Please explain to me why the Tasha's rules aren't optional?

[Witty Username]

So, I have heard the argument alot that the Tasha's rules on modifing the stat blocks of races were intended to be Optional and Wotc in some way broke a promise by making them not.

I don't understand the point being made when this comes up because as far as I am aware, the Tasha's rules are still optional and haven't stopped being optional.

Now, this argument has come in a few flavors.
The first being that because the rules were adopted into AL they ceased to be optional. I don't really get this, maybe because I don't play AL and have never felt compelled too. AL is optional practically by definition, so it's guidance related to optional rules is similarly optional.

The second being that the books following Tasha's, for Van Ricken's guide use races that lack fixed ASIs and cannot be used without assuming the Tasha's rules are in play. But this assumes that races with flexible abilities cannot coexist with the races that don't. Half-elf, human, changeling and warforged all used flexible ASI long before Tasha's. This comes off to me as applying mechanics that existed since the PHB to new races.

The last big one is that the optional rules were places in a player facing section of the book, and therefore create the expectation the player is allowed to use them without DM input. This one I am not sure what to make of, since it seems to assume that players are incapable of reading the bit that reference DM approval requirements. I would also point out the strangeness of this take, this assumes that the Tasha's rules were at no point optional, and people with this take come of as accusing Wizards of breaking a promise they never made in the first place. My take is anyone who banned Tasha's at their table refuted this point as they did it.

Overall, I do not agree that the Tasha's rules are not optional. They exist in case players and DMs are interested in using them but no one is obligated to use them.

[Cheesegear]

Overall, I do not agree that the Tasha's rules are not optional. They exist in case players and DMs are interested in using them but no one is obligated to use them.

'Why the **** did I buy this book if the DM wont let me use it?'

That's the argument at my tables. Essentially a player bought something, and then they get told that it's 'optional' and the DM said no - invalidating their purchase. Giving the player The Feel Bads. And if a DM gives you The Feel Bads, they are an awful DM and the worst person ever. I'm not playing if the DM is the worst person ever.

[Saint-Just]

The second being that the books following Tasha's, for Van Ricken's guide use races that lack fixed ASIs and cannot be used without assuming the Tasha's rules are in play. But this assumes that races with flexible abilities cannot coexist with the races that don't. Half-elf, human, changeling and warforged all used flexible ASI long before Tasha's. This comes off to me as applying mechanics that existed since the PHB to new races.


Lore case: previous cases were noted as having unusual flexibility compared to the other races (humanoids) or just covered a group more divergent than the usual races (warforged). This is not true of all the new races.

Gameplay case: without giving them flexible ASI a few of the old races would become inferior to the new races, so it pushes the adoption of flexible ASI as a way to reduce imbalance.

[OldTrees1]

So, I have heard the argument alot that the Tasha's rules on modifing the stat blocks of races were intended to be Optional and Wotc in some way broke a promise by making them not.
That sounds like a hyperbolic statement of frustrating being taken at face value as if it were precise and literal.


The second being that the books following Tasha's, for Van Ricken's guide use races that lack fixed ASIs and cannot be used without assuming the Tasha's rules are in play. But this assumes that races with flexible abilities cannot coexist with the races that don't. Half-elf, human, changeling and warforged all used flexible ASI long before Tasha's. This comes off to me as applying mechanics that existed since the PHB to new races.

I have heard this before, but we should examine the Steelman argument:

1) It is meaningless to claim a variant is optional with regards to content that the variant has no impact on.
2) If WotC only prints species with flexible ASIs, then there is growing evidence that WotC will only print species with flexible ASIs.
3) If all new species have flexible ASIs, then there are no new fixed ASI species.
4) New fixed ASI species allow the GM the choice to use or not use Tasha's variant.
5) In contrast new flexible ASI species are not impacted by Tasha's rule.
6) WotC is only printing species with flexible ASIs (including reprintings if you count those)
C) There is growing evidence that it is meaningless to claim Tasha's rule is optional for species WotC will print.

Of course this argument, despite being strengthened, can could be refuted by a single example of a new species from WotC that includes fixed ASIs (even as a variant) such that Tasha's variant could then demonstrate it exists as an optional variant (even if the default position were to be on with a variant to turn it off).

[Pex]

The new monster book that is to replace previous books is said to update all non-PHB races, removing their fixed ASI to replace with floating ASI. You can be pedantic that this is a different book and not specifically Tasha so technically the Tasha book isn't forcing anything, but that is sophistry. The new book shows they are making what was told to be optional to be not optional, and it is affecting content that was published before Tasha. Tasha gets the blame because it introduced the idea of floating ASI, telling us it was an option but in reality will not be optional for future 5E use including what already existed. That's the lie. It remains to be seen if the new PHB in 2024 will also update the PHB races to be floating ASI, with personal bias interest how they will fix human because it is obsolete with this change.

[Anonymouswizard]

'Why the **** did I buy this book if the DM wont let me use it?'

That's the argument at my tables. Essentially a player bought something, and then they get told that it's 'optional' and the DM said no - invalidating their purchase. Giving the player The Feel Bads. And if a DM gives you The Feel Bads, they are an awful DM and the worst person ever. I'm not playing if the DM is the worst person ever.

It's two pages. Specifically two pages of which I know nobody IRL having a positive opinion on*. Surely if the new class options, subclasses, and Artificer 2.1 are allowed deciding not to use two pages should barely be an issue.

Plus as somebody who owns a lot of games this feels weird. Should I get annoyed that a Vampire GM won't let me use stuff from my Glitch book?

Allowing a book doesn't always mean allowing the whole book.


As for Tasha's not being optional anymore it refers to new and I believe reprinted races being designed with greater flexibility. Which is seen as an issue as it makes some races, particularly Humans, feel worse and causes the assumption that the rules aren't intended to be optional. Which is seen as an issue because some races were intentionally given bad ASIs as a balancing factor.

* Opinions on the idea itself vary more, just nobody thinks it was well handled.

[Vahnavoi]

The question is poorly formulated. If you'd instead flipped it around and asked "where is this rule mandatory?", you would've realized you've already answered your own question.

They made it the new default for AL, which I presume to be Adventurer's League, which I presume to be some notable organization of official play. I have no idea how they enforce this, but for sake of argument, let's say that if you don't use the new rules, you're out of AL. This is comparable to, say, a national sports association suddenly saying people have to buy sports equipment from particular company to enter competitions. Of course a lot of people would be miffed at such a decision, doubly so if the associaton promised to not do such a thing.

Of course you don't care, because you are a filthy hobbyist who never intented to show up in association sanctioned games to begin with. :smalltongue: I don't care either, because I don't play this sport under that association. But it shouldn't be hard to get why people who do play association games and now have to obey the new rules might not be all too happy.

[MoiMagnus]

This is comparable to, say, a national sports association suddenly saying people have to buy sports equipment from particular company to enter competitions. Of course a lot of people would be miffed at such a decision, doubly so if the associaton promised to not do such a thing.

No, it's more alike a national sport association suddenly changing the rules (like saying in soccer that starting from now any player can swap with their goalkeeper at any moment of the match) and saying that matches made without those new rules won't be officially recognised anymore.

There is no forced purshase (you don't need to own any rulebooks to play in AL). The main consequence being that players that disagree with this rule change have a harder time finding tables to play.

[icefractal]

I mean, while that's technically true ... how is it impacting anyone's experience, really? If you make a character who's a High Elf, you are free to put the ability boosts into Dex and Int as typical, even in a post-Tasha's game. Does it really harm your experience that someone else might play a character with different (but the same total) ability scores than you would have done?

And the point of Human is for the feat, obviously. :smalltongue: I mean, that's the version I've seen used far more often than not.

[elros]

It's two pages. Specifically two pages of which I know nobody IRL having a positive opinion on*. Surely if the new class options, subclasses, and Artificer 2.1 are allowed deciding not to use two pages should barely be an issue.

Plus as somebody who owns a lot of games this feels weird. Should I get annoyed that a Vampire GM won't let me use stuff from my Glitch book?

Allowing a book doesn't always mean allowing the whole book.


As for Tasha's not being optional anymore it refers to new and I believe reprinted races being designed with greater flexibility. Which is seen as an issue as it makes some races, particularly Humans, feel worse and causes the assumption that the rules aren't intended to be optional. Which is seen as an issue because some races were intentionally given bad ASIs as a balancing factor.

* Opinions on the idea itself vary more, just nobody thinks it was well handled.
I agree that DMs have to exclude certain rules, and the DMs have to be clear about it up front. The goal is to have rules that balance the game so everyone can contribute.

I would ask why the players are so focused on modifying stat blocks. Do they want an elf with 18 constitution? If so, why?
If the players have a clever reason why, then allow it. But if it min-maxing? I think you are better off without that player!

[Vahnavoi]

No, it's more alike a national sport association suddenly changing the rules (like saying in soccer that starting from now any player can swap with their goalkeeper at any moment of the match) and saying that matches made without those new rules won't be officially recognised anymore.

There is no forced purshase (you don't need to own any rulebooks to play in AL). The main consequence being that players that disagree with this rule change have a harder time finding tables to play.

Distinction without difference - mandatory new equipment as an example of a divisive rule change was just the closes parallel I could think of compared to "rule from previously optional splatbook is the new default now". The main points stay the same.

[Telonius]

This sort of thing came up in 3.5 absolutely all the time. Probably the best example is Tome of Battle. The book contained a bunch of classes and mechanics that (depending on your perspective) provided a desperately-needed upgrade to melee classes, or were a terrible example of OP shenanigans and an unacceptable intrusion of wuxia into the game. Some DMs banned it, some players demanded it. ToB was only the most obvious thing; some DMs would ban setting books, everything but the "Completes" series, or even everything but the PHB.

The general consensus came out to, "Well, DM's call whether they want to let any particular source book into the game or not. But they should really make it clear in Session Zero what books will and won't be allowed. Jerk move if you spring a ban on a player." This was particularly important to 3.5, where pre-plannning a character was - while not exactly mandatory - extremely recommended. Suddenly not being able to use that one random feature from Heroes of Horror could completely throw your build out of whack.

[DigoDragon]

The general consensus came out to, "Well, DM's call whether they want to let any particular source book into the game or not. But they should really make it clear in Session Zero what books will and won't be allowed. Jerk move if you spring a ban on a player."

I completely agree with this consensus. I've been a GM for decades and really, anything can be optional if you plan it through. I got to try a one shot once where the GM said no humans and no elves. So everyone made a tiefling. XD

But yes, I would always be upfront with my players at the beginning on what material I will allow. If they have planned out builds, I would like to know the plans so that I am aware what material they will be using later.

[Xervous]

ToB is not a good comparison point IMO. Something worth being compared to ToB would be a a class that puts out higher than baseline damage but cannot benefit (as greatly) from the various popular damage feats or other optimization choices, and is thereby unable to contest the current peak performers.

I’d more readily compare the current case to “you can bike on the sidewalk or the road” but they’ve not built any sidewalk alongside the new roads.

[Faily]

Every rule is optional for a GM. In my first proper D&D 5e game, the GM had done away with the HP recovery mechanic (where everyone can heal up a lot simply by resting) because he wanted things to be more dangerous, the stakes to be higher, and to make having a healer-role very important. And that's a rule that's in the Core. *shrug*


Look, I get that sometimes people wanna play an Elf that has really high Strength and Constitution instead of high Dexterity and Intelligence. I personally think that if being able to have higher Ability Scores is important, players should be given more points to play around with for that part of character creation, but still keep fixed ASI for specific races - that's just my personal opinion because I like a strong tie to fluff and flavor of a race (so I'm not a huge fan of "just make your own variant race that gets the exact bonuses you want!").

[Catullus64]

The language of 'optional' vs. 'mandatory' is rather misleading as to what people are often getting at when they deploy those terms. In strict terms, of course these rules are optional, because this is a game whose rules all operate on human implementation and are thus all 'optional.'

What I think people are trying to discuss when they employ these very stark terms is the sense that the developers and the products are placing pressure on players and DMs to use the new rules. And with that more nuanced language, there might be more room for discussion. But there will also always be people who feel that pressure in a certain direction is tantamount to compulsion.

And sadly, no matter how much people try to insist that the argument is 100% about Good Game Design, these discussions inevitably become more emotionally charged because of the circumstances under which these changes were first revealed; particularly the fact that these changes were first rolled out at the same time that WotC was talking a big game about revisiting and repairing cultural stereotypes in the game. Whether or not that played any real part in motivating the ASI and lineage changes, or was mostly just coincidence and savvy PR, people's emotional wires about the two issues inevitably get crossed.

And wait, shouldn't this get moved to the 5e subforum?

[Witty Username]

Yeah, it should be in the 5e subforum. I biffed the posting, and asked a mod to move it last night. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[KorvinStarmast]

'Why the **** did I buy this book if the DM wont let me use it?'

That's the argument at my tables. Essentially a player bought something, and then they get told that it's 'optional' and the DM said no - invalidating their purchase. Giving the player The Feel Bads. And if a DM gives you The Feel Bads, they are an awful DM and the worst person ever. I'm not playing if the DM is the worst person ever. I don't care what book (3rd party or otherwise) they bought, I have guidelines on what is OK in my games due to the campaign summary document and session zero. Everything in Tasha's is "no unless we look over it together and I give it a thumbs up." If one reads Tasha's it says in the first few pages that what's in there is optional content. (I think that my favorite bit of Tasha's is the tattoos, all said and done).

The new book shows they are making what was told to be optional to be not optional, and it is affecting content that was published before Tasha. Tasha gets the blame because it introduced the idea of floating ASI, telling us it was an option but in reality will not be optional for future 5E use including what already existed. That's the lie. Nicely put.

I agree that DMs have to exclude certain rules, and the DMs have to be clear about it up front. Per my point up there, yeah.

But yes, I would always be upfront with my players at the beginning on what material I will allow. If they have planned out builds, I would like to know the plans so that I am aware what material they will be using later. Or we can tell them "whoops, that {thing} is not on my approved list, let's brainstorm a good alternate that helps you meet your goals."

