [(sub-)species] interact with the world differently and/or get me thinking about aspects of the world and the mechanics differently.

For different reasons, we can ignore the retcon/alternate/errata (depending on how the implementation actually ends up, but it's sounding like an effective retcon for people who have the misfortune of using Beyond).

[Psyren]

I'll be sad about the removal too, but less personally. I like having [(sub-)species] interact with the world differently and/or get me thinking about aspects of the world and the mechanics differently.

For different reasons, we can ignore the retcon/alternate/errata (depending on how the implementation actually ends up, but it's sounding like an effective retcon for people who have the misfortune of using Beyond).

Even if you use DDB and this update goes through retroactively, you can add a houserule condition to your character - or, you know, just toggle disadvantage manually when you're rolling attacks/perceptions in sunlight. Seriously, it's disadvantage on two things, it's not like you'll need advanced scripting or a CompSci degreee to implement :smalltongue:

[PhantomSoul]

Even if you use DDB and this update goes through retroactively, you can add a houserule condition to your character - or, you know, just toggle disadvantage manually when you're rolling attacks/perceptions in sunlight. Seriously, it's disadvantage on two things, it's not like you'll need advanced scripting or a CompSci degreee to implement :smalltongue:

Oh, we could always homebrew or house rule for everything in the entire book... it's just nice when the game actually gives interesting ideas and starting points. Losing differences between races partly means losing the interest of that race existing.

It's not about it being difficult to do. It's about the game giving something interesting instead of what amounts to a hat. Sure, not all races will have that... but that's a pro (degrees and types of differentiation).

And not everything is just advantage, and who knows if DDB will even be telling you what the race originally was like. (My trust for DDB at this point is exactly -- if not generously -- zero, to be blunt about biases!)

[Psyren]

Oh, we could always homebrew or house rule for everything in the entire book... it's just nice when the game actually gives interesting ideas and starting points. Losing differences between races partly means losing the interest of that race existing.

If something interesting were removed I'd agree with you.

[P. G. Macer]

If something interesting were removed I'd agree with you.

“Interesting” is inherently subjective. I’ve already found several interesting things removed.

[PhantomSoul]

“Interesting” is inherently subjective. I’ve already found several interesting things removed.

And/or not-super-interesting things (e.g. stat bumps, which can be suggestive/informative at least) being removed (making it completely uninteresting and uninspiring).

But sunlight sensitivity? Yeah, that at least could be quite interesting: it has the potential to change how you play or to make you take advantage of opportunities you otherwise didn't have, or to build a direct narrative out of the mechanics.

[arnin77]

But you can still play with it if you want to. Do you want everyone to have to play with it because you find it interesting?

[Kane0]

I really hope the existing options dont disappear, that was one of the things 5e was originally adamant on.
We might not be getting more things like this, but at least keep the old ones around.

[PhantomSoul]

But you can still play with it if you want to. Do you want everyone to have to play with it because you find it interesting?

Speaking for myself, I want no one to be unable to play with it because it's been retconned. (Especially when it's the actual product they paid for.) Not the same thing!

[arnin77]

Speaking for myself, I want no one to be unable to play with it because it's been retconned. (Especially when it's the actual product they paid for.) Not the same thing!

Unless they change it to "You cannot play this race with sunlight sensitivity" then no one can't play with it.... they would just be removing it as a requirement...

[PhantomSoul]

Unless they change it to "You cannot play this race with sunlight sensitivity" then no one can't play with it.... they would just be removing it as a requirement...

If places like Beyond stop showing the original versions... (Which, as noted, isn't yet determined, but they don't exactly inspire confidence.)

[arnin77]

If places like Beyond stop showing the original versions... (Which, as noted, isn't yet determined, but they don't exactly inspire confidence.)

Roll a second dice on the table your laptop is on and use that as disadvantage; or just make a character sheet on roll20 and toggle disadvantage. It's just a game. if you want to play it a certain way; play it.

[PhantomSoul]

Roll a second dice on the table your laptop is on and use that as disadvantage; or just make a character sheet on roll20 and toggle disadvantage. It's just a game. if you want to play it a certain way; play it.

I mean the information being given at all on Beyond. The original version of the race alongside the v2. (As opposed to replacing the older versions -- and therefore removing the content you paid for and potentially specifically wanted, as well as meaning you won't find the original information -- as they've done in the past.)

[False God]

New Heritage Feat: "Darkdweller": You have Sunlight Sensitivity. You gain no other benefits from taking this. You took it entirely because you wanted to have mechanical reinforcement of your roleplay.

/done

[PhantomSoul]

You took it entirely because you wanted to have mechanical reinforcement of your roleplay.

That is how the game works, yes! (No blue text needed.)

[arnin77]

I still don’t see how that’s stopping you from playing with sunlight sensitivity if you want it. Is Beyond going to delete all instances of this from Google or 5eWikidot? It sounds like the monster race will still have it so it’s not being deleted entirely. Maybe ask for a refund if it’s that crucial? I mean, did you purchase the content or did you purchase access to the content. I don’t use beyond so I don’t know how that works but from what I hear there’s some customizable things you can do so I still don’t know how them changing something is stopping you from doing it.

I find it admirable that the OP wants to play with something that represents themselves and maybe they’d like more people to be aware of it… I just don’t think they should let the requirement removal deter them from continuing to do so.

[PhantomSoul]

I still don’t see how that’s stopping you from playing with sunlight sensitivity if you want it. Is Beyond going to delete all instances of this from Google or 5eWikidot? It sounds like the monster race will still have it so it’s not being deleted entirely. Maybe ask for a refund if it’s that crucial? I mean, did you purchase the content or did you purchase access to the content. I don’t use beyond so I don’t know how that works but from what I hear there’s some customizable things you can do so I still don’t know how them changing something is stopping you from doing it.

I find it admirable that the OP wants to play with something that represents themselves and maybe they’d like more people to be aware of it… I just don’t think they should let the requirement removal deter them from continuing to do so.

Quite agreed that the removal shouldn't block them from using an older version and/or homebrewing something with flavour and mechanics that appeal to them. I'm not saying that's false, it's just not what I'm commenting on; I'm commenting on (a) changes, and (b) probable implementations of those changes.

Back to the OP, though, it definitely sucks that WotC may be removing something that makes the game more appealing or makes a character more relatable. I guess it's 5e fever: the more they do, the more homebrew seems like an appealing option!

[ProsecutorGodot]

I mean the information being given at all on Beyond. The original version of the race alongside the v2. (As opposed to replacing the older versions -- and therefore removing the content you paid for and potentially specifically wanted, as well as meaning you won't find the original information -- as they've done in the past.)

DND Beyond (or rather, Fandom) has always had an easily accessible page that tells you content can be changed, removed or otherwise made inaccessible with no warning or reason.

If you're interested in the original content, I'd highly recommend physical copies. The strength of a digital toolset is in ease of access not necessarily in keeping every recorded piece of content the edition has ever had.

[PhantomSoul]

If you're interested in the original content, I'd highly recommend physical copies. The strength of a digital toolset is in ease of access not necessarily in keeping every recorded piece of content the edition has ever had.

The strength of a digital toolset could be both. They just chose not to be.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The strength of a digital toolset could be both. They just chose not to be.

I think this would have more to do with their licensing agreement with WotC than anything else. My gut tells me that if WotC could magic errata's into existing books they would, they wouldn't have made the changes if they didn't prefer them over the previous iterations. DND Beyond is their official toolset where they have such an ability.

Or to put this another way - I don't think it needs to be. Those who are interested in removed or replaces content already have access to it (either physically or through memory where they can add it in themselves), those who aren't don't need it and those who come later will be ignorant that their was ever a previous iteration to be upset over. Offering a V1, V2 and V3 only offers to confuse a newcomer and bloat the search engine.

Don't ever forget that players are encouraged at every conceivable entry point to DND to make the game their own, to add, remove and change content as they prefer. Something changing in print is not a ban on you being able to use it going forward.

[Evaar]

It'd be nice if D&D had something like a Merits & Flaws system from the World of Darkness, where you could take a penalty like Sunlight Sensitivity and gain points to spend on other benefits in exchange.

Unfortunately it does not, and I'm not convinced that saddling every member of a given race with the effect is the appropriate way to allow for representation of various disabled people.

[Psyren]

But you can still play with it if you want to. Do you want everyone to have to play with it because you find it interesting?

This.


If places like Beyond stop showing the original versions... (Which, as noted, isn't yet determined, but they don't exactly inspire confidence.)

You... agreed to their right to do that when you signed up for the service instead of buying your books outside it. :smallconfused:
If you contact customer service you might get a refund, which you can use to buy the static/dead tree editions.

[PhantomSoul]

This.



You... agreed to their right to do that when you signed up for the service instead of buying your books outside it. :smallconfused:
If you contact customer service you might get a refund, which you can use to buy the static/dead tree editions.

Oh, there's no way in any of the nine hells I'd be using Beyond. I tried it out... NOPE. But others are on it and might have had more faith in them.

[arnin77]

What are you even talking about then - no one complained about beyond but you lol

Are you complaining about beyond for others who may or may not like the change that may or may not happen and even if it did there’s easy work arounds? Lol

[Psyren]

Oh, there's no way in any of the nine hells I'd be using Beyond. I tried it out... NOPE.

Then why do you even-


But others are on it and might have had more faith in them.

Then my statement applies to them, and honestly everyone. Read the terms of service for any digital platform before using it, people, and align your expectations accordingly.

[Burley]

Somebody may have said something similar already, but: The game is modular. Add or remove whatever you want.

If the game removes sunlight sensitivity from Drow, and you want them to have it, just say they have it. If you want a character that needs to cover up and carry a lacy parasol, then just say that and move on. We, as players and DMs, are allowed to add and remove character traits how we want. Because Wizards of the Coast isn't going kick in your door and force your drow into the noon sun.


Example of how you can do this: D&D Beyond removed Warforged a while ago and I can build a serviceable custom race that covers pretty much everything except their whole "Don't eat, sleep or breathe" bit. For that I'll just have to use my imagination. We all know warforged don't eat. I don't need the pre-installed text block to remind me.
Actually, the custom race option let me take a feat that made my custom guy feel more like a walking tank that the original.

[qube]

But you can still play with it if you want to. Do you want everyone to have to play with it because you find it interesting?:smallconfused: What do you mean "have to play"?

You just argued in the first sentence that people can just homebrew if they don't like something.

[Willie the Duck]

Pre-emptively, for the record, my preference would be that D&DB (with the blessing of Wotc from whom they have licensing agreement requirements) have a toggle such that playgroups could alternate between the before and after versions. That would make the most people happy, I feel.


I guess it's 5e fever: the more they do, the more homebrew seems like an appealing option!
I'm really not seeing how this is 5e-specific. 3rd edition changed the shapechanging rules what feels like a half-dozen times. Second edition changed whether paladins and rangers could weapon-specialize with the release of The Complete Fighter's Guide, and then changed it back with subsequent reprints. BECMI did the similar with Thief ability progression. 1st edition AD&D retroactively changed falling damage in Unearthed Arcana just so the Thief-Acrobat class could use the old (lesser) damage rate and call it a class benefit. Other than the movement to a specific dynamic digital platform for many peoples' game rule sets, there's nothing particularly new about any of this.


I really hope the existing options dont disappear, that was one of the things 5e was originally adamant on.
We might not be getting more things like this, but at least keep the old ones around.
I mean, that is kind of interesting. Previously I've heard complaints about why hasn't WotC fixed the berserker instead of releasing new Barbarian archetypes (or previously why did they release warblade for 3e instead of fix fighter). Given that we won't all agree on what are good rules and bad, is there a right way for them to address changing existing material?

[arnin77]

:smallconfused: What do you mean "have to play"?

You just argued in the first sentence that people can just homebrew if they don't like something.

Try reading the whole sentence instead of three words maybe?

[Psyren]

:smallconfused: What do you mean "have to play"?

You just argued in the first sentence that people can just homebrew if they don't like something.

No one "has to", but since the entry cannot both have and not have the restriction, one needs to be default. They have decided that the game is better served not having such arbitrary restrictions on PC adventurers.