[Witty Username]

I would ask why the players are so focused on modifying stat blocks. Do they want an elf with 18 constitution? If so, why?
If the players have a clever reason why, then allow it. But if it min-maxing? I think you are better off without that player!

My go to example for elf with Con or Str bonuses is "I want to play a Kangonesti (wild elf)" as 5e doesn't support them very well with the "just play wood elf."

But that is my take that one of the pros of the Tasha's rules is being able to make new subraces on the fly, which I have been told is not using the rules correctly.
--
Maybe part of my confusion is because I have a personal rule that I don't allow books I don't own. I don't like the players using content that I don't have a good grasp of or an easy reference to, since it makes adventure crafting and player advice difficult. If a player asks "Can I use X to do Y" I find the response "What's X? One of the worst answers from a gameplay standpoint.

But this means I am very comfortable with books being not available. For not even particularly good reasons, if the DM says no, I don't question it.

[Mastikator]

'Why the **** did I buy this book if the DM wont let me use it?'

That's the argument at my tables. Essentially a player bought something, and then they get told that it's 'optional' and the DM said no - invalidating their purchase. Giving the player The Feel Bads. And if a DM gives you The Feel Bads, they are an awful DM and the worst person ever. I'm not playing if the DM is the worst person ever.

"When you're DM you can choose what books we use, please DM for a change so we can use this book you bought"

[OldTrees1]

Maybe part of my confusion is because I have a personal rule that I don't allow books I don't own.
I don't think that is part of the confusion. The vast majority of groups understand personal rules like that. It is more likely that you are using "not optional" in a different context than the person making the comment.

In general I would assume the person is in a group where the social contract allows the GM to have personal rules like yours. Thus "not optional" is talking about the content provided by WotC instead of the rules after the GM. For example you said "5e doesn't support Kangonesti (wild elf very well with the 'just play wood elf.'" despite your GM having the ability to make a wild elf subspecies based off of wood elf. Consider the phrase "not optional" as if it were the GM criticizing WotC about the product before the GM's modifications.

On the other hand there was a vocal minority that went so far as to considered it immoral for a GM to not use Tasha's variant. However I suspect only a minorty of individuals making statements criticizing Tasha's rule as "not optional" are in playgroups dominated by that vocal minority.


In summary: It is likely the statement you read is using "not optional" in relation to what WotC provides rather than what the GM allows/modifies.

For example WotC only provided the Tasha's rule version of the Harengon. If you want to play a Harengon, the GM does not have a non Tasha's official version of the Harengon. They could create one, but that does not detract from their criticism of WotC for not providing a non Tasha's version of Harengon in addition to the Tasha's version.

[Witty Username]

In summary: It is likely the statement you read is using "not optional" in relation to what WotC provides rather than what the GM allows/modifies.


I would say that is a fair reading, once they revise the PHB to assume the flexible rules. As it is Wotc Provides the PHB, Tales from the last war, the Ravnica and Theros books, and kinda Tome of Foes and Volo's guide (as has been brought up by Pex, those two books will be unavailable for purchase from the D&D beyond store front May/17).
But as it is the style of game of fixed ASI and proficiency bonuses, is still supported by that existing content Wotc provides, even Tome of Foes and Volo's guide will be still usable on D&D beyond for those that have already purchased them. If you want to play with fixed ASIs, you have content that Wotc is deliberately maintaining for your use.


So I would say it is fair to at most say Wotc is heading in that direction, since they will likely use Tasha's like mechanics for the new edition. But this comment has frequently been addressed for the here and now, and for years now, more or less since Tasha's came out.

[OldTrees1]

I would say that is a fair reading, once they revise the PHB to assume the flexible rules. As it is Wotc Provides the PHB, Tales from the last war, the Ravnica and Theros books, and kinda Tome of Foes and Volo's guide (as has been brought up by Pex, those two books will be unavailable for purchase from the D&D beyond store front May/17).
But as it is the style of game of fixed ASI and proficiency bonuses, is still supported by that existing content Wotc provides, even Tome of Foes and Volo's guide will be still usable on D&D beyond for those that have already purchased them. If you want to play with fixed ASIs, you have content that Wotc is deliberately maintaining for your use.


So I would say it is fair to at most say Wotc is heading in that direction, since they will likely use Tasha's like mechanics for the new edition. But this comment has frequently been addressed for the here and now, and for years now, more or less since Tasha's came out.

The comment has frequently addressed the here and now, since spoilers for Tasha's variant. At the beginning they were predictions that WotC would head in that direction starting with Tasha's and never print support for the non Tasha's variant ever again. At time went on that prediction gains more and more evidence.

Starting at Tasha's, WotC has been publishing content as if Tasha's variant was not optional for all species they publish going forward. As if no new species can have support for the non Tasha's variant.

The comment started during Tasha's spoilers and only gained more evidence as time went on.

[Amnestic]

Livid that they said feats are an optional rule but then they're legal in AL and they keep printing more of them. Same with magic items.

Guess they're not so "optional" after all...?

[JonBeowulf]

When I DM, I view everything as optional. I distribute a list of what's allowed before Session 0 with a comment to come talk to me if you want something special. I'm not inflexible but I'm pretty sure my previous posts have made clear my dislike of OP characters.

I may let you have the super whatever-it-is you want, but you can bet I'm gonna balance that with something.

As for TCoE itself... I don't own it and I don't plan to. I've got more than enough content from PHB through MToF to make a complete world.

[TyGuy]

Livid that they said feats are an optional rule but then they're legal in AL and they keep printing more of them. Same with magic items.

Guess they're not so "optional" after all...?

Not using feats or magic items requires zero extra work. The extra work to use new races printed after TCoE is > zero.

[PhantomSoul]

As for TCoE itself... I don't own it and I don't plan to. I've got more than enough content from PHB through MToF to make a complete world.

And maybe more complete and consistent xD

[Dienekes]

Livid that they said feats are an optional rule but then they're legal in AL and they keep printing more of them. Same with magic items.

Guess they're not so "optional" after all...?

Going with this argument, I think a more accurate comparison would be of all new backgrounds used the Krynn free feat level 1 and 4 rules.

If that happened, yeah, I can see why people would be saying I guess feats aren’t optional anymore.

[Jophiel]

Livid that they said feats are an optional rule but then they're legal in AL and they keep printing more of them. Same with magic items.

Guess they're not so "optional" after all...?

I've never played at a table (and I've played at a decent number of tables) where they weren't considered baseline and it'd really be on the DM to explain that we wouldn't be using them as though that was the optional part. Part of that is probably because most people I play with also have played AL and see that as the default rules. Which isn't all that illogical since those are the official sanctioned play rules handed down from WotC.

[Unoriginal]

So, I have heard the argument alot that the Tasha's rules on modifing the stat blocks of races were intended to be Optional and Wotc in some way broke a promise by making them not.

I don't understand the point being made when this comes up because as far as I am aware, the Tasha's rules are still optional and haven't stopped being optional.

They are optional for now, but it's pretty clear they're going to put the Tasha's way of doing stats in the core books when 5.5 rolls around, and all the species they'll publish until then will follow the Tasha's way too.

That's what people mean, for what I can understand. At least on this topic.

[Witty Username]

The extra work to use new races printed after TCoE is > zero.

Why, is there a concern with just using them as written?
Half-elf has been in the game since the beginning without issue, why would new races that have flexible ASIs be a concern?

[Segev]

Why, is there a concern with just using them as written?
Half-elf has been in the game since the beginning without issue, why would new races that have flexible ASIs be a concern?

Amazing how all the new races are as flexible as the human and half-elf! Why, it is almost as if the optional rules were being applied with no alternative to races who have something other than versatility going for them!

[Kane0]

They are optional for now, but it's pretty clear they're going to put the Tasha's way of doing stats in the core books when 5.5 rolls around, and all the species they'll publish until then will follow the Tasha's way too.


And thats fine to do then, since it wont be conflicting with itself halfway into the edition then refusing the support the old method going forward.

[Dienekes]

Why, is there a concern with just using them as written?
Half-elf has been in the game since the beginning without issue, why would new races that have flexible ASIs be a concern?

It wouldn’t if I thought it made sense for the lore and qualities of the race in question. Humans have flexible ASI, because humans are the generic peoples that can be anything. They’re the benchmark everything has been based on.

Half-elves have a lesser form of that, since they’re half human.

If half-orcs had a +2 Str, +1 to two other ability scores I wouldn’t complain.

But as of Tasha everything is like that. Honestly, I think it makes the game less interesting. Working with and around limitations has been part of the game for as long as I’ve played. And I like it. Especially when the limitations fit the lore and make sense.

Honestly, I’ve felt the races in 5e have been some of the more boring takes on creating different species of creatures in D&D since I started playing. And Tasha’s have made them somehow more boring.

That said, the changes do offer racial choices as essentially a gimmicky coat over the far more important choice of what your class is. Allowing more a freeform take on the matter. There are some players who value this. I don’t. But I can see the appeal for others.

[elyktsorb]

I dunno, I once played with a DM who banned everything that wasn't in the PHB and that's it. Technically 'everything' is optional if you want it to be.

If you find that the Tasha's rules aren't optional in a lot of cases, I assume that just means people want to use them. Like, I read a lot of people on here as not liking Tasha's, but literally every DnD game I've played barring the one where the DM only allowed the initial PHB, has used Tasha's since it came out, so I'm inclined to believe a majority of people like using the book, or at least there aren't enough people who won't use it at all.

[P. G. Macer]

I dunno, I once played with a DM who banned everything that wasn't in the PHB and that's it. Technically 'everything' is optional if you want it to be.

If you find that the Tasha's rules aren't optional in a lot of cases, I assume that just means people want to use them. Like, I read a lot of people on here as not liking Tasha's, but literally every DnD game I've played barring the one where the DM only allowed the initial PHB, has used Tasha's since it came out, so I'm inclined to believe a majority of people like using the book, or at least there aren't enough people who won't use it at all.

What are the canonical fixed ASIs for a Harengon? For a Gem Dragonborn?
If your answer is something along the lines of “there aren’t any”, then how are flexible ASIs optional for these races, and all races and lineages post-2020?

[Zhorn]

Like, I read a lot of people on here as not liking Tasha's, but literally every DnD game I've played barring the one where the DM only allowed the initial PHB, has used Tasha's since it came out, so I'm inclined to believe a majority of people like using the book, or at least there aren't enough people who won't use it at all.

I like cheesecake, but I dislike the common biscuit base they tend to be made with. But I guess since I still eat cheesecake that means I must actually like the biscuit base?

[Pex]

Why, is there a concern with just using them as written?
Half-elf has been in the game since the beginning without issue, why would new races that have flexible ASIs be a concern?

They are changing already published fixed ASI races into new floating ASI races. They are taking away the choice in official material. They are no longer supporting the old way for the new way. That the PHB races haven't been touched yet is only a matter of time of 2024.

[elyktsorb]

What are the canonical fixed ASIs for a Harengon? For a Gem Dragonborn?
If your answer is something along the lines of “there aren’t any”, then how are flexible ASIs optional for these races, and all races and lineages post-2020?

Mate, not only do I not know off the top of my head, I don't particularly care.


I like cheesecake, but I dislike the common biscuit base they tend to be made with. But I guess since I still eat cheesecake that means I must actually like the biscuit base?

It feels like a somewhat bad analogy, because you can always just not eat the biscuit base part of the cake. I don't eat the crust on pizzas.

I guess my point is that you have to be clear on what you do and don't want out of something for people to understand that. Because if you just eat the cheesecake, crust and all, people are probably going to assume you like the entire cheesecake, and if they already like the entire cheesecake, why would they think to ever bother changing a part of it?


I dunno, I'm probably a bit out of my depth for stuff like this, I do like Tasha's and have no real issues with any of the book. I know a lot of people that also like the book and haven't expressed issues with it to me. I've never been playing and had someone tell me they don't want a specific thing from X book. I'd never be able to guess they didn't like something if they never said it.

Take my opinion with a grain of salt I suppose. I can only speak from experience.

[kazaryu]

I agree that DMs have to exclude certain rules, and the DMs have to be clear about it up front. The goal is to have rules that balance the game so everyone can contribute.

I would ask why the players are so focused on modifying stat blocks. Do they want an elf with 18 constitution? If so, why?
If the players have a clever reason why, then allow it. But if it min-maxing? I think you are better off without that player! whats wrong with min/maxing? do you not draw a distinction between toxic power non-toxic powergaming?


I mean, while that's technically true ... how is it impacting anyone's experience, really? If you make a character who's a High Elf, you are free to put the ability boosts into Dex and Int as typical, even in a post-Tasha's game. Does it really harm your experience that someone else might play a character with different (but the same total) ability scores than you would have done?
this has always been my point of confusion. what do people mean by 'not optional' like...even if, moving forward, all the races use flexible ASI's...so what? thats a valid design decision i guess. But how does it force me to adopt the re-writes of existing races?

maybe im just missing something, but even under the argument of 'flexible ASI races are inherently stronger, the old races can't keep up' that just sounds analogous to 'twilight domain clerics are super powerful compared to regular clerics'. like...yeah...true....but that doesn't make them 'non-optional'. i just don't get it.



That sounds like a hyperbolic statement of frustrating being taken at face value as if it were precise and literal.



I have heard this before, but we should examine the Steelman argument:

1) It is meaningless to claim a variant is optional with regards to content that the variant has no impact on.
2) If WotC only prints species with flexible ASIs, then there is growing evidence that WotC will only print species with flexible ASIs.
3) If all new species have flexible ASIs, then there are no new fixed ASI species.
4) New fixed ASI species allow the GM the choice to use or not use Tasha's variant.
5) In contrast new flexible ASI species are not impacted by Tasha's rule.
6) WotC is only printing species with flexible ASIs (including reprintings if you count those)
C) There is growing evidence that it is meaningless to claim Tasha's rule is optional for species WotC will print.