Pre-emptively, for the record, my preference would be that D&DB (with the blessing of Wotc from whom they have licensing agreement requirements) have a toggle such that playgroups could alternate between the before and after versions. That would make the most people happy, I feel.

That toggle currently exists, it's called Allow Volo's/etc and Disallow MotM.

Now, if they later errata Volo's to match MotM, you will lose access to the old in DDB. That is a valid point of feedback to convey to them, which they can use to determine whether enough people care about this aspect of their platform to expend resources building in some kind of versioning system. Ultimately though, we gave them the right to make changes like this when we agreed to the DDB/Fandom ToS.

[pwykersotz]

Consider trying a flaw system (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm). It will require a little retooling since this one is for 3.5.

I get that it doesn't stop the frustration of not having modern system support, and it makes conversations with peers and on forums more annoying (there will always be someone who pops up and tells you why what you like or what you're concerned about is dumb), but it's a good way to make things work for your character at your table.

[Imbalance]

Gleaning over thread after thread of similar discussions, where it seems many are saying the same thing at each other from different perspectives (the two things gamers hate most are change and the way things are), it ultimately begs the question:

What do we even need WotC for?

The SRD is free. Everything else is optional, modular, and customizable with wholesale edits strongly encouraged by the publisher. So, why should any of us buy any of it? Why invest in this product at all, digital, tangible, or otherwise, especially since the company selling it comes right out and tells you that you and your table ought to come up with something better? If you really feel that "they" took something from you then take something back. It's ok to feel sad, but cancel your preorder.

[Psyren]

(the two things gamers hate most are change and the way things are)

This made me laugh out loud at work so thanks :smallbiggrin:

[qube]

Try reading the whole sentence instead of three words maybe?
I did. That's how I can conclude your second sentence contradicts your first.

Nobody was arguing everyone has to play it a certain way. The topic at hand is that the OP wants it in the rules. As such


Do you want everyone to have to play with it because you find it interesting?

Is either an irrelevant question for an entirely different discussion

Or there's the underlying implication that "in the rules" = "everyone has to play with it", which is contradictory to the first sentence


No one "has to", but since the entry cannot both have and not have the restriction, one needs to be default.Quite true, yet that's not the point made. Consider the difference between


But you can still play with it if you want to. Do you want everyone to have to play with it because you find it interesting?

well ... no. Nobody wants to be that guy forcing other to play his/her way.


But you can still play with it if you want to. Do you want the entry to have it because you find it interesting?

well ... yes. Everyone likes it if WotC didn't kick out a thing they liked.

[Psyren]

Nobody was arguing everyone has to play it a certain way. The topic at hand is that the OP wants it in the rules.


And we don't. So my first response to the OP stands.

[ProsecutorGodot]

But you can still play with it if you want to. Do you want the entry to have it because you find it interesting?

well ... yes. Everyone likes it if WotC didn't kick out a thing they liked.

And "everyone" is happy when that thing they didn't like is kicked out. There's no way to make "everyone" happy. Even telling them "you can literally do whatever you want, find your bliss man" won't make everyone happy.

Aside from that Sunlight Sensitivity is, from nearly every accounts I've read and seen, not a popular trait for a player race to have. If it's something you do want on your character for whatever reason, I would think it would be more problematic that only 3 of the playable races have the trait you're looking to identify with.

It's much better in my opinion to remove it from all playable races and let those who would like to have it work that out with their DM, these players shouldn't be "forced" to pick one of three races to find the representation they want any more than the players who want to play those three races should be "forced" to play with it. This sort of reasoning for wanting this trait should be a race agnostic choice.

[arnin77]

I did. That's how I can conclude your second sentence contradicts your first.

Nobody was arguing everyone has to play it a certain way. The topic at hand is that the OP wants it in the rules. As such


Do you want everyone to have to play with it because you find it interesting?

Is either an irrelevant question for an entirely different discussion

Or there's the underlying implication that "in the rules" = "everyone has to play with it", which is contradictory to the first sentence

Quite true, yet that's not the point made. Consider the difference between


But you can still play with it if you want to. Do you want everyone to have to play with it because you find it interesting?

well ... no. Nobody wants to be that guy forcing other to play his/her way.


But you can still play with it if you want to. Do you want the entry to have it because you find it interesting?

well ... yes. Everyone likes it if WotC didn't kick out a thing they liked.

But my second sentence isn’t a statement. It’s a question regarding the contradictory/opposing stance. I also did not say you can homebrew anything you want so don’t lie about that please. I said nothing is stopping you from playing with it if it’s removed. Needing it to be in the rules implies that you want to enforce it - especially since if it’s in the rules then it would be legal for AL as far as I know and therefore enforced. But if you walk into a AL game and declare that your character has sunlight sensitivity even if it’s not a requirement then there’s nothing to stop you. Is this just arguing for arguments sake? It’s pretty obvious.

[Segev]

It is fascinating to see the argument that was rejected as callus and unreasonable for why the changes were unnecessary and detrimental be now made for why the changes are no big deal and people should not complain that things are being taken away.

[Psyren]

It is fascinating to see the argument that was rejected as callus and unreasonable for why the changes were unnecessary and detrimental be now made for why the changes are no big deal and people should not complain that things are being taken away.

When one side is arguing "This should be in the books by default, houserule it out if you don't like it" and the other side is arguing "this shouldn't be in the books by default, houserule it back in if you like it" then of course the arguments for and against are going to end up sounding similar - they are two sides of the same coin.

[Segev]

When one side is arguing "This should be in the books by default, houserule it out if you don't like it" and the other side is arguing "this shouldn't be in the books by default, houserule it back in if you like it" then of course the arguments for and against are going to end up sounding similar - they are two sides of the same coin.

Absolutely. The humor for me comes from the fact that the argument was rejected by the people now making it.

[arnin77]

All I’m trying to say is that if they just remove it then nothing is stopping you from playing it.

The gist I got was that them removing it somehow stops or deters you from playing with sunlight sensitivity. But it doesn’t. It just allows others to not play with it.

There isn’t a rule that says “No drow PCs can play with sunlight sensitivity” but there is a rule that says “Drow PCs have sunlight sensitivity” and if that’s a rule then it can be enforced by a DM that wants it at their table. And I believe it would have to be enforced at AL tables too. So I’d say that’s the difference. Also not to mention if there’s tournament play.

[GooeyChewie]

But my second sentence isn’t a statement. It’s a question regarding the contradictory/opposing stance.
It was a question which relied on the premise that if the book say something you have to play it that way. As qube pointed out, your first statement contradicts that premise by pointing out that you don't have play without sunlight sensitivity, regardless of what the books say.


All I’m trying to say is that if they just remove it then nothing is stopping you from playing it.
That's absolutely true.


It just allows others to not play with it.
Not true. Just as there's nothing stopping players from house-ruling sunlight sensitivity back into the game, there was never anything stopping players from house-ruling sunlight sensitivity out of the game.


There isn’t a rule that says “No drow PCs can play with sunlight sensitivity” but there is a rule that says “Drow PCs have sunlight sensitivity” and if that’s a rule then it can be enforced by a DM that wants it at their table. And I believe it would have to be enforced at AL tables too. So I’d say that’s the difference. Also not to mention if there’s tournament play.
"Drow do not have sunlight sensitivity" can also be enforced by a DM who does not want it at their table, and will become the enforced standard at AL tables as well.


Personally, I don't think sunlight sensitivity should ever have applied to adventurers. From a game design standpoint, it's bad. The downsides are big enough that many players would only want to play a sunlight sensitive character if their DM promised that the entire campaign took place underground, or at least away from sunlight. Thus I'm happy with the change. I'd be even happier if WotC included a mention of the possibility of sunlight sensitivity in the Drow description, possibly even as an official variant, to make it clearer to players that house-ruling it is an option. What I'll pretty much never agree with is the idea of using "you can just house-rule it" as a justification for any design change, whether I agree with the change itself or not.

[Psyren]

Personally, I don't think sunlight sensitivity should ever have applied to adventurers. From a game design standpoint, it's bad. The downsides are big enough that many players would only want to play a sunlight sensitive character if their DM promised that the entire campaign took place underground, or at least away from sunlight. Thus I'm happy with the change. I'd be even happier if WotC included a mention of the possibility of sunlight sensitivity in the Drow description, possibly even as an official variant, to make it clearer to players that house-ruling it is an option. What I'll pretty much never agree with is the idea of using "you can just house-rule it" as a justification for any design change, whether I agree with the change itself or not.

From my standpoint at least, "you can houserule it back" wasn't a justification. It was a consolation for the (seemingly, albeit suspiciously) distraught OP. For me, the justification is that PC adventurers should be assumed to be able to overcome these kinds of annoying drawbacks.

As I think someone earlier in the thread pointed out, all Drizz't had to do to to erase that line from his character sheet was stare at the sun for a bit. (Which, comically, should have made his vision even worse, but now I'm headed towards catgirl territory.) Doing so didn't even hurt his Darkvision, mechanically speaking.

[arnin77]

It was a question which relied on the premise that if the book say something you have to play it that way. As qube pointed out, your first statement contradicts that premise by pointing out that you don't have play without sunlight sensitivity, regardless of what the books say.


That's absolutely true.


Not true. Just as there's nothing stopping players from house-ruling sunlight sensitivity back into the game, there was never anything stopping players from house-ruling sunlight sensitivity out of the game.


"Drow do not have sunlight sensitivity" can also be enforced by a DM who does not want it at their table, and will become the enforced standard at AL tables as well.


Personally, I don't think sunlight sensitivity should ever have applied to adventurers. From a game design standpoint, it's bad. The downsides are big enough that many players would only want to play a sunlight sensitive character if their DM promised that the entire campaign took place underground, or at least away from sunlight. Thus I'm happy with the change. I'd be even happier if WotC included a mention of the possibility of sunlight sensitivity in the Drow description, possibly even as an official variant, to make it clearer to players that house-ruling it is an option. What I'll pretty much never agree with is the idea of using "you can just house-rule it" as a justification for any design change, whether I agree with the change itself or not.


They do have to play with it if the dm enforces it. It’s a ruling in the book. There’s no ruling that says drow don’t have it. And not only that it’s supposed to stay on the monster stat block. I’m done this is ridiculous. Please let this rule that doesn’t exist totally stop you from playing with it if that’s what you want.

[False God]

No one "has to", but since the entry cannot both have and not have the restriction, one needs to be default. They have decided that the game is better served not having such arbitrary restrictions on PC adventurers.

More to the point, it is easier to ask a DM "I want my character to have extra setbacks because I think it fits the concept better." Than it is to ask the DM for what is essentially a bennie (a weakened or removed racial drawback) by the same argument.

TLDR: It's easier to add than subtract.

[Psyren]

More to the point, it is easier to ask a DM "I want my character to have extra setbacks because I think it fits the concept better." Than it is to ask the DM for what is essentially a bennie (a weakened or removed racial drawback) by the same argument.

TLDR: It's easier to add than subtract.

This is a great point (and a great response to Segev/qube) as well. The two arguments are not actually the same.

[Segev]

Sure, you can ask for that, but unless you're playing the only example in the campaign, you also have to ask the DM to alter the campaign setting, including potentially other PCs, lest it somehow be a special trait of your character alone. Which is a very different thing than it being "normal" for what you are.

If you wanted, in core-only 5e, to play an elf without darkvision, because your vision of elves doesn't include that, but every other elf in the setting has it, then your elf has a disability, rather than it being simply that elves don't have the ability to see without light. (I make no judgment nor explanation for why you'd want this, here; please assume there's a valid reason for it and that it is somehow important to the character concept.)

As another example, I find the kenku speech curse to be really interesting, and inspiring for concepts for characters. If it is removed from the race as a whole, I suppose I could slap the race onto any concept where I don't care what race I play, but there's nothing inspiring about the race's lore to me that calls to me for a concept that IS a kenku. Or even is related to kenku. I could, obviously, ask the DM to let my kenku have the curse, but if every other kenku in the setting speaks just fine, that again becomes a thing about my character, and why not just do that on whatever other race, instead?