Of course this argument, despite being strengthened, can could be refuted by a single example of a new species from WotC that includes fixed ASIs (even as a variant) such that Tasha's variant could then demonstrate it exists as an optional variant (even if the default position were to be on with a variant to turn it off). this doesn't sound, at all, like a steelman argument for the issue that OP is talking about...all this is explaining how power creep works... 'new stuff is better than old stuff'. it doesn't actually touch on what makes the new stuff 'non-optional' it just describes how the old stuff can become outdated...which is just...power creep, like, by defintion.

and if im wrong, and that is actually what the hubub is about..why specifically about this power creep rather than atrocities like the twilight domain cleric?

[P. G. Macer]

Mate, not only do I not know off the top of my head, I don't particularly care.



I was posing a rhetorical question. Harengons, Gem Dragonborn, and every race and lineage option released after Tasha’s, do not have fixed ASIs. If you don’t care, then how can you ever expect to understand why people are saying the TCoE rules aren’t in practice optional, regardless of whether or not you agree with the claim?

[Willowhelm]

I was posing a rhetorical question. Harengons, Gem Dragonborn, and every race and lineage option released after Tasha’s, do not have fixed ASIs. If you don’t care, then how can you ever expect to understand why people are saying the TCoE rules aren’t in practice optional, regardless of whether or not you agree with the claim?

Tasha's is optional.

If Tasha's didn't exist, those races could still be like that.

If you chose not to use Tasha's, you can still play those races.

Tasha's is optional.

You can still play pre-tasha's races at the same time as post-tasha's races. They play together. Tasha's is optional.

You can play pre-tasha's races, some with and some without using tasha's options, at the same table. Tasha's is optional.

It's all optional.

The options may not be options you like (and that's totally valid) but it doesn't stop them being optional.

It's easy for some people not to care about the answer to your rhetorical question because it is an argument about a topic which is not interesting to them. Understanding and lack of interest are not mutually exclusive.

[strangebloke]

Its optional in the sense that JC isn't going to personally kick down your door and force you to use the new books. It isn't optional in the sense that outside the PHB you can't buy books that have race options with fixed ASIs, and there's no official guidance as to what fixed ASIs newly printed races should have.

To be clear I've come around on floating ASIs, at least the race options that were designed this way, and I don't really view this aspect as a "lie" on WotC's part. Saying that this is an optional rule for races with fixed ASIs implies nothing about future releases.

[Pex]

whats wrong with min/maxing? do you not draw a distinction between toxic power non-toxic powergaming?

this has always been my point of confusion. what do people mean by 'not optional' like...even if, moving forward, all the races use flexible ASI's...so what? thats a valid design decision i guess. But how does it force me to adopt the re-writes of existing races?

maybe im just missing something, but even under the argument of 'flexible ASI races are inherently stronger, the old races can't keep up' that just sounds analogous to 'twilight domain clerics are super powerful compared to regular clerics'. like...yeah...true....but that doesn't make them 'non-optional'. i just don't get it.


this doesn't sound, at all, like a steelman argument for the issue that OP is talking about...all this is explaining how power creep works... 'new stuff is better than old stuff'. it doesn't actually touch on what makes the new stuff 'non-optional' it just describes how the old stuff can become outdated...which is just...power creep, like, by defintion.

and if im wrong, and that is actually what the hubub is about..why specifically about this power creep rather than atrocities like the twilight domain cleric?

It's a matter of principle. There are no D&D police to arrest you for using previously published fixed ASI, but people care about what are the official rules. There is a resentment that what was once the rule now has to be a house rule. They have to take the extra step of saying use the previously published fixed ASI. It doesn't physically harm the DM he needs to go to the intensive care unit of a hospital to say that, but now he has to say that. The choice he was promised of it being optional was a lie. The choice was taken away from him.


Tasha's is optional.

If Tasha's didn't exist, those races could still be like that.

If you chose not to use Tasha's, you can still play those races.

Tasha's is optional.

You can still play pre-tasha's races at the same time as post-tasha's races. They play together. Tasha's is optional.

You can play pre-tasha's races, some with and some without using tasha's options, at the same table. Tasha's is optional.

It's all optional.

The options may not be options you like (and that's totally valid) but it doesn't stop them being optional.

It's easy for some people not to care about the answer to your rhetorical question because it is an argument about a topic which is not interesting to them. Understanding and lack of interest are not mutually exclusive.

It's no longer optional when they are changing published material that was printed before Tasha to follow the Tasha rule. The official rule changed. To use fixed ASI is now a house rule.

[kazaryu]

It's a matter of principle. There are no D&D police to arrest you for using previously published fixed ASI, but people care about what are the official rules. There is a resentment that what was once the rule now has to be a house rule. They have to take the extra step of saying use the previously published fixed ASI. It doesn't physically harm the DM he needs to go to the intensive care unit of a hospital to say that, but now he has to say that. The choice he was promised of it being optional was a lie. The choice was taken away from him.


i appreciate the attempt to answer the question...but you seem to have missed it, maybe i asked it poorly. but what makes it non-optional. what makes it different from all of the other optional and variant options in all of the books? what am i missing?

[Dork_Forge]

i appreciate the attempt to answer the question...but you seem to have missed it, maybe i asked it poorly. but what makes it non-optional. what makes it different from all of the other optional and variant options in all of the books? what am i missing?

Spell points wasn't offered as a variant for then all spellcasting classes Tasha's onwards to be using spell points.

[RedWarlock]

i appreciate the attempt to answer the question...but you seem to have missed it, maybe i asked it poorly. but what makes it non-optional. what makes it different from all of the other optional and variant options in all of the books? what am i missing?

The difference is that it has moved from opt-in to opt-out. A 'default, by the book' game now has to say 'except no Tasha's ASIs'.

[Amnestic]

It's no longer optional when they are changing published material that was printed before Tasha to follow the Tasha rule. The official rule changed. To use fixed ASI is now a house rule.

The PHB got an errata to that effect? Strange, I can't seem to find it.


I've never played at a table (and I've played at a decent number of tables) where they weren't considered baseline and it'd really be on the DM to explain that we wouldn't be using them as though that was the optional part. Part of that is probably because most people I play with also have played AL and see that as the default rules. Which isn't all that illogical since those are the official sanctioned play rules handed down from WotC.

That's rather my point yes.

Feats: They said they were optional, yet they're AL legal and future content continues to support those rules.
Magic Items: They said they were optional, yet they're AL legal and future content continues to support those 'rules'.
Reassignable ASIs: They said they were optional, yet they're AL legal and future content continues to support those rules.

[Segev]

We have thus optional new magic system, called psionic. It's totally optional, but every new magical ability will be psionic and use the psionic power. Every new subclass and class will use psionics.

By the by, the government has instituted a totally optional internet license. Every website up to the date of the license will remain available. If you want new internet content, rather than the frozen archive on that date, you will need the license, but it's totally optional because the same internet you had without the license remains available.

Also, a totally optional subscription service for cars is being introduced. New cars with this option will require you to pay a monthly fee, or they will shut down until you do. But it's optional: old cars still don't need it. Of course, despite it being optional, all new cars will have it. And old cars won't have non-subscription parts available to them. But it's not required to get a subscription: you can keep driving the old cars as long as they work. And of course, if a new car comes out without the subscription service, you could buy it. But no new ones will; they all have the subscription option and only the subscription option.


For it to be truly optional, the new races would need to be in the non-TCE style, with fixed racial stat bonuses. TCE being optional would permit you to ignore those fixed stat boosts if you're using TCE.

By designing every new race with TCE's "optional" rule built-in, the game is given away: this isn't an optional rule, but rather a rules change.

[Amnestic]

By designing every new race with TCE's "optional" rule built-in, the game is given away: this isn't an optional rule, but rather a rules change.

Even if that's true (and it's not, again, because your old content is still there - despite what Pex said):

Are you a DM? Simply say it's not on the table, like a dozen other optional/variant rules. Restrict the races. Perform your role as a DM.
Are you a player? Then don't take advantage of it and deliberately give yourself what you think are "thematic" stats instead or what's "optimal", if those are even different to begin with.

So what if it's a change in direction going forwards? Maybe they thought it was going to be a one-off and then the positive reception to it made them change their gears and stick to it going forwards. Do you want them to beg on their knees for forgiveness because they said one thing and changed their mind in the face of a public reception? If the reassignable ASIs are generally viewed positively* what reason do they have to not continue doing it?

*my evidence for this: If it wasn't, they wouldn't still be doing it.

[Dienekes]

Even if that's true (and it's not, again, because your old content is still there - despite what Pex said):

Are you a DM? Simply say it's not on the table, like a dozen other optional/variant rules. Restrict the races. Perform your role as a DM.
Are you a player? Then don't take advantage of it and deliberately give yourself what you think are "thematic" stats instead or what's "optimal", if those are even different to begin with.

So what if it's a change in direction going forwards? Maybe they thought it was going to be a one-off and then the positive reception to it made them change their gears and stick to it going forwards. Do you want them to beg on their knees for forgiveness because they said one thing and changed their mind in the face of a public reception? If the reassignable ASIs are generally viewed positively* what reason do they have to not continue doing it?

*my evidence for this: If it wasn't, they wouldn't still be doing it.

Well, they could continue doing it, through the Tasha optional rules. They exist now. So, by your own logic Tasha’s stuff is always still there. When creating new content all of it can be made with the assumption that if players want to use the Tasha rules they can. What is far more work is to start going through the lord and stats and assigning them for every new race WotC releases. Especially since I buy the mechanics books and pay WotC money to do the mechanics for me. That’s kind of the deal.

Is this new system popular? Yeah most certainly. In my experience, basically every time you offer an option that eases restrictions on people they will take it and those who don’t are the weird ones who are getting in the way of other people’s fun.

The problem comes that those limitations are important and fun in their own way for some people. So they’re watching the game actively move toward a less interesting state. For them there is now no new content, without more work on their part. And when that happens people get annoyed and eventually move away to other systems.

Now you may not care about that. But frankly the declaration “just do more work if your a DM on top of all the other work you’re already supposed to do!” Is annoying and doesn’t actually help.

[Amnestic]

Well, they could continue doing it, through the Tasha optional rules. They exist now. So, by your own logic Tasha’s stuff is always still there. When creating new content all of it can be made with the assumption that if players want to use the Tasha rules they can.

They'd have to reprint Tasha's rules in every book that had a race going forwards, in full, alongside fixed ASIs because not everyone has Tasha's. That's...what, a page in every book? Or they could not do that and simply not fix them, saving the page for other things, while still supporting the paradigm shift that appears to be widely popular.



What is far more work is to start going through the lord and stats and assigning them for every new race WotC releases. Especially since I buy the mechanics books and pay WotC money to do the mechanics for me. That’s kind of the deal.

A) It's like 5 seconds of work per race. You're not rewriting the entire spell system or anything here, come on. Is that "work you shouldn't have to do?" I mean, arguably, but also all houserules are that. "I don't like this aspect of the game, I will put effort into changing it for my table".

Or:

B) Just ban the races post-Tasha's? That takes no time at all. It's totally reasonable to ban races. And classes. And feats. And anything else you don't like.



The problem comes that those limitations are important and fun in their own way for some people. So they’re watching the game actively move toward a less interesting state.

Everyone's got a point on this ("It was more interesting when arcane spell failure existed," "It was more interesting when only humans could dual class", "it was more interesting when elf was a class") and I'm not trying to dismiss you outright

but

This whole Tasha's ASI stuff has been floating around since before it even released. It's been the subject of many, many threads. People ban Hexblade dips and Conjure Animals and whatnot all the time. If it were a stupid OP spell (hey Silvery Barbs!) or weird backgrounds (hey Ravnica!) that they didn't like, there's literally figuratively no one who has a problem with the DM just saying "banned". So I do not understand why we are still going over this months and months and months later.

Don't like it? Don't use it or change it. Like it? Use it.

It's optional. Like everything else is.



Now you may not care about that. But frankly the declaration “just do more work if your a DM on top of all the other work you’re already supposed to do!” Is annoying and doesn’t actually help.

If the DM is structuring the game the way they want it to be then it's not "additional work", it's...the work. I guess it's additional work in that it exists now and didn't before, but that's how every splatbook works: There's more content to deal with. Just like there was pre-Xanathar's to post-Xanathar's.

[OldTrees1]

this doesn't sound, at all, like a steelman argument for the issue that OP is talking about...all this is explaining how power creep works... 'new stuff is better than old stuff'. it doesn't actually touch on what makes the new stuff 'non-optional' it just describes how the old stuff can become outdated...which is just...power creep, like, by defintion.

The issue described in the steelman argument is not about power creep. Power creep is about power creeping. For #2 it does not matter if the new species are stronger or weaker. It is not about power creep, it is about the lack of support.

Imagine a company made blue plastic toy soldiers. Then they added red paint as a red soldier variant. That lets you use blue or red soldiers. However a month later they decided all future soldiers (including new models not seen before in blue) are made out of red plastic. If all of the new models are red soldiers, and all you have is red paint, there is no support for blue soldiers of the new models. It would be trivial for them to provide blue paint as an optional modification, but there is increasing evidence that they won't support blue soldiers of the new models.

The steelman argument of #2 removes some of the venting hyperbole and adjusts the claim from "It is no longer optional" to "They are releasing new content that has the optional rule built in but don't provide support for using the new content without the optional rule. With regards to the new content, there is no official option to toggle Tasha's off."

A variant implies both ways of play will be supported and new content would be compatible with both. Featless games of 5E are still supported and new content (races, backgrounds, classes) are built to be compatible with featless games. As far as support goes, using feats or not using feats is still an option with regards to the new content.

Now if you meant "Oh but Tasha's is the new way and the old way is outdated. New content will only be made using Tasha's model. Only Tasha's way will be supported for new content. How is that non-optional?" Then you have pointed out the exact criticism, a variant (both ways are valid and supported) was upgraded to "the only version" going forward. That is the "non-optional" part. WotC did not provide an option to use Haregon in a non Tasha's game*

*The GM can make an option with homebrew but that is different. However this is also why the steelman argument rolled by the hyperbolic "non-optional" language to a more precise (albeit verbose) criticism.

[Amechra]

Oh, sure, the rules for futzing with races that showed up Tasha's are optional. The thing is that you have to opt into them if you want to use any of the races printed in books after Tasha's, because those races were designed with the assumption that those rules would be in play. So there's a tension between "I think races should have built-in ability score boosts, because I think that's fun and interesting" and "I want to use this book that I spent a bunch of money on".

[Unoriginal]

The issue described in the steelman argument is not about power creep.

Imagine a company made blue plastic toy soldiers. Then they added red paint as a red soldier variant. That lets you use blue or red soldiers. However a month later they decided all future soldiers (including new models not seen before in blue) are made out of red plastic. If all of the new models are red soldiers, and all you have is red paint, there is no support for blue soldiers of the new models. It would be trivial for them to provide blue paint as an optional modification, but there is increasing evidence that they won't support blue soldiers of the new models.

The steelman argument of #2 removes some of the venting hyperbole and adjusts the claim from "It is no longer optional" to "They are releasing new content that has the optional rule built in but don't provide support for using the new content without the optional rule. With regards to the new content, there is no official option to toggle Tasha's off."

A variant implies both ways of play will be supported and new content would be compatible with both. Featless games of 5E are still supported and new content (races, backgrounds, classes) are built to be compatible with featless games. As far as support goes, using feats or not using feats is still an option with regards to the new content.

Now if you meant "Oh but Tasha's is the new way and the old way is outdated. New content will only be made using Tasha's model. Only Tasha's way will be supported for new content. How is that non-optional?" Then you have pointed out the exact criticism, a variant (both ways are valid and supported) was upgraded to "the only version" going forward. That is the "non-optional" part. WotC did not provide an option to use Haregon in a non Tasha's game*

*The GM can make an option with homebrew but that is different. However this is also why the steelman argument rolled by the hyperbolic "non-optional" language to a more precise (albeit verbose) criticism.

And WotC has made clear the Tasha's way is going to be the one way once 5.5 comes around in a couple years.

Saying "but you can still use the old material" doesn't change that going forward, the old material will no longer be supported, and that people who were fine with "new stuff is an option, but the old stuff will still be supported" may not be fine with "new stuff is how we're doing it now, if you want old-stuff-based stuff do it yourself".

[OldTrees1]

Feats: They said they were optional, yet they're AL legal and future content continues to support those rules.
Magic Items: They said they were optional, yet they're AL legal and future content continues to support those 'rules'.
Reassignable ASIs: They said they were optional, yet they're AL legal and future content continues to support those rules.

I think you meant



Feats: They said they were optional, future content continues to support those rules OR not using those rules.
Magic Items: They said they were optional, future content continues to support those 'rules' OR not using those rules.
Reassignable ASIs: They said they were optional, future content continues to support those rules OR not using those rules

One of these Haregons is not like the other Haregons. Nobody says feats are non-optional. Probably because new content continues to support both variants.



And WotC has made clear the Tasha's way is going to be the one way once 5.5 comes around in a couple years.

Saying "but you can still use the old material" doesn't change that going forward, the old material will no longer be supported, and that people who were fine with "new stuff is an option, but the old stuff will still be supported" may not be fine with "new stuff is how we're doing it now, if you want old-stuff-based stuff do it yourself".

Unoriginal you agree with the facts and thus you understand the critique:
The facts: As far as printed content goes, everything printed after Tasha's no longer considers Tasha's to be optional. Unlike other variants, this "variant" quickly ended new content support for the alternative.
The critique: Some don't like that decision. Why not support both? Even if fixed ASIs become the non default variant.

[Amnestic]

One of these Haregons is not like the other Haregons. Nobody says feats are non-optional. Probably because new content continues to support both variants.

Weird, I don't see anything out there mandating the use of the Harengon race. Must be missing that quote, I'm sure you can show me where they insist on you using them in your campaign.

You've got the variant: use Harengon.
And the non-variant: don't use it.

Just like feats, as it turns out. Fantastic.

And again, if it matters so much to you just change it, the same as everything else in this game. In the time you spent writing this post you could have given Harengon +2 Dex, +1 Wis, and moved on.

Like, do you need someone else to do it for you? There's only been a half dozen races printed since Tasha's so it won't take long. What've we got...

Reborn: +1 Con, +2 floating
Dhampir: +1 Dex, +1 Con, +1 floating.
Hexblood: +1 Int, +1 Cha, +1 floating.
Fairy: +2 Wis, +1 Cha
Harengon: +2 Dex, +1 Wis
Owlin: +2 Dex, +1 Int

Think that's all of them? Might've forgotten some but since it took me a minute to do all of them, I'm guessing any I missed won't be that hard to figure out.

[Unoriginal]

Unoriginal you agree with the facts and thus you should understand the critique (regardless of if you agree with it):
The facts: As far as printed content goes, everything printed after Tasha's no longer considers Tasha's to be optional. Unlike other variants, this "variant" quickly ended ongoing support for the alternative.
The critique: Some don't like that decision. Why not support both? Even if fixed ASIs become the non default variant.

I do agree with the facts, and do understand the critique. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.


Like, do you need someone else to do it for you?

Yes. And that someone else is called Wizards of the Coast.


Might've forgotten some but since it took me a minute to do all of them, I'm guessing any I missed won't be that hard to figure out.

And since it a) took a minute to do and b) isn't hard to figure out, imagine how easy it would be for WotC to do it.

But they won't.

They've made clear that this was not something they wish to support any longer.

[OldTrees1]

Weird, I don't see anything out there mandating the use of the Harengon race. Must be missing that quote, I'm sure you can show me where they insist on you using them in your campaign.

Weird, I never said the use of the Harengon race was mandated. I must have missed that quote, I'm sure you can show me where I said that? {Scrubbed}

You can honestly reply to my point that new content for the optional variants supports both variants. Except new content supports the Tasha's rule but does not support the old variant. Show me a new species with official fixed ASI support. I can wait. OR you can accept that new species are only printed using Tasha's rules.

If you can accept that new species are only printed with support for Tasha's, unlike new classes printed that supports feats AND non-feat games, then you can start to understand. (Understanding the facts will not necessarily lead to agreement with the critique)


I do agree with the facts, and do understand the critique. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.


I edited my post while you replied. Sorry I misread the tone on my first read.

[Amnestic]

Except new content for the Tasha's rule does not support the old variant. Show me a new species with official fixed ASI support. I can wait.

The old variant like...variant human?

Look, again: So what if they don't have fixed ASIs. Is this really that important? Really?

I gave you a set of fixed ones you can use, I won't even ask to be credited, you can pretend you made them up yourself for your table. I'll do so for every single printed race going forwards if you like, my gift to you. Hit me up when the next book drops!




And since it a) took a minute to do and b) isn't hard to figure out, imagine how easy it would be for WotC to do it.

But they won't.

Right, because the new paradigm is apparently quite popular, and not reprinting Tasha's rules in full in every book going forwards is good business on saving word/page count.


OR you can cut the "Deliberately misrepresent the previous poster for teh lulz".

{Scrubbed}

[OldTrees1]

The old variant like...variant human?

Look, again: So what if they don't have fixed ASIs. Is this really that important? Really?

I gave you a set of fixed ones you can use, I won't even ask to be credited, you can pretend you made them up yourself for your table. I'll do so for every single printed race going forwards if you like, my gift to you. Hit me up when the next book drops!

Are you unwilling to acknowledge WotC is not printing support for non Tasha's usage of new species? Some species pre Tasha's had floating ASIs. However some did not. Show me a new race that has support for fixed ASIs. If you think all the new species would have had floating ASIs pre Tasha's (I would question your honesty) but then all you have to do is wait for a single counter example. A single new species that WotC prints with optional fixed ASIs. A single example that new species support both the Tasha's way and the alternative variant.

But you will never see that counter example, will you.


Right, because the new paradigm is apparently quite popular, and not reprinting Tasha's rules in full in every book going forwards is good business on saving word/page count.
How many words/pages does it take to print support for the non Tasha's variant? I think at most 2+N lines per book in one of the 4 columns (N=number of new species in that book). That is a trivially small footprint.

[Amnestic]

Are you unwilling to acknowledge WotC is not printing support for non Tasha's usage of new species?

I acknowledge it, I just don't think it matters, at all. I think that if it truly is a problem for any DM out there that they should simply do what they do whenever they have a problem with any aspect of the game and change it. Houserule it. Or ban it. It is no more additional effort than dealing with any new additional splatbook that changes or adds things. Ban the books. Play core only or Core+Xan or Core+SCAG or Core+E:RTLW.

It just seems like a lot of mental effort to spend on something that came out 18 months ago and has affected a grand total of 6 races across 3 books, two of which are setting-specific adventures and one of which is a setting-specific splatbook.

And like, I'm sure if they print more races it'll keep going, but just...adjust? Instead of revisiting this endless back and forth.

Same way you adjust when Silvery Barbs gets printed and it's ridiculous and needs changing or banning.

What are you gonna do when Kender get printed and they're 3 floating instead of +2 Dex/+1 Cha? Make a new thread, go over this all over again...or just make them +2 Dex/+1 Cha and move on?



But you will never see that counter example, will you.

Probably not, but thankfully after many years of gaming I've built up the mental fortitude to suffer through such trials and tribulations.



How many words/pages does it take to print support for the non Tasha's variant? I think at most 2+N lines per book in one of the 4 columns.

If you're printing the full Tasha's rules by way of explanation, a full page. Otherwise they might cause some confusion.

[OldTrees1]

I acknowledge it, I just don't think it matters, at all.
Wonderful. Now you can discuss the merits of the critique rather than try to pretend the facts are different.

I merely wanted to point out that the feats variant is optional and the new content (classes, backgrounds, species) support both variants without requiring the GM to homebrew. The new species only support the Tasha's variant without requiring the GM to homebrew.

That difference around "new content supports both variants" part was missing from your comparison of Tasha's to the Feat and Magic Item variants.


If you're printing the full Tasha's rules by way of explanation, a full page. Otherwise they might cause some confusion.

I disagree. 2+N lines is all that is needed to say:

Instead of using the ASI for the species in
this book, you can used these ASIs instead.
Species 1: +2 __, +1 ___
Species 2: +1 __, +1 ___, +1 ___

2+N lines in a sidenote in a column. A trivially small footprint that does not require reprinting Tasha's rules.

Or you could change the templating of the ASI section of the species to say:

Ability Score Increase. Increase one ability score by 2, and increase a different one by 1, or increase three different scores by 1. (For example +2 __ and +1 __.)
Then just include the non Tasha's version as the example.

That could be as few as N lines per book. However I think the sidenote method better fits the goals of having Tasha's be the default. It supports the alternative variant but keeps it physically separated.

[stoutstien]

Honestly the obsession over stat generation is something I don't understand. It's a tiny blimp during the initial character selection option that is itself a miniscule portion of the system. I wish they just put fixed, floating, and hybrid in as equal options along side the ability array generation rules from the get go so tables can individually use what works best for there mechanic/work logic. While there is always discussions over which to use none is feels pressured to see one as the one true way.

[Amnestic]

Wonderful. Now you can discuss the merits of the critique rather than try to pretend the facts are different.

I mean I don't think I need to. I'm not that married to it frankly. If you want the "win" you can have it. Congrats, you have succeeded against me in the marketplace of ideas by pointing out that the 6 races post-Tasha's all have variable ASIs instead of fixed. I could write out justifications for why they might have variable instead of fixed from an in-universe perspective.

But I already put in all my mental efforts on giving them fixed ASIs, so I'm a bit tapped out now. Phew.



A trivially small footprint that does not require reprinting Tasha's rules.

Maybe it wouldn't take a page. Maybe it would only take that much, if they did want to condense it and risk people getting confused. But it's still space they could spend on printing a new feat, spell, or magic item or something, every time they make a new race. I dunno, I'd rather have the latter than wasted word count.

[Elric VIII]

I just ran into this problem in a game I am joining. DM doesn't like floating ASIs because he says they are only used for min/maxing. I had wanted to play a lizardfolk lore bard as a shaman, moving my ASI to +1 con/+2 cha, but he wouldn't let me. I ended up just using a half-elf, which is mechanically better than lizardfolk with a floating ASI, minus some niche situations. Although that point was lost on him.

So I think the best explanation why people don't see the rules as optional is because they are by and large a net positive in terms of overall character design, with relatively little downside. The min/max aspect seems to be the main argument against this change, with racial uniqueness coming in as a close second. I think both aspects of the argument fail upon closer inspection. If min/maxing is your concern, then you can just play a race that has the ASIs you want and racial uniqueness is just penalizing players for wanting to try uncommon race/class combos. Furthermore, I don't see how this affects anything but the very early game, at most it puts you 1 ASI behind on maxing out your main stat if you choose a completely incompatible race/class combo. The only thing I could see being a potential balance issue is something like +2 con/+2 int mountain dwarf wizard with free medium armor.

[Pex]

The PHB got an errata to that effect? Strange, I can't seem to find it.



They are printing Monsters of the Multiverse which will redo almost all non-PHB published races printed in previous works that was done before Tasha. (Not the Eberron races, from what I understand, hence "almost".) The new version of the races will become the official version. To use the old version is now a house rule. The Tasha rule has become official for previous works. It is no longer optional. To use fixed ASI is now the house rule. The PHB will be changed in 2024. It is to be determined whether those races will also reflect the change to floating ASI. Right now it is only suspected with strong evidence in that favor.

[OldTrees1]

Honestly the obsession over stat generation is something I don't understand. It's a tiny blimp during the initial character selection option that is itself a miniscule portion of the system. I wish they just put fixed, floating, and hybrid in as equal options along side the ability array generation rules from the get go so tables can individually use what works best for there mechanic/work logic. While there is always discussions over which to use none is feels pressured to see one as the one true way.