[Psyren]

If you wanted, in core-only 5e, to play an elf without darkvision, because your vision of elves doesn't include that, but every other elf in the setting has it, then your elf has a disability, rather than it being simply that elves don't have the ability to see without light. (I make no judgment nor explanation for why you'd want this, here; please assume there's a valid reason for it and that it is somehow important to the character concept.)

This explicitly aligns with the OP's stated desires, so I'm not actually seeing the issue.


As another example, I find the kenku speech curse to be really interesting, and inspiring for concepts for characters. If it is removed from the race as a whole, I suppose I could slap the race onto any concept where I don't care what race I play, but there's nothing inspiring about the race's lore to me that calls to me for a concept that IS a kenku. Or even is related to kenku. I could, obviously, ask the DM to let my kenku have the curse, but if every other kenku in the setting speaks just fine, that again becomes a thing about my character, and why not just do that on whatever other race, instead?

Pathfinder has Kenku (well, Tengu) without that frankly ridiculous curse. In no other edition or game that has them or a race like them have I ever seen such a drawback until 5e came up with it. And for no race like it before did I ever feel like what I was playing wasn't "inspiring." Even if you find that drawback to be singularly fertile ground for roleplay, it's still objectively poorly designed/defined.

[GooeyChewie]

More to the point, it is easier to ask a DM "I want my character to have extra setbacks because I think it fits the concept better." Than it is to ask the DM for what is essentially a bennie (a weakened or removed racial drawback) by the same argument.

TLDR: It's easier to add than subtract.

I disagree. In my opinion, it's a lot easier to ignore a rule than to create a rule, if for no other reason than ignoring something only requires agreeing to ignore it while adding something requires agreeing to the exact details of what's being added. Sunlight sensitivity is only easy to house-rule back in because it existed in the first place. If I asked for, say, "Hydro Sensitivity" for my Fire Genasi, would you know immediately exactly how I'm envisioning that'll work?

[ProsecutorGodot]

As another example, I find the kenku speech curse to be really interesting, and inspiring for concepts for characters. If it is removed from the race as a whole, I suppose I could slap the race onto any concept where I don't care what race I play, but there's nothing inspiring about the race's lore to me that calls to me for a concept that IS a kenku. Or even is related to kenku. I could, obviously, ask the DM to let my kenku have the curse, but if every other kenku in the setting speaks just fine, that again becomes a thing about my character, and why not just do that on whatever other race, instead?

I think this is a pretty bad example honestly, the mimicry trait isn't being removed so a Kenku player is still fully able to only speak in mimicry, the difference being that they don't have to.

If you're inspiration is purely based on this being a "forced" negative trait I'm not sure I really agree that it's interesting. Whether or not something like this is "interesting" will depend on the player and it makes a lot more sense for it to be an opt in feature than a feature that would otherwise have those who would opt out choose not to play a Kenku at all.


I disagree. In my opinion, it's a lot easier to ignore a rule than to create a rule, if for no other reason than ignoring something only requires agreeing to ignore it while adding something requires agreeing to the exact details of what's being added. Sunlight sensitivity is only easy to house-rule back in because it existed in the first place. If I asked for, say, "Hydro Sensitivity" for my Fire Genasi, would you know immediately exactly how I'm envisioning that'll work?
If we're going to assume that an added rule isn't straightforward and well communicated between the table I think it's only fair that the "removed" rule be scrutinized similarly, see the above Kenku example where only the forced aspect of their mimicry is being removed rather than the entirety of their mimicry feature.

There will be times when you also need to agree on the exact details of what's removed, adding and subtracting are pretty similar in how easy they are to manage but starting with an acceptable baseline to build from is something I consider to be better design than starting from a poor foundation that needs to levelled out before a user is satisfied.

[Segev]

Pathfinder has Kenku (well, Tengu) without that frankly ridiculous curse. In no other edition or game that has them or a race like them have I ever seen such a drawback until 5e came up with it. And for no race like it before did I ever feel like what I was playing wasn't "inspiring." Even if you find that drawback to be singularly fertile ground for roleplay, it's still objectively poorly designed/defined.Fair enough on the other editions. I note that I never even considered a kenku in those other editions, so my point stands. Your mocking tone about my being inspired by the limitations notwithstanding, it was quite specifically the fact that they speak in sound effects and recorded clips not to be annoying, but because that's how they have to speak, that is interesting.

I get it if you find it annoying. But if the best you've got is mocking dismissal, I'm not exactly persuaded that I'm wrong. Only that you not only have different taste, but believe your taste to be inherently superior to mine in some objective sense.

Now, it's unique to 5e that they have this curse, fine. That still is going to shape the cultures that race is a major part of (or the race's internal culture, as the case may be). It being something only one unique PC kenku has to deal with will just make that one PC kenku have a thing. It changes the shape of the problem and the way the PC's life is formed by his upbringing.

So, again: I wasn't all that interested in them in other editions, and will lose interest in them if they lose this, here. Whether you wish to be scoffingly dismissive or not, the fact remains that kenku without that curse just aren't nearly as interesting to me.


I think this is a pretty bad example honestly, the mimicry trait isn't being removed so a Kenku player is still fully able to only speak in mimicry, the difference being that they don't have to.And a human PC can insist on being pushed everywhere in a chair with wheels, or carried everywhere on a litter, because his ability to sit down is not removed by having a functional walking speed. A merfolk who has the abiltiy to somehow pogo along on her tail at 30 ft. walking speed who chooses to only drag herself along at 5 ft if not carried is very different from a merfolk who can't pogo around at a "normal" walking speed.

I'm not saying this is a point of interest for me, personally, but I am trying to illustrate how this actually makes a difference. Yes, the Kenku can still speak solely in mimicry without the curse, but why would they? What kind of person are they if they do this by insistent choice, rather than as their best good-faith effort to communicate?


If you're inspiration is purely based on this being a "forced" negative trait I'm not sure I really agree that it's interesting. Whether or not something like this is "interesting" will depend on the player and it makes a lot more sense for it to be an opt in feature than a feature that would otherwise have those who would opt out choose not to play a Kenku at all.Perhaps. Should halflings be optionally Medium-sized? Should elves be optionally Small-sized? Shouldn't the sizes be "opt-in" since there are ups and downs to them?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yes, the Kenku can still speak solely in mimicry without the curse, but why would they? What kind of person are they if they do this by insistent choice, rather than as their best good-faith effort to communicate?
It could be more comfortable for them, it could be that this particular Kenku actually can't speak normally.

Let's not imply what kind of person they are for this being a "choice" either, if we're going to argue whether it's "moral" for the fictional magical bird person to speak in unnering mimicry if they don't have to, I'm going to argue back that every epic level Kenku that's ever existed should be personally petitioning the god's to undo their magical curse, or simply Wish it undone.

I think we should leave these narrative hypotheticals aside and assume that whatever the reason they are a well intentioned person.


Perhaps. Should halflings be optionally Medium-sized? Should elves be optionally Small-sized? Shouldn't the sizes be "opt-in" since there are ups and downs to them?

For races where this trait isn't a core identifying feature, they are becoming optional. The new design methods seem to say that these are meant to convey a general idea of how these races appear in the DND Multiverse. Elves are tall and slender, Halflings are very small. Genasi, on the other hand, are easily identifiable regardless of their size.

As an aside with Genasi, it never did make much sense that their parents could be any mortal creature but their size was limited to medium and built like a human. It's a positive change in my book that a proud halfing family can have their plane touched halfling-genasi child rather than an inexplicably human appearing one, but like I've been stressing with my praise of these "opt-in" changes is that it can still happen if you want, the elemental planes can do strange things to a mortal.

[Elves]

What WotC does in the default books and what you want your character concept to be don't have to be interdependent.


Ultimately, the rules provide a framework for the game. But we are all expected to go beyond the rules and implement our own take on the game at our tables.

If the rules change, a conversation with your DM should be able to resolve any issues.


I don’t know what would be stopping you from playing a character with sunlight sensitivity if they did remove it.

That would be like saying your character can’t have an eyepatch and disadvantage on perception checks because it’s not included in the Sailor: Pirate background.
"Exit the system" isn't an answer if the person cares about what's happening in the system.

In principle, yeah, you can homebrew what you want. But some amount of official content is going to be made, and if you care about that content, the discussion is about that content.

I personally don't have an investment in light sensitivity, but I see this line frequently on the 5e boards in particular...and I think it can become a lazy way of brushing off criticism, which isn't good for the game

[Psyren]

"Exit the system" isn't an answer if the person cares about what's happening in the system.

In principle, yeah, you can homebrew what you want. But some amount of official content is going to be made, and if you care about that content, the discussion is about that content.

I personally don't have an investment in light sensitivity, but I see this line frequently on the 5e boards in particular...and I think it can become a lazy way of brushing off criticism, which isn't good for the game

Not sure why you quoted me. "Ask your DM" is not "exit the system" by any stretch of the imagination.


I disagree. In my opinion, it's a lot easier to ignore a rule than to create a rule, if for no other reason than ignoring something only requires agreeing to ignore it while adding something requires agreeing to the exact details of what's being added. Sunlight sensitivity is only easy to house-rule back in because it existed in the first place. If I asked for, say, "Hydro Sensitivity" for my Fire Genasi, would you know immediately exactly how I'm envisioning that'll work?

This is irrelevant because sunlight sensitivity does exist and is right in core. Whether or not a hypothetical "hydro sensitivity" would be easier or harder to devise is thus moot. It's simply not possible to pick up this game and have no frame of reference for that ability specifically, because the PHB is a requirement to play it.



I get it if you find it annoying. But if the best you've got is mocking dismissal, I'm not exactly persuaded that I'm wrong. Only that you not only have different taste, but believe your taste to be inherently superior to mine in some objective sense.

With respect, your tastes don't matter to me at all. When I say the old Kenku ability was objectively badly designed, I'm referring to all the blanks it dumps on each DM to fill without any kind of guidance. How many words/phrases could the old Kenku retain? For how long? If there is a cutoff, what happens if the Kenku keeps reciting those words? Are the words it repeats in the exact same voice, tone, and infllection in which they were originally heard? What about the volume, or echo? Can the Kenku add any kind of inflection or tone changes of its own? Can a listener discern between a kenku and the person they stole the words from? What about if it's mixing and matching words from different sources, will there be sudden changes in voice and tone from word to word? Could a listener use those to determine a kenku is doing the talking? Can Kenku learn words from other Kenku? If yes, how do they not just have language by keeping a solid vocabulary of words in constant rotation? If no, what about adopted Kenku raised in other communities?

Oh yeah, and I lied about the no guidance thing. They do give you this rubbish: "Snapper makes the noise of a hammer slowly and rhythmically tapping a stone to show how bored he is." In other words, just break immersion by telling the party what you're trying to tell them and bypass the curse completely. Great. I'll scoff at that happily, thanks.

[Segev]

Oh yeah, and I lied about the no guidance thing. They do give you this rubbish: "Snapper makes the noise of a hammer slowly and rhythmically tapping a stone to show how bored he is." In other words, just break immersion by telling the party what you're trying to tell them and bypass the curse completely. Great. I'll scoff at that happily, thanks.

May as well scoff at the player who says, "I give an impassioned speech, calling out to their patriotism and their desires to protect their loved ones, to quell the riot to flee the city and talk them into turning those makeshift arms to its defense," for "breaking immersion" and "bypassing the need to RP completely."

[GooeyChewie]

If we're going to assume that an added rule isn't straightforward and well communicated between the table I think it's only fair that the "removed" rule be scrutinized similarly, see the above Kenku example where only the forced aspect of their mimicry is being removed rather than the entirety of their mimicry feature.

There will be times when you also need to agree on the exact details of what's removed, adding and subtracting are pretty similar in how easy they are to manage but starting with an acceptable baseline to build from is something I consider to be better design than starting from a poor foundation that needs to levelled out before a user is satisfied.
I'm not assuming that the added rule isn't straightforward and well communicated. I'm pointing out that creating a rule and making it straightforward and communicating it well is more difficult than pointing to a sentence or passage on a page and asking "hey, can we ignore this part?". The fact that it's easier to remove a rule than to create a rule becomes more obvious the larger your scale. Which is easier, homebrewing a race or banning a race? Writing a whole new sourcebook, or banning one WotC published?