I do not fully understand it either. I can understand it enough to communicate each position's critiques but I think I come at this from an unusual position.

I liked the 3.5 Savage Species and 3.5 Monster Manual for allowing many extremely non human playable species. When I came to 5E I scanned over the demihuman playable species and was disappointed. Partially by the focus on boring demihumans but also the contents of those demihumans. Many of the features felt like cultural features or inconsequential ribbons. There were a few standouts (Wings, Dragonborn, Warforged) but the most non-human species trait for most of these species was the ASIs. In 3E Humans had +0. All of the diversity of humans was represented by the rolls/point buy. This implied ASIs like an Goliath's+4 Str showed a significant difference in the bell curve despite the variation within the species being able to offset the difference. Goliaths generally were stronger than Humans. Then in 5E Humans received +1 all or +1/+1. Additionally 5E species received fewer and smaller ASIs. ASIs, despite being significantly reduced in meaning, still had some effect of communicating Warforged were hardier than Humans. I considered the ASI less relevant that the mechanical representation of the Warforged armor, but it was something.

My current theory for the obsession is Ability scores mean less in 5E but are one of the few things left that mean anything. This is a result of the math choices for several systems and subsystems. This made people focus on the Ability scores and care more about even smaller differences (Similar to how I went from 3E Illithids or Dragonborn Goliaths to settling for 5E Warforged or Dragonborn). So you have people caring more about a smaller difference. One group was vocal enough to provoke a new variant. Another group wanted to continue without using the new variant. Then WotC started only creating content for one of the 2 groups.

Meanwhile I am still waiting for 5E Savage Species. I don't think it will happen.

[Willowhelm]

They are printing Monsters of the Multiverse which will redo almost all non-PHB published races printed in previous works that was done before Tasha. (Not the Eberron races, from what I understand, hence "almost".) The new version of the races will become the official version. To use the old version is now a house rule. The Tasha rule has become official for previous works. It is no longer optional. To use fixed ASI is now the house rule. The PHB will be changed in 2024. It is to be determined whether those races will also reflect the change to floating ASI. Right now it is only suspected with strong evidence in that favor.

You are using a very different definition of optional.

PHB races still possible with fixed stats. No errata. So floating stats (I guess that’s the only thing about Tasha’s we’re talking about now…) are still optional.

New races don’t have fixed stats. This was possible pre Tasha’s and would be possible without Tasha’s. It’s also an option to play with them or not.

Two different versions of races can exist. The new ones have floating, the old have fixed. You have an option of which one to use. Using the old version is not a house rule, it’s just using a different sourcebook. IF they get errata’d then choosing to use the original print instead of the errata would be a house rule. (And I bet most of the people doing it would know there even was an errata.)

Nobody is making you use one vs the other. It is a choice. If there are additional restrictions at your table then that is where the non-optional part comes in and that is the same for any rules.

If the argument is that you don’t like floating ASIs then fine. That’s a fair argument and has been hashed out so. Many. Times.

That doesn’t stop Tasha’s being optional.

It’s not a breaking API change. It’s all backwards compatible. It’s all optional. You can mix and match everything.

Say you don’t like flexible ASIs. Say you don’t like how WoTC has changed their default. Say you don’t like what you predict will be in 5.5. That’s all fine!

Don’t say it isn’t optional. It is.

[OldTrees1]

You are using a very different definition of optional.

It’s not a breaking API change. It’s all backwards compatible. It’s all optional. You can mix and match everything.

Don’t say it isn’t optional. It is.

This is why I said the steelman version of Argument #2 needed to adjust to a milder claim. A blanket claim of "not optional" can't be supported.


That sounds like a hyperbolic statement of frustrating being taken at face value as if it were precise and literal.

I have heard this(The #2 argument in the OP) before, but we should examine the Steelman argument:

1) It is meaningless to claim a variant is optional with regards to content that the variant has no impact on.
-snip-
C) There is growing evidence that it is meaningless to claim Tasha's rule is optional for new species WotC will print.

For old species we still have the fixed ASI examples (including some examples that were patched a couple times).
For new species, they have Tasha's built into them. They have nothing left for Tasha's to alter and there is no signs of what existed before apply Tasha's rules. It is meaningless to say Tasha's variant is optional for these new species. You can neither toggle Tasha's on nor toggle Tasha's off for these new species.

However that does not mean Tasha's is not optional. We don't have an offical option for a non Tasha Harengon but you can use the Harengon is a game that does not allow Tasha's for species with non Tasha's options. You can even homebrew a non Tasha's Harengon. (If we include homebrew, everything is ultimately optional).

It is not a breaking API change. It was creating a variant, having the variants be compatible for mix & match, and then discontinuing new content for the alternative variant.

Ultimately that means Tasha's is optional. However the intended critique (without the hyperbole) still exists.

[Thunderous Mojo]

It's a matter of principle. There are no D&D police to arrest you for using previously published fixed ASI, but people care about what are the official rules. There is a resentment that what was once the rule now has to be a house rule.

This seems to be the crux of the matter….hurt feelings.
Feelings matter, so I do wish to state, I see and acknowledge the pain that is being expressed.

To some, when the TCoE rules were described as ‘optional’, they thought the dominant D&D paradigm of the last 50 years was going to continue into the future.

What WotC meant by making the TCoE Customization rules ‘optional’ was that Errata making the PHB, Volos, Mord’s Foes…or any other product before TCoE, Tasha’s compliant was not going to be issued.

The Dominate Paradigm of D&D past is still, technically, in place for 5e. WotC, however, has made it abundantly clear that the past paradigm is not the paradigm the game will support for the future.

An examination of the past and recent events would lead me to the conclusion that altering what is considered 50 year old ‘Settled Law’,
(aka: The Dominate Paradigm), will cause consternation in some.

Setting aside, the fissures of tribalism that often accompany this topic, I personally find the floating ASI rule to achieve exactly what the rule change set to do:

The TCoE Customization rules do reduce the ‘cost’/difficulties that can arise from ‘Playing Against Type’ with set racial ASIs.

It is possible that the D&D Designers felt the paradigm shift was important enough, that they cannot allow their decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to their work.

Perhaps, WotC, as an organization feels it won’t be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want.

I can certainly understand feeling anger towards an institution that abruptly alters a paradigm that is 50 years old, and seemingly doesn’t care one whit for the opinions of those that personally liked the old paradigm.

[Unoriginal]

It is possible that the D&D Designers felt the paradigm shift was important enough, that they cannot allow their decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to their work.

Perhaps, WotC, as an organization feels it won’t be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want.

WotC was abundantly clear the paradigm shift was specifically *because* of the public's reaction to their work, though.

It's not something to debate.

WotC reacted to what was said about them, the old paradigm, and a lot of other things, and made a decision about what paradigm they'll follow in the forseeable future. Specifically, they took a set of criticisms made on their past work and addressed it the way a part of their audience wanted it. Because that's what makes sense when you're running a business.

You're right that this is about hurt feelings. But let's not act as if WotC didn't consciously decide to go "alright, X number of people want Y, so we're doing Y."

[GooeyChewie]

To answer the question posed in the thread title, on October 4, 2021 Wizards of the Coast published a Sage Advice titled Creature Evolutions. This Sage Advice contained a passage titled "Ability Score Increases," which says the following:

"New character races don’t have the Ability Score Increase trait that Player’s Handbook races have. The new races instead rely on a special character-creation rule that allows a character to increase one ability score by 2 and another score by 1 or to increase three different ability scores by 1. The lack of the Ability Score Increase trait helps make your choice of race and your choice of class independent from each other, broadening the types of characters we’re likely to see at the game table."

It's not speculation that WotC intends to apply the floating ASIs to all future races (and apparently also reprints of existing races). They have literally announced their intentions of doing so. That's what we mean when we say the "optional" rules have become mandatory*. If you want to play with any new races, floating ASIs are not an option; they are the default.

*Technically the DM can, with table buy-in, change anything in D&D, so nothing is truly mandatory. "Mandatory" really means a default that the table would need to house-rule to override.

•But if you want fixed ASIs you can just make your own!
Sure, and in that sense all rules are optional. The fact that a table can make a house rule to get around a rule does not mean that rule is "optional."

•But all previously released races do have existing fixed ASIs!
Yes, that's true, but irrelevant. The problem lies with the new races, not the old ones. If the DM says a particular campaign will not use Tasha's floating ASIs, that DM now also needs to clarify what not using that optional rule means for the newer races.

•But feats and magic items are "optional" and they still print new ones of those!
Not the same thing at all. If your table doesn't want to use feats or magic items, they simply ignore those sections of the book. Racial ASIs are part of races, and races are not optional. If you want to opt out of floating ASIs, you either have to forego the new races entirely, or make house rules to compensate. If WotC said all new races would have a feat associated with them, I would agree that doing so would make feats non-optional. (Case in point, I do think the backgrounds in the latest UAs at least skirt that line, if not cross it outright.)

•But I like floating ASIs and don't understand why anyone would want fixed ASIs!
Your preference is totally valid. But that preference does not mean that floating ASIs are optional at this point, only that you prefer the new normal. The preference of wanting fixed ASIs is also valid. For me, fixed ASIs help me understand a race, even if I choose to change them into floating ASIs. To reiterate, I would find suggested fixed ASis for races helpful even if I chose the floating ASI option.

•But providing suggested ASIs would take up space which could be used for other stuff!
Frankly, that's not true. The ASIs would take up at most a line or two in the race stat block, which can be accommodated with formatting on that same page. It would have no impact on other pages of the book. Please note, that's also why I do not consider the fact that we could condense the "Creating a Character" section as a reason to get rid of floating ASIs, even though depending on the number of races in a book that section may actually take up more space than having the ASIs in the racial stat blocks themselves.

•But floating ASIs aren't a balance problem!
I would agree, but the fact that the new design paradigm isn't introducing a balance problem does not mean the new design paradigm is presented in such a way that it is actually optional.

•We've always had floating ASIs on variant humans and half-elves!
Having one or two races with floating ASIs is not the same thing as having floating ASIs as the default for all races going forward. The floating ASIs on human and half-elves were presented as racial features of those races, making them an exception rather than a rule. Having floating ASIs is not in and of itself the problem.

•They could have released all these races with floating ASIs without ever having released Tasha's!
This argument actually makes the point for me. Yes, they could have made this change without ever having called it optional beforehand.

•Okay, so the new rules are not really optional. Why is that a problem?
To me, the biggest problem is an erosion of trust. The idea of floating ASIs was presented as option. Anybody who didn't like the idea was told that they could simply choose not to use floating ASIs. When Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft introduced Reborn, Hexblood and Dhampir, those same people brought up concerns that WotC was making the "optional" rule into the new standard. Others told them not to worry, because these new racial options were "lineages" instead of races, so their use of floating ASIs was no indication of a design paradigm shift. Then came Witchlight with full races using the floating ASIs, and shortly after the announcement that all new races would use floating ASIs. They had to have at least been considering the design paradigm shift during Tasha's production. If they had announced it as such, I don't think they would have gotten as much pushback. We'd still have players who preferred the fixed ASI model, but at least those players wouldn't feel like they had been conned into accepting the floating ASI model little by little.

I also believe there are secondary and tertiary problems. The secondary problem is that they failed to fully accomplish their goal. Races still have preferred race/class combos, they just based those preferences on other racial features rather than ASIs. Goblins, for example, make terrible Rogues because one of their racial features becomes completely redundant. The tertiary problem is that WotC has cut off a means of characterizing races. I think the updated Dragonborn are a great example of what I mean. Until level 5, the only difference between a metallic dragonborn and a chromatic dragonborn is the shape of their breath weapon. If WotC provided them with suggested ASIs, even ones which you could explicitly turn into floating ASIs, they could have presented them in different lights. Even something as simple as making metallic dragonborn +2 Str/+1 Cha while chromatic dragonborn are +1 Str/+2 Cha would help differentiate the two, letting the player know that metallics are more likely to be Paladins and chromatics are more likely to be Sorcerers without mechanically forcing either race into either class.

[Amnestic]

races are not optional.

Specific races are totally optional. AL had a ban on flying races for a while, dunno if that's still in effect. Not to mention setting-specific (no changelings in forgotten realms!) or campaign-specific restrictions (Goblin-only lets gooooo).

[Jervis]

TBH this subtle change thing WotC has been doing has annoyed me a little bit. It feels like, well, they’re trying to sneak in changes under the guise of options and later making new content requiring those options. Which is fair because that is what they’re doing. I actually don’t mind some changes like decoupling ASIs from race choice since that’s something I do anyway, and I don’t mind races still meshing better with some classes than others. Yes by doing that they have kinda gone against their stated design reason but you can make unconventional characters that use weird options. I’ve made a Minotaur Bladesinger that uses hammering horns fro example. (Yes he used heavy armor and yes it was terrible) The problem is you can’t really make every race work equally well with every class without making them all the same.

And that does go into my big gripe with Tasha’s. Custom Lineage is a power crept Vuman and that annoys me.

[Stangler]

I think the bottom line is that pretty much all rules are optional so to establish any specific rule at a table as optional requires buy in from the players.

For example a DM can decide to run a campaign that is low magic where pure casters are not allowed or not allowed until after level 5 or something. This is a totally legitimate way to play the game but the players have to have buy in and want that. For the Tasha rules that involve character creation it can be a hard sell to players because it can seem arbitrary and unnecessary meddling from the DM into what the player wants. If the DM doesn't have the trust of the players or isn't able to communicate their reasoning effectively and to the satisfaction of the players then there will be a problem.

Personally as a player and a DM I am all for the new rules. Not allowing them limits my options but I could also see some combinations feeling cheesy and power gamey. If it was a min/max choice I would understand why the DM wouldn't allow it but if it was something simply like moving a +1 to wisdom so that I can start with 16 wisdom on a goblin cleric I would feel like the DM was being too controlling.