This is irrelevant because sunlight sensitivity does exist and is right in core. Whether or not a hypothetical "hydro sensitivity" would be easier or harder to devise is thus moot. It's simply not possible to pick up this game and have no frame of reference for that ability specifically, because the PHB is a requirement to play it.

That's my point. Adding Sunlight Sensitivity to Drow PCs is only easy because it already exists. The argument that "It's easier to add than subtract" falls apart when you try to apply it to something which doesn't already exist.

Mind you, there are good game design arguments for why PC races should not have major restrictions, or at least that such restrictions should be presented as optional restrictions for players who want the extra challenge. "It's easier to add than subtract" just isn't one of those good game design arguments.

[Psyren]

May as well scoff at the player who says, "I give an impassioned speech, calling out to their patriotism and their desires to protect their loved ones, to quell the riot to flee the city and talk them into turning those makeshift arms to its defense," for "breaking immersion" and "bypassing the need to RP completely."

If that player had a racial limitation saying "you can't actually give an impassioned speech, or at the very least you need to be very specific about the words you're allowed to use during that impassioned speech" then yes, just saying "I give an impassioned speech" does bypass that restriction. And keep in mind that the example doesn't use words! You're literally telling the other players how their characters should interpret a hammer tapping sound. It's utterly ridiculous and I completely understand why they ultimately flushed it, as they should have done before it saw print in the first place.

That's my point. Adding Sunlight Sensitivity to Drow PCs is only easy because it already exists. The argument that "It's easier to add than subtract" falls apart when you try to apply it to something which doesn't already exist.

Mind you, there are good game design arguments for why PC races should not have major restrictions, or at least that such restrictions should be presented as optional restrictions for players who want the extra challenge. "It's easier to add than subtract" just isn't one of those good game design arguments.

You're comparing "adding a restriction that has never existed before" to "adding one every DM ever will have seen." It's a false equivalency.

[False God]

I disagree. In my opinion, it's a lot easier to ignore a rule than to create a rule, if for no other reason than ignoring something only requires agreeing to ignore it while adding something requires agreeing to the exact details of what's being added. Sunlight sensitivity is only easy to house-rule back in because it existed in the first place. If I asked for, say, "Hydro Sensitivity" for my Fire Genasi, would you know immediately exactly how I'm envisioning that'll work?

You're missing the point of my argument.

Ignoring the Sunlight Sensitivity on Drow results in a power boost.
Adding Sunlight Sensitivity to Dwarves results in a nerf.

It has to do with the player getting benefit for nothing more than saying "Well it's more fitting for my character concept." Which is a dangerous road for a DM to tread. What's to stop player 2 from saying "Well, I want to have laser-vision because it fits my character concept better?"

[Witty Username]

I think that is as simple as the player asking "can I have disadvantage?". That way you can play a sunlight sensitive human, a night blind human, a tone deaf human or whatever else.

I do find removing sunlight sensitivity from races weird, given that it is one of the interesting downsides. But I have been told that people don't like downside mechanics, so I guess that?

[ProsecutorGodot]

I think that is as simple as the player asking "can I have disadvantage?". That way you can play a sunlight sensitive human, a night blind human, a tone deaf human or whatever else.

I do find removing sunlight sensitivity from races weird, given that it is one of the interesting downsides. But I have been told that people don't like downside mechanics, so I guess that?

It makes a lot of sense as a mechanical representation of races that spend the majority of their time underground (or in the underdark) but the design seems to be moving more and more in the direction that many of the adventurers of those races won't have done that, and even if they did the underdark is becoming a brighter and brighter place where surviving and maneuvering in absolute darkness is a rarity, even there. At least, that's what our current Out of the Abyss campaign leads me to believe, every city we've been to has had ample lighting (typically magical) and the area's between feature a ton of luminescent fungus so there's at least a lot of dim light around.

I can't say my own issues are as severe as the OP's, but I'm also very sensitive to light. I'm often made fun of in family photos for squinting and a pair of sunglasses are a must have even on cloudy days. If I did feel inclined to have that trait of myself present in a character I'm playing I wouldn't be happy if I was presented with 3 "correct" choices rather than having an option to choose a race with other mechanics I prefer and asking for it to be added.

[GooeyChewie]

You're comparing "adding a restriction that has never existed before" to "adding one every DM ever will have seen." It's a false equivalency.
It would be a false equivalency if I were claiming them to be equivalent. I’m literally pointing out the opposite, that they are not equivalent, and that the ease of adding something which already exists does not mean that it is equally easy to add anything else.


You're missing the point of my argument.

Ignoring the Sunlight Sensitivity on Drow results in a power boost.
Adding Sunlight Sensitivity to Dwarves results in a nerf.

It has to do with the player getting benefit for nothing more than saying "Well it's more fitting for my character concept." Which is a dangerous road for a DM to tread. What's to stop player 2 from saying "Well, I want to have laser-vision because it fits my character concept better?"

Ah, so what you meant is that it’s easier to justify lowering the player character’s power level than increasing it. That’s fair enough, and in my opinion a good reason to make such restrictions optional (though I would still prefer them to appear).

As for player 2 asking for laser-eyes, I think we’ve entered slippery slope territory. A DM allowing a player to ignore a restriction in order to make a particular race more viable for a campaign is not an invitation for all the other players to ask for big mechanical boosts. It’s more like an invitation for them to also ask to ignore such restrictions. After all, I maintain that it’s a lot easier to subtract a restriction than to add a new mechanic!

[Witty Username]

I do agree that they have been moving to adventurers are not normal (I like that overall personally). I feel removing sunlight sensitivity from races may be unnecessary (especially for Kobolds, sunlight sensitivity plus pack tactics, you character must think about the environment in ways no one else does). That being said I like the idea of sunlight sensitivity and similar issues being tied to background. Maybe a background cave dweller for sunlight sensitivity, or surface dweller for the disadvantaged races to remove it.

Or build a new system in its place. Man I want a race build so badly.

[Segev]

If that player had a racial limitation saying "you can't actually give an impassioned speech, or at the very least you need to be very specific about the words you're allowed to use during that impassioned speech" then yes, just saying "I give an impassioned speech" does bypass that restriction. And keep in mind that the example doesn't use words! You're literally telling the other players how their characters should interpret a hammer tapping sound. It's utterly ridiculous and I completely understand why they ultimately flushed it, as they should have done before it saw print in the first place.

So when you have a character described as "having a bored expression," since they don't actually express, "I am bored," in words, it is metagaming to tell other players how their characters interpret the expression on that face? Or, if not "metagaming," whatever term you'd use to express the same sense of "incorrect play" you are describing in the quoted bit.

[Psyren]

It would be a false equivalency if I were claiming them to be equivalent. I’m literally pointing out the opposite, that they are not equivalent, and that the ease of adding something which already exists does not mean that it is equally easy to add anything else.

But no one is asking to add "anything else." They're asking to implement a restriction that already exists in the game. So your hypothetical newly-imagined one is not relevant.


Ah, so what you meant is that it’s easier to justify lowering the player character’s power level than increasing it. That’s fair enough, and in my opinion a good reason to make such restrictions optional (though I would still prefer them to appear).

This too.


So when you have a character described as "having a bored expression," since they don't actually express, "I am bored," in words, it is metagaming to tell other players how their characters interpret the expression on that face? Or, if not "metagaming," whatever term you'd use to express the same sense of "incorrect play" you are describing in the quoted bit.

Hammer taps = facial expressions? Do you commonly wear morse code on your face? :smallconfused:


I think that is as simple as the player asking "can I have disadvantage?". That way you can play a sunlight sensitive human, a night blind human, a tone deaf human or whatever else.

Indeed.


I do find removing sunlight sensitivity from races weird, given that it is one of the interesting downsides. But I have been told that people don't like downside mechanics, so I guess that?

Downside mechanics applied to individual characters (e.g. Flaws, Drawbacks, or Spellblights from prior editions) are fine. Downside mechanics universally applied to whole races are where they become a problem.

(Note too that the OP isn't even asking for a racial downside either, they're asking for something to be applied to their specific character.)

[Segev]

Hammer taps = facial expressions? Do you commonly wear morse code on your face? :smallconfused:

If somebody described the specific look in their face, then said "because he's bored," would you assume he doesn't actually look bored if you didn't think the described look was "bored-looking?"

How do you feel about, "Tightening Knot makes a sound to indicate his boredom," instead? There, no specific sound called out, so whatever sound he's making clearly must convey boredom.

[Psyren]

If somebody described the specific look in their face, then said "because he's bored," would you assume he doesn't actually look bored if you didn't think the described look was "bored-looking?"

The "because he's bored" part is OOC, because the Kenku in their example can't simply say that. And if you're forced to resort to OOC means to communicate IC, that's poor design.


How do you feel about, "Tightening Knot makes a sound to indicate his boredom," instead? There, no specific sound called out, so whatever sound he's making clearly must convey boredom.

What sound? A squawk? A chirp? A whistle? If I have to add the OOC part to get my meaning across, why even bother trying to make it IC in the first place?

[Gryndle]

As a result of the fallout from my Multiple Sclerosis I have severe photosensitivity, I often find light painful. Sometimes a little painful, sometimes spend-the-rest-of-the-day-puking-in-the-dark painful. I like that I can play a character that is like me. I like that despite having some real limitations the characters are off having adventures. I like that I can turn my lived experience into RP to give my character more depth.

I will be sad if they remove it.

I suffer from the same symptoms, just different disease and have exactly the opposite feeling on sunlight sensitivity. I am happy that it looks like WotC is doing away with it for PCs.
I have to deal with this in real life, no way in hell would I choose to play a character that also has to deal with it. Removing sunlight sensitivity adds to my viable options.

[pwykersotz]

Fair enough on the other editions. I note that I never even considered a kenku in those other editions, so my point stands. Your mocking tone about my being inspired by the limitations notwithstanding, it was quite specifically the fact that they speak in sound effects and recorded clips not to be annoying, but because that's how they have to speak, that is interesting.

I get it if you find it annoying. But if the best you've got is mocking dismissal, I'm not exactly persuaded that I'm wrong. Only that you not only have different taste, but believe your taste to be inherently superior to mine in some objective sense.

Now, it's unique to 5e that they have this curse, fine. That still is going to shape the cultures that race is a major part of (or the race's internal culture, as the case may be). It being something only one unique PC kenku has to deal with will just make that one PC kenku have a thing. It changes the shape of the problem and the way the PC's life is formed by his upbringing.

So, again: I wasn't all that interested in them in other editions, and will lose interest in them if they lose this, here. Whether you wish to be scoffingly dismissive or not, the fact remains that kenku without that curse just aren't nearly as interesting to me.

And a human PC can insist on being pushed everywhere in a chair with wheels, or carried everywhere on a litter, because his ability to sit down is not removed by having a functional walking speed. A merfolk who has the abiltiy to somehow pogo along on her tail at 30 ft. walking speed who chooses to only drag herself along at 5 ft if not carried is very different from a merfolk who can't pogo around at a "normal" walking speed.

I'm not saying this is a point of interest for me, personally, but I am trying to illustrate how this actually makes a difference. Yes, the Kenku can still speak solely in mimicry without the curse, but why would they? What kind of person are they if they do this by insistent choice, rather than as their best good-faith effort to communicate?

Perhaps. Should halflings be optionally Medium-sized? Should elves be optionally Small-sized? Shouldn't the sizes be "opt-in" since there are ups and downs to them?

As someone who is currently playing a Kenku because the idea of the curse fascinated me and who wouldn't be playing it if it was an opt-in thing, I completely agree. Limitations breed creativity. Perfect freedom in this context is bland.

[Witty Username]

What sound? A squawk? A chirp? A whistle? If I have to add the OOC part to get my meaning across, why even bother trying to make it IC in the first place?

When you say what your character is saying what language do you use?
Do you translate it into english? Or do you speak in common, elvish or whatever your character is actually speaking?

[Psyren]

When you say what your character is saying what language do you use?
Do you translate it into english? Or do you speak in common, elvish or whatever your character is actually speaking?

You mean my characters that don't have a racial curse preventing them from speaking normally? Yeah, they just talk, usually in Common unless I have a reason for them to use something else. Not sure I understand your question.