So there is a lot of context to consider with these issues but yes the "optional" tag really doesn't mean anything. Having good relationships at the table and the capacity to have respectful conversations is important while being stubborn or not listening is going to be problematic.

[Pex]

You are using a very different definition of optional.

PHB races still possible with fixed stats. No errata. So floating stats (I guess that’s the only thing about Tasha’s we’re talking about now…) are still optional.

New races don’t have fixed stats. This was possible pre Tasha’s and would be possible without Tasha’s. It’s also an option to play with them or not.

Two different versions of races can exist. The new ones have floating, the old have fixed. You have an option of which one to use. Using the old version is not a house rule, it’s just using a different sourcebook. IF they get errata’d then choosing to use the original print instead of the errata would be a house rule. (And I bet most of the people doing it would know there even was an errata.)

Nobody is making you use one vs the other. It is a choice. If there are additional restrictions at your table then that is where the non-optional part comes in and that is the same for any rules.

If the argument is that you don’t like floating ASIs then fine. That’s a fair argument and has been hashed out so. Many. Times.

That doesn’t stop Tasha’s being optional.

It’s not a breaking API change. It’s all backwards compatible. It’s all optional. You can mix and match everything.

Say you don’t like flexible ASIs. Say you don’t like how WoTC has changed their default. Say you don’t like what you predict will be in 5.5. That’s all fine!

Don’t say it isn’t optional. It is.

By this logic everything is optional to absurdism. 5E is optional. You can choose to play 3E instead or GURPS or Monopoly. No one is forcing you to play anything by arrest or physical harm. You're being pedantic. It's about what the official rules are. The official rule of fixed ASI is in the process of being changed. No races published after Tasha have fixed ASI. Already published races are made obsolete by official rule to a new version that does not have fixed ASI. It is presumed 2024 the new PHB will take away the fixed ASI of the PHB races. The variant rule of Tasha is becoming the official rule. Using fixed ASI is becoming the optional rule. Actually, fixed ASI is becoming a house rule because they are not publishing fixed ASI to use as a variant. Because the DM would have to make it up on whatever fixed ASI to use that's why it's a house rule.

[GooeyChewie]

Specific races are totally optional. AL had a ban on flying races for a while, dunno if that's still in effect. Not to mention setting-specific (no changelings in forgotten realms!) or campaign-specific restrictions (Goblin-only lets gooooo).
Specific races are indeed optional, in the sense that the DM can allow or disallow anything in their campaigns. But race itself is not optional the way feats and magic items are optional. You can play D&D in which nobody has access to feats or magic items; you cannot play D&D in which none of the character have a race. The Sage Advice indicates that all new races will use the floating ASIs, and with Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse we now know it includes reprints of existing races. The floating ASIs are only optional if you are willing to never receive new usable content for a core aspect of the game.

To put it another way, if your table opts out of using feats and/or magic items, then any new feats and/or magic items that WotC are just content that you are choosing not to use. But if your table opts to not using blanket floating ASIs, then WotC is failing to produce content that you can use.

[kazaryu]

Spell points wasn't offered as a variant for then all spellcasting classes Tasha's onwards to be using spell points.im assuming this is meant to be an analogy? but regardless, how does that force you to use spell points for the OG spellcasters?


The difference is that it has moved from opt-in to opt-out. A 'default, by the book' game now has to say 'except no Tasha's ASIs'.
yes, im aware what the traditional definition of 'not optional' is. what makes this opt out instead of opt in? what makes it any different from literally any of the new content, and specifically, alternate rule changes?

[Willowhelm]

By this logic everything is optional to absurdism. 5E is optional. You can choose to play 3E instead or GURPS or Monopoly. No one is forcing you to play anything by arrest or physical harm. You're being pedantic. It's about what the official rules are. The official rule of fixed ASI is in the process of being changed. No races published after Tasha have fixed ASI. Already published races are made obsolete by official rule to a new version that does not have fixed ASI. It is presumed 2024 the new PHB will take away the fixed ASI of the PHB races. The variant rule of Tasha is becoming the official rule. Using fixed ASI is becoming the optional rule. Actually, fixed ASI is becoming a house rule because they are not publishing fixed ASI to use as a variant. Because the DM would have to make it up on whatever fixed ASI to use that's why it's a house rule.

It really isn’t absurdism. Remove Tasha’s from existence. Never mention it at your table again. Everything else still works together with no homebrew. That’s what optional means. I’m not suggesting the DM has do any work at all or change any rules at all. The opposite in fact. No homebrew. No hacking together weird rulesets. Just… ignore that book entirely.

I fully understand your argument and I’m sympathetic. It just does not change the meaning of the word optional.

[Kane0]

If the Devs just wanted to move away from fixed racial ASIs they should moved away from linking them solely to Race at all. Say for example:
- Class gives you a +1 to a stat, choosing either one of the stats it gets Save proficiency in or a stat required to multiclass for that class.
- Background gives you +1 to a stat, choosing one linked to one of the skill proficiencies it gives you (which could theoretically become floating if you make custom backgrounds)
- Race gives you +1 to a stat, choosing one provided by your choice of race/subrace
- You cannot choose all three of these to be the same stat, so you end up with +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1

Much the same result without completely invalidating racial stat selections and is an actual optional variant the same way there are different methods of stat generation.

[Witty Username]

And since it a) took a minute to do and b) isn't hard to figure out, imagine how easy it would be for WotC to do it.

But they won't.


A quick thing, since it is more of a secondary point.
It is easy to set fixed ASIs for a race, for example drow:
+1dex, +1int, +1 wis.
That fits in pretty neatly with their abilities, themes and lore. And could easily be applied.
But, do you agree with them?

This is one of the problems with fixed ASIs when they are not obvious, they are just as likely to look incorrect as helpful and when they are obvious, they aren't worse when flexible ASIs are in play.

Now I may be cheating with drow, as that is a race with well established lore since time began (the 80s) and a race that has had different ability score bonuses each edition. But the root of this is for someone's "seems reasonable", is another's " what, why?"

[Kane0]

A quick thing, since it is more of a secondary point.
It is easy to set fixed ASIs for a race, for example drow:
+1dex, +1int, +1 wis.
That fits in pretty neatly with their abilities, themes and lore. And could easily be applied.
But, do you agree with them?

This is one of the problems with fixed ASIs when they are not obvious, they are just as likely to look incorrect as helpful and when they are obvious, they aren't worse when flexible ASIs are in play.


See above, my answer to that would be 'so pick +1 to dex, int or wis'. You'd have what a 50% or better chance the person would be OK with that?

[Witty Username]

See above, my answer to that would be 'so pick +1 to dex, int or wis'. You'd have what a 50% or better chance the person would be OK with that?

I mostly agree, my personal favorite things about the Tasha's rules are elf's ability scores and dwarf's tool proficiency.
My point was more that setting fixed scores that makes sense for your game, and Wotc providing fixed ASIs for others use are different problems with different concerns.

[Thunderous Mojo]

By this logic everything is optional to absurdism. 5E is optional..

5e is optional. You life is not endangered by the future course of D&D opting to engage a new design path. Your future income is not imperiled, if you decide to continue purchasing new paradigm D&D products, or if you decide to refrain from purchasing D&D products.

D&D is not medicine or food, or other essential goods or services.
Games are fairly non-essential, in the grand scheme of things.

[Pex]

It really isn’t absurdism. Remove Tasha’s from existence. Never mention it at your table again. Everything else still works together with no homebrew. That’s what optional means. I’m not suggesting the DM has do any work at all or change any rules at all. The opposite in fact. No homebrew. No hacking together weird rulesets. Just… ignore that book entirely.

I fully understand your argument and I’m sympathetic. It just does not change the meaning of the word optional.

No, everything else will not work together. That's the issue. New races have no fixed ASI giving them an advantage over others and obsoleting human. Previously published races are having their source material go out of print and no longer supported to be replaced by a new published book that forces use of floating ASI with no published fixed ASI to use as the new variant (which would still mean Tasha book lied even if it did exist as the variant), so it becomes a house rule.


If the Devs just wanted to move away from fixed racial ASIs they should moved away from linking them solely to Race at all. Say for example:
- Class gives you a +1 to a stat, choosing either one of the stats it gets Save proficiency in or a stat required to multiclass for that class.
- Background gives you +1 to a stat, choosing one linked to one of the skill proficiencies it gives you (which could theoretically become floating if you make custom backgrounds)
- Race gives you +1 to a stat, choosing one provided by your choice of race/subrace
- You cannot choose all three of these to be the same stat, so you end up with +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1

Much the same result without completely invalidating racial stat selections and is an actual optional variant the same way there are different methods of stat generation.

Or just say everyone gets +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 to add to scores after you determine them (Point Buy, Dice Roll) and don't associate them with anything. The issue here is not whether floating ASI is a good rule or not. The issue is the Tasha book lied by saying floating ASI was an optional variant but WOTC is forcing its use for all future published material and reworking previously published material to use it as well. It's possible to like the floating ASI rule while Tasha is still lying about it being an optional variant.

[Witty Username]

The issue here is not whether floating ASI is a good rule or not.

True this, the question of if the ASI rules are good/bad are a different question then if they are optional.

[Willowhelm]

No, everything else will not work together. That's the issue. New races have no fixed ASI giving them an advantage over others and obsoleting human. Previously published races are having their source material go out of print and no longer supported to be replaced by a new published book that forces use of floating ASI with no published fixed ASI to use as the new variant (which would still mean Tasha book lied even if it did exist as the variant), so it becomes a house rule.

Some races have advantages over others. Some old, and all new races have flexible ASIs. Some people will no longer chose human. Sources may go out of print (They are still supported). Having races with floating ASIs does not force you to use those races (just as they did not before).

But that does not change anything i said before. It is still optional. You can remove Tasha's from existence all together and this is all still the same and the game still works together.

It's just changing. You don't like the change. That's fine. It doesn't stop it from being an optional source book with optional rules.

"Races with flexible ASIs" is not the same thing as "Tasha's".

If you cannot see the difference I truly do not care. I'm not going to spend any more time on this thread. It's all in the original post. Tasha's is optional.

The lasting impact and changes in design which started after that do not change the fact that you can play all the other books without tasha's.

[Dork_Forge]

5e is optional. You life is not endangered by the future course of D&D opting to engage a new design path. Your future income is not imperiled, if you decide to continue purchasing new paradigm D&D products, or if you decide to refrain from purchasing D&D products.

D&D is not medicine or food, or other essential goods or services.
Games are fairly non-essential, in the grand scheme of things.

This trivialising most topics, it is not really a good answer on a forum specifically for talking about said games. Yes there are bigger problems in life, that doesn't invalidate talking about the game we enjoy and invest in.

And since you brought it up... 5E is how I generate all of my income and put food on the table, and I imagine that's actually true for hundreds, if not thousands of people. We are the exception, but if you're going to bring sweeping statements up *shrugs*

[Thunderous Mojo]

This trivialising most topics, it is not really a good answer on a forum specifically for talking about said games. Yes there are bigger problems in life, that doesn't invalidate talking about the game we enjoy and invest in.

I’m not exactly sure how bringing up a perspective, invalidates the topic as a whole, especially given, I have expressly acknowledged the emotional pain that some are feeling as a result of the paradigm change.



And since you brought it up... 5E is how I generate all of my income and put food on the table, and I imagine that's actually true for hundreds, if not thousands of people. We are the exception, but if you're going to bring sweeping statements up *shrugs*

So let’s talk about that! Outside of perhaps, altering your job satisfaction due to changes you do not favor in the ruleset, what impact do you expect to find, or have found in your earning potential as a result the paradigm shift?

[Pex]

Some races have advantages over others. Some old, and all new races have flexible ASIs. Some people will no longer chose human. Sources may go out of print (They are still supported). Having races with floating ASIs does not force you to use those races (just as they did not before).

But that does not change anything i said before. It is still optional. You can remove Tasha's from existence all together and this is all still the same and the game still works together.

It's just changing. You don't like the change. That's fine. It doesn't stop it from being an optional source book with optional rules.

"Races with flexible ASIs" is not the same thing as "Tasha's".

If you cannot see the difference I truly do not care. I'm not going to spend any more time on this thread. It's all in the original post. Tasha's is optional.

The lasting impact and changes in design which started after that do not change the fact that you can play all the other books without tasha's.

I never said anything about liking the rule or not. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. Tasha lied about it being optional. The choice is being taken away. It's not about the specific races with flexible ASIs. It's about since that's the only way of doing things from now on means floating ASI is the new norm. There is no option to choose fixed ASI or floating ASi with them. You must use floating ASI. They are also changing previous work. That is relevant. They are taking away fixed ASI from previous work. They are making floating ASI mandatory for those races. You are stuck in the pedantry that it's optional as to whether you play 5E at all.

[Hytheter]

I'll never understand why they didn't just add ASIs on new races for those who prefer to colour within the lines. For the low cost of a line of text per race they could have pleased everybody, or at least mitigated a lot of the grumbling about floating ASIs becoming standard.


"When you're DM you can choose what books we use, please DM for a change so we can use this book you bought"

"I want to use these player options."
"You should DM, then."

I do agree that players should try to pick up the GMing slack from time to time, but I doubt many will find this reason compelling.

[Dork_Forge]

I’m not exactly sure how bringing up a perspective, invalidates the topic as a whole, especially given, I have expressly acknowledged the emotional pain that some are feeling as a result of the paradigm change.

When you take any topic to such an existential point, it trivialises it by the very nature of the perspective you're using. Given that it's a thread specifically about the topic, on a forum specifically for the game, the existential perspective is the odd one out IMO.

And for the record, I'm not seeing where in the post I replied to that you acknowledged that at all, and even if you did so in a previous post, it would be valuable to recognise it alongside providing such a dwarfing perspective.


So let’s talk about that! Outside of perhaps, altering your job satisfaction due to changes you do not favor in the ruleset, what impact do you expect to find, or have found in your earning potential as a result the paradigm shift?

To provide context, I am a paid DM and a freelance 5E content creator.

Earning potential the easiest thing is:

Monsters of the Multiverse is a mandatory expense. There is no way around that for me like there is for other books. It doesn't really matter if I buy that Critical Role book that just came out at some point, for instance.

However, I write and maintain class guides as part of my regular workflow, necessitating the book (and resulting in a stand-alone section for those race entries). It also vastly complicates the current dynamics of the game in a way that race releases don't usually do, suddenly any article topic that results in me needing to create a build or suggest a race now requires far more time doing the stuff I don't get paid for (research and development). This means that I either eat a bunch of unpaid time upfront, or write lower value articles in the meantime to maintain cash flow.

Other general things outside of my satisfaction:

- It's controversial and presents a potential flashpoint between paying players. The DM-Player dynamic is far more complicated when it's not just your personal enjoyment involved.

- It creates new kinds of problems that I need to come up with solutions for, like what happens to the entries for Volo's and Tome in the curated list of all 5E material I'm responsible for? How do I present and rate these new race entries in a rating system built on the perspective of the old paradigm, that still needs to account for it? And so on.

Besides my personal feels, which is all I've presented up until this post, it does actually complicate my work and directly harm cash flow. Another example, I don't own digital copies of Volos and Tome, nor could I afford to before they're yanked, which means I have to reference paper on the matter indefinitely now. That is a cramp in my work flow, to put it lightly, that was artificially created by them yanking books.

I had no way to anticipate this as an expense, and despite how some people love pointing out older editions for books that apparently have done similar things (Saying Tome of Battle explains literally nothing to people that don't already know about it for those posters reading this, this isn't an older edition. This isn't the 70s,80s,90s or even the 00s. Digital is a significant part of 5E as a global sensation, particularly with an ongoing pandemic in the mix.) there was no valid warning signs about any of this apart from a rumour that wasn't validated until it was too late.

[Thunderous Mojo]

When you take any topic to such an existential point, it trivialises it by the very nature of the perspective you're using. Given that it's a thread specifically about the topic, on a forum specifically for the game, the existential perspective is the odd one out IMO.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has demonstrated the salutary benefits of pausing and asking the question “is it worth it to get worked up over something”.

Sure, looking at the big picture of life on a D&D message board is going to be a minority of posts…..perhaps this in part explains why things seem tense in the Playground.

Too much Fight or Flight…not enough Peace, Love and Understanding…and beer.


And for the record, I'm not seeing where in the post I replied to that you acknowledged that at all, and even if you did so in a previous post, it would be valuable to recognise it alongside providing such a dwarfing perspective.

Post #71, on page 3….One page back.
I respect you Dork_Forge, but I am not going to constantly cross reference prior posts or provide links to prior posts on the off chance someone missed something.

Thank you for sharing your insight on the difficulties new books pose for professional DMs.

Be Well, Good Luck, and Good Gaming to you!

[Azuresun]

WotC was abundantly clear the paradigm shift was specifically *because* of the public's reaction to their work, though.

I do wonder how much of this could have been avoided if VgtM Orcs had just not had that damn INT penalty. 90% of the kerfluffle seems to be about Orcs, Drow and the Intelligence score.

[Damon_Tor]

I'll never understand why they didn't just add ASIs on new races for those who prefer to colour within the lines.

{Scrubbed}

[Zhorn]

{Scrubbed}

[Havrik]

I generally think fixed ASIs make sense from a worldbuilding perspective, i.e., a dwarf on average is going to be hardier on average than an elf, who in term will on average be more graceful. Of course there are exceptions, but that's the elf that rolled an 18 and put it in Constitution. But it's not really a hill I'd care to die on. Really, if they are going this route, they should just drop racial ASIs entirely and just tweak the math to make it work (bump up the proficiency bonus maybe).

But, one way or another they will need to adjust the races that were balanced with ASIs in mind, like mountain dwarfs who get +4 in return for fewer racial features, and especially humans, who got +1 to every stat in return for no racial features, basically. Maybe I'm a bit "old school" but it is already hard enough to justify and maintain the tone of a human-centric world like the Forgotten Realms when the party looks like the Mos Eisley cantina. It's only going to be worse when the only thing going for humans mechanically (the stat flexibility) has been given to every race. And if you allow the custom lineage from Tasha's, even the variant human is obsolete. (I guess the variant human is now essentially a specific implementation of the custom lineage, although you can no longer add +1 to two ability scores.)

I'll withhold judgment on things until the revised PHB in 2024 I suppose. It would have been nicer if they had just offered suggested default ASIs for the new races.

[Psyren]

If you want fixed ASIs for the new races you can easily do that, just work with your DM.
And if you can't come to a consensus on what those fixed ASIs should be for a given race, that just further proves the point that the concept was outmoded.


I generally think fixed ASIs make sense from a worldbuilding perspective, i.e., a dwarf on average is going to be hardier on average than an elf, who in term will on average be more graceful. Of course there are exceptions, but that's the elf that rolled an 18 and put it in Constitution.

From a worldbuilding perspective, it's fine to want the average dwarf to be hardier than the average elf. The DM can easily represent these sorts of tendency by tweaking NPC statblocks in their world.

The issue is that PC adventurers are not (and never were) intended to be "average" members of their given races, and therefore what is "average" should not be a shackle for them. Thus if you want to play as a graceful dwarf or a hardy elf or a brilliant orc or a muscular halfling, the updated design lets you do that without implying that you're somehow wrong for doing so.

[Havrik]

The issue is that PC adventurers are not (and never were) intended to be "average" members of their given races, and therefore what is "average" should not be a shackle for them. Thus if you want to play as a graceful dwarf or a hardy elf or a brilliant orc or a muscular halfling, the updated design lets you do that without implying that you're somehow wrong for doing so.

Well, the argument is that a graceful dwarf rolled an 18 and put it Dexterity (or the 15 from the standard array, etc.), the elf in Constitution (as in my example) the orc in Intelligence, the halfling in Strength, etc.

The point is that even if the graceful dwarf put their "dump stat" in Constitution (let's say it was 8 from the standard array), it becomes a 10 because even a frail dwarf is hardy by the standards of most other playable races. To me, that is interesting and valuable worldbuilding.

It seems like what this comes down to is that a lot of people (including the game developers?) believe that a character is unplayable if they only have a +2 in their main ability rather than +3. But I have always rolled my character stats (apart from a few one shots that used the standard array), so I've never felt I was guaranteed of having the +3, even if I was playing the "right" race for my class.

[Segev]

I think it is telling that one of the dismissive "it is optional, so shut up" responses is that you're not required to use any of the new content.

"It is optional; you can just refrain from buying any more books, because this optional content is present in all of the new ones, and you're Ridiculous for observing that."

Also, no, there would be no need to reprint TCE's rules for floating ASIs in every new book even if they made no mention of them and gave fixed ASIs to each new or reprinted race: TCE exists, so you can use its optional rule with any other content you like.

That is how optional content works.

When you have a rule that lets you ignore restrictions, that works without having to print everything to point out that the restrictions are now optional. B when you also remove any support for the rules that existed before with new content, you're fibbing when you claim the optional restriction-removal is ill optional.

It is like Apple saying you still have the option to use a standard headphone jack on iphones with the implication that this doesn't represent a change going forward, just because if you have an older model iphone you still have the option.

The "it is optional" claim was a defense made by the "stop complaining about it" crowd to claim it wasn't a change to the way races are designed and meant to be played. You can hold up technicalities about how it's not changing things in home games that use no new content all you like, but it still is deceptive to claim that the rule is "optional" the way it was initially asserted.

Pretty much every point made by those saying they don't like it and didn't like what it represented going forward has been born out, and the allegation that it was not deceptive and was and is "optional" because you can just keep playing without using new content missing the point of those pointing out that "it is optional" was a dishonest claim when you take into account what the claim was actually used to argue.

It was used to argue that future races wouldn't be representative of the TCE change, and that is obviously untrue.

If it were optional, new races and everything in the new book would have fixed ASIs, and the exceptions would be treated as exceptional for the exception. TCE's optional rule would still be there, as an option. Instead, it has become baked into every race, including new printings of older ones, and there is no option nor guidance for using the old paradigm.

It is "optional" in the same sense that it is "optional" to pay your taxes in futurama. Your other option being an intimate visit with the pain monster, but paying your taxes is optional!

[Amnestic]

It was used to argue that future races wouldn't be representative of the TCE change, and that is obviously untrue.


Okay but why does that matter to you so much?

Wizards said one thing and then changed their mind, presumably in the face of positive reception (for if it was negative, they wouldn't have stuck with it). Isn't that the ideal? That they listen to their playerbase and respond accordingly instead of sticking to their guns even when people hate something? Isn't that the entire point of UA as a concept? The majority response was a dislike of the Strixhaven's subclasses ->they dropped them. The majority response to floating ASIs was positive->They carried it forward instead of leaving it as a one-off.

Why don't they include both? I dunno, but does it matter, really? They don't, and it remains utterly trivial for those who DO want fixed ASIs to assign some themselves, or copy the ones I gave you, if you don't even want to go that far.

[KorvinStarmast]

You're right that this is about hurt feelings. But let's not act as if WotC didn't consciously decide to go "alright, X number of people want Y, so we're doing Y." You forgot "those of you who don't care for Y can get bent" but maybe that's sub text.

TBH this subtle change thing WotC has been doing has annoyed me a little bit. It feels like, well, they’re trying to sneak in changes under the guise of options and later making new content requiring those options. They are about as subtle as a cinder block going through a plate glass window.

See above, my answer to that would be 'so pick +1 to dex, int or wis'. You'd have what a 50% or better chance the person would be OK with that? Or steal shamelessly from 13th Age:
your race gives you a +1 (pick from two that fit each race)
your class gives you a +2 (pick from two that fit each class).
(Granted, 13th Age did +2 for each, but I'd like to avoid power creep).

[Jervis]

Or steal shamelessly from 13th Age:
your race gives you a +1 (pick from two that fit each race)
your class gives you a +2 (pick from two that fit each class).
(Granted, 13th Age did +2 for each, but I'd like to avoid power creep).

Mountain dwarf is PHB but I see your point

[strangebloke]

Look. I've come around on floating ASIs. I think that going forward, this allows for more flexible builds. Historically something like a goliath had a strong incentive against a lot of classes, because it only got strength and con, and most classes only sort of want CON. You could build a goliath cleric (I did) but there wasn't any reason to do so. It was very clearly suboptimal. Not bad just kind of pointless, beyond using stone's endurance to avoid a concentration save 1/SR.

And sure, the stat bonuses "reinforced archetypal race/class combos" except when they didn't. Githzerai monks were kind of bad because they only got mental stats. Elves didn't really like being paladins, for example, but half elves were top tier choices!

Now with MPMM races out, things are more chaotic and the emphasis with new races has shifted more to active abilities rather than passive ability scores, which is more interesting imo. You've got a dozen clear contenders for any given build rather than a handful, and optimization which used to be heavily centralized around the flexible vhumans and half-elves is now more diverse and wild.

But, I do understand that people are annoyed that their preferred way of generating characters will not be supported going forward. I feel this way about other changes than have been made in this weird 5.25e we're in right now. Sure, you can use the old books (if you already have them) but they don't interact well with the new material without homebrewing, which means you either have to ignore ALL NEW MATERIAL (which is annoying) or you have to get the party onboard for adding restrictions to the new race options (which is also annoying.)

Now. Tasha's optional rule for adapting old material to be 'up to date' IS an optional rule. As I said earlier, JC isn't breaking into your house and holding a hand crossbow to your head. You can do whatever you want. But that's kind of the trivial point, yeah? Like, again, I like the new races, but imagine if you didn't. Imagine if going forward every single race was class-locked. All dragonborn are paladins or sorcerers, all dwarves are fighters and clerics. That kind of thing. They introduce this as an optional rule, but then every future book prints races that are locked classes.

You see the point? It's "optional" but there's still room to gripe about new releases not supporting your preferred style of play. Its not my preferred style of play at this point, on this matter, but you can see the argument?

Please, don't say that someone is playing the game wrong.

[KorvinStarmast]

Mountain dwarf is PHB but I see your point Fair point.

I will say that Mountain Dwarf at +2 +2 is a bit of an odd duck.
Half elf at +1 +1 +2 Cha is another case of "why did they do that?" but regular human with +1 to all looks to be an attempt to make up for all of the other features that are absent.

I like the idea of: +1 to three different stats (Triton is a good case of this)
I don't mind the idea of "A +1 and a +2"

I'd like even better the thematic idea behind my suggested 13th Age ripoff has: you get a plus (and you choose from 2) based on origin/race/ancestry, and you get a larger plus based on the class that you choose (and you again pick from a couple, not a single ability score).

Flexible and within the general PHB approach.

[Psyren]

Look. I've come around on floating ASIs. I think that going forward, this allows for more flexible builds. Historically something like a goliath had a strong incentive against a lot of classes, because it only got strength and con, and most classes only sort of want CON. You could build a goliath cleric (I did) but there wasn't any reason to do so. It was very clearly suboptimal. Not bad just kind of pointless, beyond using stone's endurance to avoid a concentration save 1/SR.

And sure, the stat bonuses "reinforced archetypal race/class combos" except when they didn't. Githzerai monks were kind of bad because they only got mental stats. Elves didn't really like being paladins, for example, but half elves were top tier choices!

Now with MPMM races out, things are more chaotic and the emphasis with new races has shifted more to active abilities rather than passive ability scores, which is more interesting imo. You've got a dozen clear contenders for any given build rather than a handful, and optimization which used to be heavily centralized around the flexible vhumans and half-elves is now more diverse and wild.