As someone who is currently playing a Kenku because the idea of the curse fascinated me and who wouldn't be playing it if it was an opt-in thing, I completely agree. Limitations breed creativity. Perfect freedom in this context is bland.

I find it odd that other people not being forced into it anymore makes it less interesting for you :smallconfused:

[Segev]

The "because he's bored" part is OOC, because the Kenku in their example can't simply say that. And if you're forced to resort to OOC means to communicate IC, that's poor design.



What sound? A squawk? A chirp? A whistle? If I have to add the OOC part to get my meaning across, why even bother trying to make it IC in the first place?

So, then, if the player can't perfectly describe the expression on his character's face without using words OOC that tell you what emotion he's feeling, that's poor design?

[Witty Username]

You mean my characters that don't have a racial curse preventing them from speaking normally? Yeah, they just talk, usually in Common unless I have a reason for them to use something else. Not sure I understand your question.


Then why is it an issue to just say what the kenku means OOC, along with speaking in kenku? Sounds like the same thing to me.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So, then, if the player can't perfectly describe the expression on his character's face without using words OOC that tell you what emotion he's feeling, that's poor design?
Who's to say a Kenku can even emote in a way that a non Kenku would understand, facial expressions and their meanings could be wildly different.



Then why is it an issue to just say what the kenku means OOC, along with speaking in kenku? Sounds like the same thing to me.

Out of character conversation is one thing, however Kenku can't speak phrases they haven't heard. The issue Psyren is illustrating is that out of character conversation isn't something you should use specifically to convey what your character is communicate with party members in character.

If I recall, the example given was "the character taps rhythmically to indicate their boredom" which is, admittedly, not all that egregious but it could be. If you continually use out of character conversation like "my character does a thing, which you understand to mean that thing I can't say verbally because I've never heard the right words" then all you're doing is metagaming this limitation away.

[Witty Username]

Well the goal is to have the limitation be interesting to RP, occasionally have frustrating outcomes and not disrupt play. That will necessitate thinks like shorthand for speed of play, much like how common exists to allow communication between characters. It doesn't really fit in a world building sense, but is in place so that the party can have their sensible languages and not cause the game to break.
The sidebar for kenku notes that it is not supposed to deadstop play. So similar short hand makes sense.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Well the goal is to have the limitation be interesting to RP, occasionally have frustrating outcomes and not disrupt play. That will necessitate thinks like shorthand for speed of play, much like how common exists to allow communication between characters. It doesn't really fit in a world building sense, but is in place so that the party can have their sensible languages and not cause the game to break.
The sidebar for kenku notes that it is not supposed to deadstop play. So similar short hand makes sense.

The point that myself, and others, have been making is that in practice the limitation will affect play and if you simply adjust your characters manner of speaking to ooc descriptors to lessen that impact then what is the point of it being an enforced restriction?

[Witty Username]

The point that myself, and others, have been making is that in practice the limitation will affect play and if you simply adjust your characters manner of speaking to ooc descriptors to lessen that impact then what is the point of it being an enforced restriction?

ooc descriptions I would argue are simply unavoidable during play, I guess that is why I don't really mind them for kenku, since the primary concern to use them is speed of play. I also don't like the implication that a character communicating through body language is inherently being disruptive (I am sure no one means to argue that, it just feels like a natural consequence of the argument).

Either way, as I understand it, the drawback wasn't removed the whole mimicry trait was removed, which might as well be removing the race entirely. But that is drifting into a different argument.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Either way, as I understand it, the drawback wasn't removed the whole mimicry trait was removed, which might as well be removing the race entirely. But that is drifting into a different argument.

You understand incorrectly then, the mimicry trait is still there and it received only two changes:
-You are no longer restricted to speaking using this trait
-The method to determine the sound or voice is an imitation is now DC based using 8+ your proficiency bonus and charisma modifier rather than a contested Insight(Wis) vs Deception(Cha) check.

Overall I'd say Kenku are significantly improved, Kenku Recall replaces Kenku training, allowing them to choose any two skills to become proficient and they can gain advantage on a proficient skill check PB times per long rest. Expert Duplication (renamed from Forgery) also now works on your own writing and craftwork, which imo is very silly that it didn't before. They can also be small if they want.

[Psyren]

So, then, if the player can't perfectly describe the expression on his character's face without using words OOC that tell you what emotion he's feeling, that's poor design?

And as I said previously, facial expressions are not the same as hammer taps, unless you've found a way to visualize morse code on your face.

Also, what would a "bored expression" look like on a crow-person, and how would an elf or orc know what that is exactly? There's a very easy way around both these issues, one that was previously tossed in the trash for the sake of novelty, and which the designers have since come to their senses on.



Either way, as I understand it, the drawback wasn't removed the whole mimicry trait was removed, which might as well be removing the race entirely.

Nope, wrong.

[Witty Username]

Alright good, that was in all honesty my primary concern on the subject.

I am not entirely sure what a bored human looks like in all honesty, but as I understand it most people are better than me at noticing such things.
In my mind, I wouldn't say there would be a difference in reading kenku vs human expressions. Or rather, I don't feel like having insight at a disadvantage when reading kenku, so I wouldn't require a difference in readability. Personal law of fairness I guess.

[Segev]

Who's to say a Kenku can even emote in a way that a non Kenku would understand, facial expressions and their meanings could be wildly different.Same argumetn can be made for many races. Do you forbid kobolds, lizardfolk, yuan-ti, tieflings, dragonborn, half-orcs, or elves from describing their expressions in ways that, OOC, simply tell other PCs how to read them?


And as I said previously, facial expressions are not the same as hammer taps, unless you've found a way to visualize morse code on your face.

Also, what would a "bored expression" look like on a crow-person, and how would an elf or orc know what that is exactly?How is an elf to know what it looks like on an orc? A human? A kobold? See above; I repeat myself.

By focusing on "hammer taps" as the specific example, and refusing to budge from it for any other possible sound effect, you miss the point I'm making.

"My kenku repeats the sound of a human child sighing in exaggerated boredom" is another possibility. Unless you want to insist that it's impossible for my kenku to have ever heard a human child giving the obviously exaggerated sigh I'm sure we've all heard - and probably made - at some point in our IRL lives that fairly universally means "I'm boooooorrrrrred." Heck, Kenku can repeat recordings of speech. Repeating somebody making a simple statement like that is definitely within the realm of the curse. No need for "patchwork" sentences: just repeat somebody who said those exact words.

Anything that can be gotten across with "an expression" almost certainly has a phrase somebody said around them, once.

The curse is meant to be an RP thing. Focusing on it as being "why bother?" if it doesn't make the PC difficult and annoying to play is attempting to violate Grod's Law, and pointlessly so since the kenku curse was never meant to be a downside balancing some powerful upside.

The point of it is to have them "speak" in a unique way. To shape their culture and their racial behavior. Heck, if the "removal of the curse" was done by saying they can "effectively" speak by stringing words said in others' voices taken from snippets of sentences, I'd be more or less okay with it. Though I'm also fine with the limits being vaguer, as they are before this update, as it justifies using sound effects for an audio pantomime.

But again, if you're focused on "well, then, it's not much of a curse, is it!?" if you can remove the OOC annoyance by just OOC explaining what is meant, then you're missing the point from a gameplay perspective. It's not meant to be a limitation on the player's ability to play the game effectively. It's not like sunlight sensitivity (arguably) balancing out pack tactics or superior darkvision. It's a flavor thing, and that's why the text in the race's own section explains how to, OOC, avoid having the curse be a problem with actually playing the character effectively.

[Psyren]

By focusing on "hammer taps" as the specific example, and refusing to budge from it for any other possible sound effect, you miss the point I'm making.

It's literally the example in the book, and the one I pointed out as being an admission of capitulation on their part. Why would I not focus on the point I'm making?



"My kenku repeats the sound of a human child sighing in exaggerated boredom" is another possibility.

If you heard one, and retained that sound this long (see the laundry list of questions I posed in #59, none of which are answered either by the book nor even by you.)



The curse is meant to be an RP thing. Focusing on it as being "why bother?" if it doesn't make the PC difficult and annoying to play is attempting to violate Grod's Law, and pointlessly so since the kenku curse was never meant to be a downside balancing some powerful upside.

I didn't say anything about Grod's Law :smallconfused: I think it's bad design purely on its own merits, for all the reasons I listed in #59, and how annoying it might or might not be to actually use at the table wasn't even one of the things I listed.


The point of it is to have them "speak" in a unique way. To shape their culture and their racial behavior. Heck, if the "removal of the curse" was done by saying they can "effectively" speak by stringing words said in others' voices taken from snippets of sentences, I'd be more or less okay with it. Though I'm also fine with the limits being vaguer, as they are before this update, as it justifies using sound effects for an audio pantomime.

But again, if you're focused on "well, then, it's not much of a curse, is it!?" if you can remove the OOC annoyance by just OOC explaining what is meant, then you're missing the point from a gameplay perspective. It's not meant to be a limitation on the player's ability to play the game effectively. It's not like sunlight sensitivity (arguably) balancing out pack tactics or superior darkvision. It's a flavor thing, and that's why the text in the race's own section explains how to, OOC, avoid having the curse be a problem with actually playing the character effectively.

My point is that novelty is not a good enough reason to justify badly-conceived mechanics. At least sunlight sensitivity has a bit of justification for historically subterranean races, and even then forcing every single PC adventurer from that race to have the same limitation regardless of upbringing (never mind settings that don't even have an "underdark" sort of area) was still bad. But in both cases, WotC took another look at their design and realized they screwed up initially. And that's a good thing.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Same argumetn can be made for many races. Do you forbid kobolds, lizardfolk, yuan-ti, tieflings, dragonborn, half-orcs, or elves from describing their expressions in ways that, OOC, simply tell other PCs how to read them?



For mostly human like faces, there will be a lot of overlap. You're right though, I would make the same argument. When I was playing a lizardfolk I made a point not to tell the players exactly how my character was feeling because they really had no way of knowing. Eventually, they figured some of it out, we travelled together long enough that they knew when he was angry or defensive but not much else. This wasn't conveyed really in facial expressions either, lizardfolk aren't all that expressive (visually or emotionally) so they had to learn other things.

Ironically, if we skip that process of learning and assume that characters can intuitively understand the expressions and feelings they convey of unique species at a glance we're actually doing that "human in a hat" thing people keep bringing up, keep this a narrative learning process (a simple one, sure) but don't completely ignore it by explaining it away out of character.

[pwykersotz]

I find it odd that other people not being forced into it anymore makes it less interesting for you :smallconfused:

It's not about other people in that way. No one else is playing a Kenku, and I get/lose nothing from other tables playing any way they choose. It's about being held to task by the GM and my table. There is a communal expectation that I will abide by the rules, which makes the process of trying to RP it thrilling. I can't take the lazy way out.

I have no issue with people playing Kenku their own way. But for me, it's only interesting because the chains of expectation from my peers bind me. It's like challenges in video games. Take speedrunning. Some people do it for fun without any prompting (I'm not one of those people). But I become a lot more interested when a culture and rules about what is acceptable and what isn't bind me. I would never be interested in speedrunning FF6 alone. But with structures imposed about how to do it and the interest/respect of my peers on the line, suddenly it's far more enjoyable. Even though it's technically the same activity either way.

Actually, thinking about it as a fun opt-in that enhances challenge, I think there might be some merit to the core game having very open templates for races, and then an optional book like "Classic Linneage: Up your game!" where all of the classic (and often brutal) restrictions from classic lore were imposed and people could play with a challenge mode of these races, either for prestige within their group or for some GM reward, or even just personal satisfaction. But I think it's important to have current published and agreed upon lore for such a thing. I wouldn't really bother otherwise.

[Psyren]

It's not about other people in that way. No one else is playing a Kenku, and I get/lose nothing from other tables playing any way they choose. It's about being held to task by the GM and my table. There is a communal expectation that I will abide by the rules, which makes the process of trying to RP it thrilling. I can't take the lazy way out.

I have no issue with people playing Kenku their own way. But for me, it's only interesting because the chains of expectation from my peers bind me. It's like challenges in video games. Take speedrunning. Some people do it for fun without any prompting (I'm not one of those people). But I become a lot more interested when a culture and rules about what is acceptable and what isn't bind me. I would never be interested in speedrunning FF6 alone. But with structures imposed about how to do it and the interest/respect of my peers on the line, suddenly it's far more enjoyable. Even though it's technically the same activity either way.

I'm glad you brought up this analogy because speedrunning consists of many, many mutually exclusive rulesets that define what is considered acceptable and what isn't. There are 100% runs, Any% runs, glitch, no-glitch, TAS, no-TAS etc. It is up to you and your playgroup to opt in to whichever restrictions you find most interesting and label your game as such, in the hopes that you will attract like-minded sorts - not for every other speedrun community to follow suit. It's certainly not reasonable for the developers of the game to never be allowed to release any fixes or updates simply because some portion of their audience may exist who find value in the previous, flawed design. In this case, those folks can choose not to apply the patch to their install - which in D&D terms would mean sticking with the VGtM Kenku, VGtM Orc etc post-MotM.


Actually, thinking about it as a fun opt-in that enhances challenge, I think there might be some merit to the core game having very open templates for races, and then an optional book like "Classic Linneage: Up your game!" where all of the classic (and often brutal) restrictions from classic lore were imposed and people could play with a challenge mode of these races, either for prestige within their group or for some GM reward, or even just personal satisfaction. But I think it's important to have current published and agreed upon lore for such a thing. I wouldn't really bother otherwise.

I don't disagree. Or rather, I definitely have no interest in such a product myself, but it sounds like something you could make a thread about to solicit ideas from the rest of the community. If nothing else, it will let you identify some of the "agreed-upon lore" that you could use in lieu of WotC making such a book.

[pwykersotz]

I'm glad you brought up this analogy because speedrunning consists of many, many mutually exclusive rulesets that define what is considered acceptable and what isn't. There are 100% runs, Any% runs, glitch, no-glitch, TAS, no-TAS etc. It is up to you and your playgroup to opt in to whichever restrictions you find most interesting and label your game as such, in the hopes that you will attract like-minded sorts - not for every other speedrun community to follow suit. It's certainly not reasonable for the developers of the game to never be allowed to release any fixes or updates simply because some portion of their audience may exist who find value in the previous, flawed design. In this case, those folks can choose not to apply the patch to their install - which in D&D terms would mean sticking with the VGtM Kenku, VGtM Orc etc post-MotM.

I don't disagree with your synopsis, I agree in general with your extension of my analogy. That said, there is discussion to be had about whether the patch is good for casual gamers too. Again, I would not play a Kenku if there was no default consensus that they couldn't speak. It being a default option was inspiring to me. I am just one person playing at one table, but based on the voices I hear online (like Segev before me), I don't think I'm alone. Default options that inspire people are good. I hope we can agree on that, at least, even if I posit that restrictions breed creativity and you seem to feel that more freedom leads to more creativity.

[Segev]

It's literally the example in the book, and the one I pointed out as being an admission of capitulation on their part. Why would I not focus on the point I'm making?



If you heard one, and retained that sound this long (see the laundry list of questions I posed in #59, none of which are answered either by the book nor even by you.)



I didn't say anything about Grod's Law :smallconfused: I think it's bad design purely on its own merits, for all the reasons I listed in #59, and how annoying it might or might not be to actually use at the table wasn't even one of the things I listed.



My point is that novelty is not a good enough reason to justify badly-conceived mechanics. At least sunlight sensitivity has a bit of justification for historically subterranean races, and even then forcing every single PC adventurer from that race to have the same limitation regardless of upbringing (never mind settings that don't even have an "underdark" sort of area) was still bad. But in both cases, WotC took another look at their design and realized they screwed up initially. And that's a good thing.

You've failed to justify it being badly-conceived mechanics, except by inventing mechanics to try to make it worse than it is meant to be.

And Kenku explicitly retain anything they've heard, period. Their ability says they can reproduce any sound they've heard. There is no time limit on this. The question is answered.

[Psyren]

And Kenku explicitly retain anything they've heard, period. Their ability says they can reproduce any sound they've heard. There is no time limit on this. The question is answered.

Ah, so it's meaningless if the Kenku just goes to a city. Good to know.


I don't disagree with your synopsis, I agree in general with your extension of my analogy. That said, there is discussion to be had about whether the patch is good for casual gamers too. Again, I would not play a Kenku if there was no default consensus that they couldn't speak. It being a default option was inspiring to me. I am just one person playing at one table, but based on the voices I hear online (like Segev before me), I don't think I'm alone. Default options that inspire people are good. I hope we can agree on that, at least, even if I posit that restrictions breed creativity and you seem to feel that more freedom leads to more creativity.

I never said you were alone, of course you're not. I'm saying WotC made the right decision overall.

[Witty Username]

Ah, so it's meaningless if the Kenku just goes to a city. Good to know.


Depends on the table but yes, that was a fair rules interpretation. I personally enjoy the idea that kenku can possibly speak with copied syllables to string words they know together, so they can talk but will vary widely in tone and such, or do the same to form sentences. Which is part of why I find complaining about the restriction strange, since it was mostly cosmetic in my mind (people don't normally complain that their tibaxi looks like a cat, or an orc has tusks).

But ultimately I am just here to understand reasoning, and to make sure that describing character body language is not being unfairly lumped in with disruptive/bad player behavior or RP. Since that is a reasonable conclusion to reach with an argument that a character required to communicate though such means is bad for the game.

[ProsecutorGodot]

But ultimately I am just here to understand reasoning, and to make sure that describing character body language is not being unfairly lumped in with disruptive/bad player behavior or RP. Since that is a reasonable conclusion to reach with an argument that a character required to communicate though such means is bad for the game.

If you have to change the way you communicate with other players because of a restriction on a player race then that restriction should probably change. I think it's fair to say that a player would almost never be picking a Kenku for malicious reasons however I don't think you have to be intentionally disruptive for such a thing to be potentially disruptive.

It's hard to say though, because as much as I've tried I just don't understand the appeal of it as an enforced restriction. Most arguments I've seen call it as a challenge, however challenging yourself in this way can also drag other players at the table into communicating differently with you and that can be challenging for some people, some people might also simply have a shorter attention span and find the overly verbose descriptors that come with this irritating.

When asked "Where were you?" a short response like "I was gone because I broke into the locked office" can become "They point to their lockpicks, then they start miming the actions you've seen when they break into a room at you and pointing towards a door which you know is locked". This could be entirely a personal thing but I much prefer straightforward answers to straightforward questions.

The other aspect which I think is the largest failing of it as a restriction, is that you can simply cop-out of it already or to phrase it differently, it's already a fairly optional restriction. Kenku remember everything they hear, if you set your background in a populated area it's more than reasonable that you've heard every phrase you'll need for casual conversation even if you can't string individual words together. To borrow the previous example, if your Kenku has any background that places them in a populated city (lets say Waterdeep for example) would it surprise anyone that a Kenku could repeat the phrases "I was gone" and "breaking and entering"?

Honestly, I'm just confused at the idea that not keeping it as a restrictive curse is enough to make anyone uninterested in playing a Kenku when the feature remains functionally identical and you can simply choose to use it in that way without an, in my opinion, entirely arbitrary restriction. I'm not usually inspired by restrictions of what my character is allowed to do, I'm inspired by what more they can do, and the idea of a Kenku is much more appealing to me when their mimicry is that cool thing they can do rather than the only way they're allowed to speak.

Slight tangent on this - Lizardfolk losing Cunning Artisan altogether is actually a huge misstep and something I think will actually lead to fewer satisfied players. It was an incredibly unique feature and in the case of the Lizardfolk that I was playing, was probably the most character defining ability they had even beyond their class features. It was incredibly satisfying to detail what exactly I had done with the bodies of the creatures we'd killed and the types of menacing looking slapdash bits of monstrosities I wore had noticeable impact on roleplay for everyone at the table.

[Witty Username]

Slight tangent on this - Lizardfolk losing Cunning Artisan altogether is actually a huge misstep and something I think will actually lead to fewer satisfied players. It was an incredibly unique feature and in the case of the Lizardfolk that I was playing, was probably the most character defining ability they had even beyond their class features. It was incredibly satisfying to detail what exactly I had done with the bodies of the creatures we'd killed and the types of menacing looking slapdash bits of monstrosities I wore had noticeable impact on roleplay for everyone at the table.

Eh, I personally found it weird since that is something reasonably accomplish-able with the downtime rules, since it amounts to being able to craft a few fairly common items. That being said, I am generally in favor of stuff adding to other peoples fun staying around and didn't find any issue with being there, just a bit odd.

I suspect it was a sacrifice related to wotc trying to divide culture from race, since it related to learned resource gathering type abilities. I am a bit conflicted on it since I am in favor of the idea mostly, it just so happens that it has some edge case issues and has some frustrating implications for races that get extra proficiency and skill over other races.

Overall I definitely agree with kenku being at the very least small potatoes, given the changes to other races,I would personally go with kobold losing pack tactics as my frustration.

[Segev]

Ah, so it's meaningless if the Kenku just goes to a city. Good to know.

It isn't meaningless, unless you ascribe "meaning" only to things which actively make it a problem at the table.

[Psyren]

Depends on the table but yes, that was a fair rules interpretation. I personally enjoy the idea that kenku can possibly speak with copied syllables to string words they know together, so they can talk but will vary widely in tone and such, or do the same to form sentences. Which is part of why I find complaining about the restriction strange, since it was mostly cosmetic in my mind (people don't normally complain that their tibaxi looks like a cat, or an orc has tusks).

It usually doesn't take a whole sidebar in the race entry and multiple lore paragraphs beforehand to explain that tabaxi look like cats or orcs have tusks. Part of me wonders whether the wasted real estate was as much a reason for finally jettisoning this restriction as any feedback they received about headaches at the table, but I suppose we'll never really know.

[Segev]

It usually doesn't take a whole sidebar in the race entry and multiple lore paragraphs beforehand to explain that tabaxi look like cats or orcs have tusks. Part of me wonders whether the wasted real estate was as much a reason for finally jettisoning this restriction as any feedback they received about headaches at the table, but I suppose we'll never really know.

Yes, because the solution to already-used real estate being excessive is to spend more real estate publishing a new version that creates controversy and invites more real estate expenditure.

[Psyren]

Yes, because the solution to already-used real estate being excessive is to spend more real estate publishing a new version that creates controversy and invites more real estate expenditure.

Wait, you'd rather they errata the old one out of Volo's? That doesn't align with some of the complaints I saw about DDB versioning earlier, but there's something to be said for a free fix. :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

Wait, you'd rather they errata the old one out of Volo's? That doesn't align with some of the complaints I saw about DDB versioning earlier, but there's something to be said for a free fix. :smallbiggrin:

I don't know how you got that from my post. They're effectively doing that right now by overwriting it with a newer printing.

If the biggest justification for "this curse is bad and should feel bad" is that it takes too many words to spell out, then writing a totally new Kenku entry, consuming wordcount in a new book, just to leave it out is a bad solution. The proper solution would be to, yes, errata it out of Volo's and not reprint it.

I don't WANT them to do either, mind. But clearly, the "word real estate" is not a concern given the method they're using to "fix" it.

In the end, it's not a big deal. If DMs use "kenku can just talk," I won't play a kenku in their games. The bad part this creates in my own life and my mutual experience with others is that now I have to negotiate with DMs over how an entire race functions in their games. Increasingly so, the more WotC delves into "fixing" races the way they have taken to, because they're slowly but surely ironing out all the things that make them more than humans in funny rubber masks.

[Psyren]

I don't know how you got that from my post. They're effectively doing that right now by overwriting it with a newer printing.

They haven't overwritten anything. It is your DM's choice to use MotM or not, even in AL. (see also FizDragonborn vs. CoreDragonborn - both exist and are legal.)


If the biggest justification for "this curse is bad and should feel bad" is that it takes too many words to spell out, then writing a totally new Kenku entry, consuming wordcount in a new book, just to leave it out is a bad solution. The proper solution would be to, yes, errata it out of Volo's and not reprint it.

I don't WANT them to do either, mind. But clearly, the "word real estate" is not a concern given the method they're using to "fix" it.

Doing so would (a) instantly screw over everyone who prefers the old one, which I presume includes yourself, and (b) not in any way recoup their development costs from redesigning all these races and monsters. So I disagree about this being the "proper solution."


In the end, it's not a big deal. If DMs use "kenku can just talk," I won't play a kenku in their games.

Whereas I now will. Net effect zero it seems.

[Segev]

Doing so would (a) instantly screw over everyone who prefers the old one, which I presume includes yourself, and (b) not in any way recoup their development costs from redesigning all these races and monsters. So I disagree about this being the "proper solution."You're missing my point, still, I think, which is that this doesn't solve the problem of too much word real estate having been used on this in Volo's.

Therefore, "it has too much real estate spent on it, so of course it needs reworking" is not the argument that WotC is clearly swayed by.

[Psyren]

You're missing my point, still, I think, which is that this doesn't solve the problem of too much word real estate having been used on this in Volo's.

Therefore, "it has too much real estate spent on it, so of course it needs reworking" is not the argument that WotC is clearly swayed by.

It doesn't solve it for Volo's, no. But then, errata wouldn't have done that either unless they did a new printing on a 5+ year old book. Maybe that's a priority for them, I wouldn't know.

For MotM however, there's a lot more room now that this ability rightly got the axe.

[Dr.Samurai]

Has the OP posted again in this thread?

[Willowhelm]

Has the OP posted again in this thread?

Nope. Nor in any other threads I think. One post total.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I think my observation from #48 is seeming more likely.

EDIT: Release date for MotM standalone confirmed to be 5/17!

[Segev]

It doesn't solve it for Volo's, no. But then, errata wouldn't have done that either unless they did a new printing on a 5+ year old book. Maybe that's a priority for them, I wouldn't know.

For MotM however, there's a lot more room now that this ability rightly got the axe.

Could be even more room if they'd left the kenku out of it entirely, which would've been a better move considering how boring the race is, now.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Could be even more room if they'd left the kenku out of it entirely, which would've been a better move considering how boring the race is, now.

You're making objective statements based on opinions, one that is decidedly unpopular (based on this thread at least) at that.

And again, I feel the need to remind everyone for my own sanity, Kenku function identically save for getting improved use of their existing features and having the curse restriction on their ability to speak removed. A Kenku can still choose to speak only in mimicry and a I can't frankly understand how a player who wants to play with that restriction will suddenly lose interest because others who don't no longer have to... I can't find the right words for it, why does your enjoyment have to come from any sort of enforced restriction and not from a personal one?

And for goodness sake, if you need a narrative reason for it, in your world it could be an intimate thing or sign of trust that a Kenku would speak in their natural voice to you, something few experience outside of a Kenku's culture to such a degree that many believed that they were incapable of such a thing. From my own point of view, this only broadens the ability for Kenku to be utilized creatively from both a player and worldbuilding standpoint.

Maybe "selfish" is the right word, "It's a bad change because you should be able to find the same fun I can in this restriction, otherwise you shouldn't play a Kenku" is the message I'm getting here.

[Psyren]

I can't find the right words for it, why does your enjoyment have to come from any sort of enforced restriction and not from a personal one?

Especially one that so mucks about with one of the game's fundamental assumptions. (Unless you move to a city and render the whole thing pointless I guess. Wait, how is that even different than just playing the new one?)

[Segev]

You're making objective statements based on opinions, one that is decidedly unpopular (based on this thread at least) at that.

And again, I feel the need to remind everyone for my own sanity, Kenku function identically save for getting improved use of their existing features and having the curse restriction on their ability to speak removed. A Kenku can still choose to speak only in mimicry and a I can't frankly understand how a player who wants to play with that restriction will suddenly lose interest because others who don't no longer have to... I can't find the right words for it, why does your enjoyment have to come from any sort of enforced restriction and not from a personal one?

And for goodness sake, if you need a narrative reason for it, in your world it could be an intimate thing or sign of trust that a Kenku would speak in their natural voice to you, something few experience outside of a Kenku's culture to such a degree that many believed that they were incapable of such a thing. From my own point of view, this only broadens the ability for Kenku to be utilized creatively from both a player and worldbuilding standpoint.

Maybe "selfish" is the right word, "It's a bad change because you should be able to find the same fun I can in this restriction, otherwise you shouldn't play a Kenku" is the message I'm getting here.

"In your world, it could be [something affecting the entire race], but it isn't by default," is a change to what characters are possible. You hvae to now talk to your DM about changing what he was going to do wtih a whole race.

And nothing prevented you from doing the same thing with, "I don't want to deal wtihte curse; can we remove it?"

Nor with, "I want my one mountain dwarf to have +2 Int instead of +2 Str; can I do that?" And yet, it's apparently utterly crucial to make one change and totally unreasonable to expect people to just ask for exceptions for their PC in one case, but absolutely crucial to make the other and then expect people to beg for exceptions for their PC in the other.

[Psyren]

Nor with, "I want my one mountain dwarf to have +2 Int instead of +2 Str; can I do that?" And yet, it's apparently utterly crucial to make one change and totally unreasonable to expect people to just ask for exceptions for their PC in one case, but absolutely crucial to make the other and then expect people to beg for exceptions for their PC in the other.

Because one was a vague mess of poor design even after they devoted a sidebar to telling you to ignore the feature, and the other is realizing races don't need crappy features to be interesting?

[ProsecutorGodot]

"In your world, it could be [something affecting the entire race], but it isn't by default," is a change to what characters are possible. You hvae to now talk to your DM about changing what he was going to do wtih a whole race.

And nothing prevented you from doing the same thing with, "I don't want to deal wtihte curse; can we remove it?"

Nor with, "I want my one mountain dwarf to have +2 Int instead of +2 Str; can I do that?" And yet, it's apparently utterly crucial to make one change and totally unreasonable to expect people to just ask for exceptions for their PC in one case, but absolutely crucial to make the other and then expect people to beg for exceptions for their PC in the other.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here, just because you're already allowed to adjust the rules doesn't mean the designers are forbidden from doing so if their design philosophy changes. The default is clearly being changed to be more permissive to the player so that asking for these types of adjustments to have more options that match their preferences becomes a less frequent occurrence.

For example, if two players were interested in playing a Kenku but one disliked the restriction on mimicry that would have involved that player having to ask the DM for permission to ignore this aspect of the trait. Under the new Kenku design, neither player has to ask for permission to play the Kenku how they wanted because the default allows for both of their preferences. I also think that if the first players interest in playing a Kenku is reliant on the second not being able to freely ignore that mimicry restriction, that's an entirely unreasonable preference. The second player isn't trying to dictate the first's enjoyment of the Kenku but they've decided that if player two doesn't have to ask for special permission that they would be unwilling to play one because of that.

[GooeyChewie]

Because one was a vague mess of poor design even after they devoted a sidebar to telling you to ignore the feature, and the other is realizing races don't need crappy features to be interesting?

The sidebar doesn't tell you to ignore the curse. It tells you to treat the curse as a roleplaying tool rather than as a mechanical hindrance.

I get that the Kenku curse isn't for every table. To me it would make a lot more sense to make it an optional variant rather than removing it entirely. Sure, an individual player can house-rule it in (even without asking the DM, since it's purely a roleplaying point rather than mechanical). But putting that choice in writing would make the choice clearer to the player. And I don't buy any argument based on real-estate in the printed book; they always have plenty of pictures that they could move and/or resize to open up the room for the few sentences it would take.

[pwykersotz]

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here, just because you're already allowed to adjust the rules doesn't mean the designers are forbidden from doing so if their design philosophy changes. The default is clearly being changed to be more permissive to the player so that asking for these types of adjustments to have more options that match their preferences becomes a less frequent occurrence.

For example, if two players were interested in playing a Kenku but one disliked the restriction on mimicry that would have involved that player having to ask the DM for permission to ignore this aspect of the trait. Under the new Kenku design, neither player has to ask for permission to play the Kenku how they wanted because the default allows for both of their preferences. I also think that if the first players interest in playing a Kenku is reliant on the second not being able to freely ignore that mimicry restriction, that's an entirely unreasonable preference. The second player isn't trying to dictate the first's enjoyment of the Kenku but they've decided that if player two doesn't have to ask for special permission that they would be unwilling to play one because of that.

(Disclaimer: I don't care about the Kenku change. But I do care about my game in which I'm playing a Kenku with these restrictions where the GM is enforcing the curse for all Kenku)
(Another Disclaimer: You aren't responding to me, but I have a similar but different opinion to Segev that I felt like sharing)

It's true, you could say "My human is different from others. He was cursed by the Fey when he was young. Now he can only mimic voices he hears, and can't articulate his own language." Bam. I get what I love about Kenku and other people have the full option to play normally. It gives me everything but takes away nothing.

But if you don't find restrictions to be inspiring, then you probably won't empathize with this point either, but for me it has nothing to do with a particular race being penalized. It's that someone other than me, someone who wrote something I bought (not someone in a forum I had to trawl through and then fix their ideas myself) came up with a really cool restriction and published it and inspired me with it. The worry for me isn't that everyone gets to play how they want, it's that if restrictions fall out of style, great creative minds won't create them anymore, and so I'll be limited to my own imagination. I love exploring the worlds of others and hearing their ideas.

Psyren hit the nail on the head when he said that I would probably have to find a fan-based supplement to have my interesting challenges. That's a lot of work. I read tons of supplements, but it's a lot harder to access them than reading my core D&D books. A lot harder. I never would have thought of the Kenku curse by myself, and I've never come across it's like in supplements. So WotC gave me something precious with that idea. I don't want to hurt anyone else's sense of fun, I just want to have a trickle of new ideas I find fun too.

We have seen firsthand that many design elements atrophy and die when they become ironed out of the D&D product. There's another thread on this forum surrounding the atrophy of Exploration structures right now. For me it's just about people who saw something they thought was wonderful trying to ensure that not only can they keep finding more wonderful things in that same vein, but that they can share new things with their friends.

[Psyren]

Psyren hit the nail on the head when he said that I would probably have to find a fan-based supplement to have my interesting challenges. That's a lot of work. I read tons of supplements, but it's a lot harder to access them than reading my core D&D books. A lot harder. I never would have thought of the Kenku curse by myself, and I've never come across it's like in supplements. So WotC gave me something precious with that idea. I don't want to hurt anyone else's sense of fun, I just want to have a trickle of new ideas I find fun too.

We have seen firsthand that many design elements atrophy and die when they become ironed out of the D&D product. There's another thread on this forum surrounding the atrophy of Exploration structures right now. For me it's just about people who saw something they thought was wonderful trying to ensure that not only can they keep finding more wonderful things in that same vein, but that they can share new things with their friends.

Not everything that atrophies is bad. I don't use my appendix anymore, and I'm sure at one point it was way more useful than this Kenku feature or light-sensitivity ever were.

Jeremy Crawford said they made these changes based on seven years of player feedback. I see your point that folks might not have thought of an ability like this had some designer not thought it was a good idea to begin with, but plenty of ideas that seem good on paper don't end up that way until they're actually put into the game. Or rather, they might seem good at some tables but boil down to rank annoyances at the others, prompting welcome updates like these.


The sidebar doesn't tell you to ignore the curse. It tells you to treat the curse as a roleplaying tool rather than as a mechanical hindrance.

I get that the Kenku curse isn't for every table. To me it would make a lot more sense to make it an optional variant rather than removing it entirely. Sure, an individual player can house-rule it in (even without asking the DM, since it's purely a roleplaying point rather than mechanical). But putting that choice in writing would make the choice clearer to the player. And I don't buy any argument based on real-estate in the printed book; they always have plenty of pictures that they could move and/or resize to open up the room for the few sentences it would take.

As, uh... enticing as the idea of sacrificing bigger art for bad abilities is, I'm afraid I'll have to pass, thanks.

[GooeyChewie]

As, uh... enticing as the idea of sacrificing bigger art for bad abilities is, I'm afraid I'll have to pass, thanks.

"Bad" is a matter of opinion. Making such restrictions official optional variants would allow you to officially ignore them and those who enjoy them to officially use them, without anybody needing to house-rule anything. But you'd rather tell people that WotC shouldn't support their preferred style of play, out of concern that this inclusion might have a barely-noticeable impact on the book's formatting?

[Psyren]

"Bad" is a matter of opinion.

Yes, obviously I'm stating my opinion.


But you'd rather tell people that WotC shouldn't support their preferred style of play, out of concern that this inclusion might have a barely-noticeable impact on the book's formatting?

To be clear, the unnecessary space is actually the very least of the issues I have with pre-feedback Kenku. I don't want WotC to support that mechanic because I believe it causes more problems/headaches for a majority of playgroups than it is worth. I've elaborated at length on the issues I have with the ability itself, and while we have no way of truly knowing the devs reasons for axing something, I'd be surprised if any of what I wrote is new to them.

[Segev]

Yes, obviously I'm stating my opinion.

You may want to be more careful to label when you're sharing your opinion, rather than stating facts, because you seem to be stating your opinions as facts and then using that as argument to why contrary opinions are wrong, rather than matters of taste.

You certainly shouldn't be stating your opinion that something is "bad design" as reason why everyone else is objectively wrong for calling the change that removes it a bad thing. "I like this change" is a very different thing from "this change is inherently an objectively good thing," and yet you seem more to be arguing the latter.

[Psyren]

You certainly shouldn't be stating your opinion that something is "bad design" as reason why everyone else is objectively wrong for calling the change that removes it a bad thing. "I like this change" is a very different thing from "this change is inherently an objectively good thing," and yet you seem more to be arguing the latter.

I do think it's bad design and will continue to say so for the reasons I've stated.

[Segev]

I do think it's bad design and will continue to say so for the reasons I've stated.

And I disagree, and think it bad design to remove it mid-edition. Just as I think the floating ASIs are, at this point in 5e's life cycle, a bad choice, especially with the changes being made to the races to "support" it not actually rebalancing the races with races having no ASIs (which is what universal floating ASIs amounts to, since the "racial ASI" isn't really a racial trait anymore, but rather a universal part of stat generation).

Things like removing sunlight sensitivity are more understandable, but still problematic, as well, when the MM versions of the creatures retain it, because coupled with additional changes that remove anything that makes the PC race resemble the MM creature (see: Kobold), it means you're not really playing the creature you want to. Instead, you may as well play a half-elf but call it a "kobold" for all the resemblance there is.

I do not think they'll ride the slippery slope this far - I hope they won't, anyway - but the only thing that will actually achieve the kind of "don't let mechanics get in the way of concept" and "don't let anything have any downsides" that they seem to be going for will be to eliminate all unique racial traits and save a lot of real estate by only having "Custom Lineage" be what people play for every race. You want to play a half-orc? Custom Lineage yourself something you "feel" is fitting. You want to play a half-dragon or a dragonborn? Custom Lineage it! For all the resemblance they seem to think that races need to have, mechanically, to the actual creatures in the MM, Custom Lineage works just fine.

[Psyren]

And I disagree, and think it bad design to remove it mid-edition.

Given, you know, the linear nature of time and everything, during an edition is the only time you can ever make changes to an edition :smallconfused:

And if you're disagreeing they should be able to make changes to an edition at all - all I can really say to that is I'm glad you don't work at WotC.


I do not think they'll ride the slippery slope this far - I hope they won't, anyway - but the only thing that will actually achieve the kind of "don't let mechanics get in the way of concept" and "don't let anything have any downsides" that they seem to be going for will be to eliminate all unique racial traits and save a lot of real estate by only having "Custom Lineage" be what people play for every race. You want to play a half-orc? Custom Lineage yourself something you "feel" is fitting. You want to play a half-dragon or a dragonborn? Custom Lineage it! For all the resemblance they seem to think that races need to have, mechanically, to the actual creatures in the MM, Custom Lineage works just fine.

As difficult as it can be, let's put aside the hyperbole for a second and focus on the bolded part; "no downsides" is a frankly ridiculous summation of their philosophy. Every mutually exclusive choice has a downside - the opportunity cost of not being something else. If you pick Kenku, you can't fly like an Aarakocra, or get a free feat like a VHuman, or get a free cantrip like a High Elf etc. Just because none of the features in the Kenku entry actively punish you for picking Kenku anymore doesn't mean there are "no downsides." That's how choosing a race is supposed to work.

[pwykersotz]

Not everything that atrophies is bad. I don't use my appendix anymore, and I'm sure at one point it was way more useful than this Kenku feature or light-sensitivity ever were.

Jeremy Crawford said they made these changes based on seven years of player feedback. I see your point that folks might not have thought of an ability like this had some designer not thought it was a good idea to begin with, but plenty of ideas that seem good on paper don't end up that way until they're actually put into the game. Or rather, they might seem good at some tables but boil down to rank annoyances at the others, prompting welcome updates like these

I legit thought you were referring to a book appendix for my first read through. I was like "Well, I guess if he doesn't need to look stuff up anymore...oh. OH. :smalltongue:

I agree that Sunlight Sensitivity is terrible design for anything that's supposed to be a default player race. It's one reason I've never played a Drow. The problem does occur where players want to play every race, so no races can have any downsides. "What? Moth people are charmed by sources of light?! That's unplayable!!!! Remove it immediately!" "Okay, I guess I'll take the interesting quirk of the race and dilute it or remove it..."

Honestly, I think embracing even more asymmetric design is the best way out of this (from my perspective). Release tons of races for players to have, and simultaneously release the "monster" statblocks for them with things like Sunlight Sensitivity or the Kenku curse that are indicative of what the race overall has to deal with. Then it's up to an individual GM what to enforce. And that way the world enforces the harsher side of things so you can feel normal playing your restricted character, or you can feel special having transcended your races usual limitations.

(Should I be saying heritage, lineage, or ancestry instead of race? What's the current convention? I don't care about any politically correct implications, but I always thought the word race was out of place in a fantasy game. Both heritage and lineage sound much cooler. Ancestry...meh.)

Regarding Crawford, I don't have any opinions on that. He is neither a sinner nor a saint, and player feedback isn't inherently virtuous. And I don't view these new changes as a significant good or bad. I'm more curious what further design changes will branch off of these. I see some cool ideas and I see some possibly worrying trends. I guess I'll see.

[Segev]

As difficult as it can be, let's put aside the hyperbole for a second and focus on the bolded part; "no downsides" is a frankly ridiculous summation of their philosophy. Every mutually exclusive choice has a downside - the opportunity cost of not being something else.

Sure. Which is why the goal is unattainable, and the game is worse for pursuing it. But that is what they're doing, especially when the choice involves the character's race.

[GooeyChewie]

Yes, obviously I'm stating my opinion.
Which is fine if you're just saying that you want to have the official option to not play with the feature. What's not fine is using your opinion as an argument for why others shouldn't have the official option to play with the feature if they so desire.


To be clear, the unnecessary space is actually the very least of the issues I have with pre-feedback Kenku. I don't want WotC to support that mechanic because I believe it causes more problems/headaches for a majority of playgroups than it is worth. I've elaborated at length on the issues I have with the ability itself, and while we have no way of truly knowing the devs reasons for axing something, I'd be surprised if any of what I wrote is new to them.

If WotC had made the curse optional rather than completely removing it, then that majority of playgroups for which it causes problems/headaches could officially ignore it while the minority of tables which find value in it could officially still use it. I would have preferred this approach because it gives all players the option to play the way they want (without having to rely on house-ruling anything), regardless of my personal opinion on the feature in question.

[Psyren]

Sure. Which is why the goal is unattainable, and the game is worse for pursuing it. But that is what they're doing, especially when the choice involves the character's race.

"Races have opportunity costs" is attainable, and they have in fact attained it.


Which is fine if you're just saying that you want to have the official option to not play with the feature. What's not fine is using your opinion as an argument for why others shouldn't have the official option to play with the feature if they so desire.

...You do have the "official option." Just use the VGtM Kenku instead of the MotM Kenku. Simple.

This is why I found the "why didn't they errata the old one" argument so baffling. This is the best of both worlds.

[Segev]

"Races have opportunity costs" is attainable, and they have in fact attained it.No, no, that's a reality. They're trying to eliminate it. They're failnig, but making things worse as they flail about trying to do so.


...You do have the "official option." Just use the VGtM Kenku instead of the MotM Kenku. Simple.

This is why I found the "why didn't they errata the old one" argument so baffling. This is the best of both worlds.Just like they're not changing anything by introducing the "optional" TCE floating (not-really-)racial ASIs! It totally isn't a change that will be treated as default or anything.

And of course, the Kenku being changed in total doesn't mean that the Kenku will be changed as a whole race, nope nope.

[Psyren]

No, no, that's a reality. They're trying to eliminate it.

So all races have the same traits now? You must have seen a preview I didn't.


Just like they're not changing anything by introducing the "optional" TCE floating (not-really-)racial ASIs! It totally isn't a change that will be treated as default or anything.

Every single race that had fixed ASIs before that rule still does, even at AL tables.


And of course, the Kenku being changed in total doesn't mean that the Kenku will be changed as a whole race, nope nope.

They haven't been, unless you choose to use MotM, in which case you only have yourself to blame.

[Segev]

So all races have the same traits now? You must have seen a preview I didn't.Oh, no, they're not there yet; they're just making kobolds not at all resemble the MM creature so far, and making Kenku less interesting. Oh, and the "optional" TCE rule that totally wasn't going to become the standard has become the standard for every new race since, and is considered the default by it seems everybody who discusses character builds.


Every single race that had fixed ASIs before that rule still does, even at AL tables.So the "optional rule" is not permitted anywhere? You can't have it both ways: either the "optional rule" is in play, or it isn't. Now, the middle ground is that some tables permit it, and some don't. I don't know AL; does it not permit the optional rule?

Still noteworthy that they made every new race have it. I will be (pleasantly) surprised if MotM doesn't codify it as being the default for all races printed therein, including any reprints.


They haven't been, unless you choose to use MotM, in which case you only have yourself to blame.You seem to be under the impression that the people playing PCs dictate what books are used in a game. I know you know better than this, so I point this out as an unexamined assumption you seem to be unwittingly making without being aware of it. Please correct me if you can come to the conclusion in this quoted bit without making that assumption, and explain to me how I should be interpreting it.

[GooeyChewie]

...You do have the "official option." Just use the VGtM Kenku instead of the MotM Kenku. Simple.
So why not include that official option in the "updated" Kenku?


This is why I found the "why didn't they errata the old one" argument so baffling. This is the best of both worlds.

Nobody actually argued that they should errata the old one. You came up with that idea in post #99, in response to Segev pointing out that printing an updated Kenku doesn't retroactively free up any real estate in VGtM. We don't actually know yet whether WotC will consider the updated races in MotM to constitute errata or not.

[Psyren]

Oh, no, they're not there yet; they're just making kobolds not at all resemble the MM creature so far, and making Kenku less interesting.

The playable Kobold is in Volo's actually, not the MM.

Regarding Kenku being less interesting now - as a wise person once told me, "you may want to be more careful to label when you're sharing your opinion, rather than stating facts, because you seem to be stating your opinions as facts and then using that as argument to why contrary opinions are wrong, rather than matters of taste."


So the "optional rule" is not permitted anywhere? You can't have it both ways: either the "optional rule" is in play, or it isn't. Now, the middle ground is that some tables permit it, and some don't. I don't know AL; does it not permit the optional rule?

It's permitted but you're not forced to use it. Think about it logically - if you didn't purchase Tasha's, how would they force you to make a character with its contents? The whole point is to encourage you to buy the book if you like it, but to still allow you into AL if all you own is Core. Hell, you can play AL if all you have is the free Basic Rules PDF.


Still noteworthy that they made every new race have it. I will be (pleasantly) surprised if MotM doesn't codify it as being the default for all races printed therein, including any reprints.

Floating ASIs is the default in MotM, yes. You do not have to use MotM. (I mean, your DM can mandate only the races from that book obviously, but they cannot mandate themselves to be your DM if you don't want them to be. Moreover, there are no core races in that book, so you'll have an option for fixed ASIs until 2024 at least.)


You seem to be under the impression that the people playing PCs dictate what books are used in a game.

If your DM refuses to let you be a Volo Kenku when that is important to your concept, that is hardly WotC's problem.