But, I do understand that people are annoyed that their preferred way of generating characters will not be supported going forward. I feel this way about other changes than have been made in this weird 5.25e we're in right now. Sure, you can use the old books (if you already have them) but they don't interact well with the new material without homebrewing, which means you either have to ignore ALL NEW MATERIAL (which is annoying) or you have to get the party onboard for adding restrictions to the new race options (which is also annoying.)

Now. Tasha's optional rule for adapting old material to be 'up to date' IS an optional rule. As I said earlier, JC isn't breaking into your house and holding a hand crossbow to your head. You can do whatever you want. But that's kind of the trivial point, yeah? Like, again, I like the new races, but imagine if you didn't. Imagine if going forward every single race was class-locked. All dragonborn are paladins or sorcerers, all dwarves are fighters and clerics. That kind of thing. They introduce this as an optional rule, but then every future book prints races that are locked classes.

You see the point? It's "optional" but there's still room to gripe about new releases not supporting your preferred style of play. Its not my preferred style of play at this point, on this matter, but you can see the argument?

Please, don't say that someone is playing the game wrong.

I can understand why someone doesn't like a change, and still disagree with them that said change isn't better for the game as a whole. WotC have explained their reasons behind the change with abundant clarity and those reasons make sense, ergo I support their conclusion. I furthermore have hope that, like you strangebloke, some of the previous detractors of said change will eventually realize how little impact this truly has (or has to have) on their own games and come around.

One thing I can't understand is the false equivalencies being bandied about for some of these changes. Sure I'd be upset if WotC came out one day and said "we've decided that it fits our vision of the game to have locked race/class restrictions." Or to roll those restrictions out for a specific setting and then suddenly apply them to the wider game. But I think this is why understanding the reasons why they make these changes is so vital, because doing that would be completely antithetical to the design intent they shared. These changes are not arbitrary or capricious, there is a clear design goal behind them and so bandying about changes that would be massively unpopular AND at odds with that goal are extremely unlikely to come to pass and therefore not useful hooks for a discussion.

And even more fundamentally - I can understand the mantra "people are allowed to gripe" but not the mantra "nobody is allowed to respond to their griping."

[GooeyChewie]

Okay but why does that matter to you so much?

Wizards said one thing and then changed their mind, presumably in the face of positive reception (for if it was negative, they wouldn't have stuck with it). Isn't that the ideal? That they listen to their playerbase and respond accordingly instead of sticking to their guns even when people hate something? Isn't that the entire point of UA as a concept? The majority response was a dislike of the Strixhaven's subclasses ->they dropped them. The majority response to floating ASIs was positive->They carried it forward instead of leaving it as a one-off.

Why don't they include both? I dunno, but does it matter, really? They don't, and it remains utterly trivial for those who DO want fixed ASIs to assign some themselves, or copy the ones I gave you, if you don't even want to go that far.

When Tasha's introduced floating ASIs, players who did not like the idea were dismissed because it was optional and they could choose not to use it at their tables.

When Van Richten's used floating ASIs, players who brought up concerns that the floating ASIs were going to become the new default were dismissed because those were "lineages" rather than "races."

When the Creature Evolutions Sage Advice came out, players who pointed out that the floating ASIs had become the new default were dismissed because the fact that WotC moved forward in that direction must have meant players liked floating ASIs and hated fixed ASIs.

Now when players point out that they want what was claimed to be optional to actually be optional, they are dismissed with the Oberoni fallacy - the notion that WotC not providing the fixed ASIs isn't actually a problem because you can easily fix the problem with your own ASIs. (If it wasn't actually a problem, it wouldn't need to be fixed.)


It should come as no surprise that players who want official fixed ASIs options (even if they also want the floating ASI as an optional rule) have a problem with having been hoodwinked then dismissed over and over again.

[Jervis]

When Tasha's introduced floating ASIs, players who did not like the idea were dismissed because it was optional and they could choose not to use it at their tables.

When Van Richten's used floating ASIs, players who brought up concerns that the floating ASIs were going to become the new default were dismissed because those were "lineages" rather than "races."

When the Creature Evolutions Sage Advice came out, players who pointed out that the floating ASIs had become the new default were dismissed because the fact that WotC moved forward in that direction must have meant players liked floating ASIs and hated fixed ASIs.

Now when players point out that they want what was claimed to be optional to actually be optional, they are dismissed with the Oberoni fallacy - the notion that WotC not providing the fixed ASIs isn't actually a problem because you can easily fix the problem with your own ASIs. (If it wasn't actually a problem, it wouldn't need to be fixed.)


It should come as no surprise that players who want official fixed ASIs options (even if they also want the floating ASI as an optional rule) have a problem with having been hoodwinked then dismissed over and over again.

This is pretty common in my experience.

Thing starts happening that part of fandom doesn’t like

People who like said thing say it’s not happening and your just being crazy

Thing in fact does happen exactly like people said

People who said you were being crazy now say that you shouldn’t have been worried in the first place and that this was obviously happening all along.

For my money I think printing official standard ASIs and leaving a note about swapping them wouldn’t hurt them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

People who said you were being crazy now say that you shouldn’t have been worried in the first place and that this was obviously happening all along.


Or "well, it's too late to do anything about it now!"

[Psyren]

When Tasha's introduced floating ASIs, players who did not like the idea were dismissed because it was optional and they could choose not to use it at their tables.

When Van Richten's used floating ASIs, players who brought up concerns that the floating ASIs were going to become the new default were dismissed because those were "lineages" rather than "races."

When the Creature Evolutions Sage Advice came out, players who pointed out that the floating ASIs had become the new default were dismissed because the fact that WotC moved forward in that direction must have meant players liked floating ASIs and hated fixed ASIs.

Now when players point out that they want what was claimed to be optional to actually be optional, they are dismissed with the Oberoni fallacy - the notion that WotC not providing the fixed ASIs isn't actually a problem because you can easily fix the problem with your own ASIs. (If it wasn't actually a problem, it wouldn't need to be fixed.)


It should come as no surprise that players who want official fixed ASIs options (even if they also want the floating ASI as an optional rule) have a problem with having been hoodwinked then dismissed over and over again.


This is pretty common in my experience.

Thing starts happening that part of fandom doesn’t like

People who like said thing say it’s not happening and your just being crazy

Thing in fact does happen exactly like people said

People who said you were being crazy now say that you shouldn’t have been worried in the first place and that this was obviously happening all along.

What about those of us who from the beginning said "this is a good change being made for good reasons, and hopefully it does become the default?"


For my money I think printing official standard ASIs and leaving a note about swapping them wouldn’t hurt them.

Lots of unnecessary things wouldn't hurt them, that doesn't make them any less necessary.

[Jervis]

What about those of us who from the beginning said "this is a good change being made for good reasons, and hopefully it does become the default?"



Lots of unnecessary things wouldn't hurt them, that doesn't make them any less necessary.

You’re perfectly entitled to your wrong opinion.

Jokes aside I hate the “this is an option but it’s totally not an option and you should use it.” Approach they’re doing. Its obvious they want to apply changes they mean for the 2024 5.5 or whatever ahead of an edition change after saying that they want the core books to go unchanged. It’s a lot of rule changes that should be left for a proper change in the core rules instead of stapled into the rules of an existing edition.

[Segev]

Okay but why does that matter to you so much?This encapsulates it well:


This is pretty common in my experience.

Thing starts happening that part of fandom doesn’t like

People who like said thing say it’s not happening and your just being crazy

Thing in fact does happen exactly like people said

People who said you were being crazy now say that you shouldn’t have been worried in the first place and that this was obviously happening all along.

For my money I think printing official standard ASIs and leaving a note about swapping them wouldn’t hurt them.

It's essentially a form of gaslighting. "Look, you're crazy/stupid/immature for objecting to this TOTALLY OPTIONAL rule; it's not like it's going to change things for those who don't like it. So stop trying to argue about why it's bad for the game if it goes forward, while we who like it praise its wonder." "Well, lookie here! All the positive reception and the fact that people who criticized it were ignored/not vocal enough means it's going forward as a change to the game overall! Isn't this great? Of course it's great. Now, if you don't like it, stop complaining; it was ALWAYS going to be this way, and you should have known that. How dare you suggest that it was not what we said, and that you were right about it? You clearly were wrong then and are wrong now, even though it turned out exactly like you said it would, because we claim we never meant it the way we said it and that you're wrong about what you're seeing with your own eyes right now."

If there was an honest reaction of, "Well, I guess you were right; it DID go that way. I still think it's a good thing," that wouldn't be quite so offensive to my sensibilities. But being told that not only was I wrong about my prediction, but that I am still wrong about it even though it's come true AND that the denial of my prediction has held out even though it clearly hasn't is highly irritating.

That's why it matters so much to me. Because it feels like my intelligence is being insulted as I'm told, "You're wrong, even though exactly what you said would happen, did. And it didn't happen, anyway, even as you point to it happening, because we're choosing to play rules lawyer games with the wording in ways that move the goal posts."

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's essentially a form of gaslighting. "Look, you're crazy/stupid/immature for objecting to this TOTALLY OPTIONAL rule; it's not like it's going to change things for those who don't like it. So stop trying to argue about why it's bad for the game if it goes forward, while we who like it praise its wonder." "Well, lookie here! All the positive reception and the fact that people who criticized it were ignored/not vocal enough means it's going forward as a change to the game overall! Isn't this great? Of course it's great. Now, if you don't like it, stop complaining; it was ALWAYS going to be this way, and you should have known that. How dare you suggest that it was not what we said, and that you were right about it? You clearly were wrong then and are wrong now, even though it turned out exactly like you said it would, because we claim we never meant it the way we said it and that you're wrong about what you're seeing with your own eyes right now."

If there was an honest reaction of, "Well, I guess you were right; it DID go that way. I still think it's a good thing," that wouldn't be quite so offensive to my sensibilities. But being told that not only was I wrong about my prediction, but that I am still wrong about it even though it's come true AND that the denial of my prediction has held out even though it clearly hasn't is highly irritating.

That's why it matters so much to me. Because it feels like my intelligence is being insulted as I'm told, "You're wrong, even though exactly what you said would happen, did. And it didn't happen, anyway, even as you point to it happening, because we're choosing to play rules lawyer games with the wording in ways that move the goal posts."

Right. The change itself is meh. Don't really care all that much. But the discussion around it and especially the absolutely insulting and deceptive responses of the fanboys? That grinds my gears. Especially since it was blindingly obvious that that was what was going to happen, yet saying so was verboten.

[Segev]

Right. The change itself is meh. Don't really care all that much. But the discussion around it and especially the absolutely insulting and deceptive responses of the fanboys? That grinds my gears. Especially since it was blindingly obvious that that was what was going to happen, yet saying so was verboten.

Exactly. And, because SAYING SO was forbidden, you were scoffed at for discussing the consequences of the change. After all, it wasn't going to happen.

And now, of course, it hasn't happened, and it's a good thing it has happened anyway.

Honest debate is one thing. Gaslighting is another. And regardless of anybody here's intent, the "oh, pish posh, it's totally optional in the same sense that 3.5 was optional from the moment it came out because 3.0 books still existed" dismissal comes off as gaslighting, since nobody is denying that the previous books exist...only that the "optional" nature of TCE's rule is actually a retrofit for rules that are being deprecated.

And it's the deprecation that we want to debate the merits of, but are being told to shut up because it's "optional."

[Amnestic]

This encapsulates it well:


That's why it matters so much to me. Because it feels like my intelligence is being insulted as I'm told, "You're wrong, even though exactly what you said would happen, did. And it didn't happen, anyway, even as you point to it happening, because we're choosing to play rules lawyer games with the wording in ways that move the goal posts."

So it's not even about WotC, it's about internet randos on forums/reddit/elsewhere maybe?

Okay well that makes...I want to say "more" sense but honestly it still feels like an overreaction. The internet randos may have truly thought that it would just be a one-off optional rule, or maybe they secretly knew ahead of time that it would become the new paradigm. Seems like it was a 50/50 flip, since Wizards could've backtracked after Tasha's release if the response had been bad, just like they have backtracked from other things in the past.

You were right in you prediction. I'd try to focus on the positives of that, instead of dwelling on the negatives.


Right. The change itself is meh. Don't really care all that much. But the discussion around it and especially the absolutely insulting and deceptive responses of the fanboys? That grinds my gears. Especially since it was blindingly obvious that that was what was going to happen, yet saying so was verboten.

I don't know why you're saying that saying it would become the new paradigm was 'verboten' when no threads were locked for saying so, no discussions were censored. People may have disagreed with you but that's not really the same thing, is it? You're ascribing both knowledge of the future and malice to those who disagreed with you. Maybe that's legitimate and some forum posters are secretly WotC insiders who knew everything ahead of time...but given that there aren't many Divination experts around it could be that they simply foresaw a different outcome and found the detractors doomsaying just as "insulting".

We had to put up with a bunch of people saying that everyone would just roll mountain dwarf wizards and custom lineage and oh no everyone will only play two races and of course that hasn't happened, but they weren't trying to "gaslight" anyone when they said that. They had a belief that turned out to be wrong. Just like the people who thought, sincerely, that the Tasha's stuff would be a one-off.




Exactly. And, because SAYING SO was forbidden,

Who's gaslighting whom now? Where was it forbidden?

People disagreeing with you, and perhaps being more numerous than you, does not make saying it "forbidden". You're complaining about people denuding the term "optional" but what are you doing if not exactly that right now with the term "forbidden"?

[Psyren]

You’re perfectly entitled to your wrong opinion.

Lol.


Jokes aside I hate the “this is an option but it’s totally not an option and you should use it.” Approach they’re doing. Its obvious they want to apply changes they mean for the 2024 5.5 or whatever ahead of an edition change after saying that they want the core books to go unchanged. It’s a lot of rule changes that should be left for a proper change in the core rules instead of stapled into the rules of an existing edition.

They haven't changed the core books though? Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes etc all still have fixed ASIs. They're waiting until 5.5 to change those. And now you know for sure that change is coming and can plan accordingly.


So it's not even about WotC, it's about internet randos on forums/reddit/elsewhere maybe?

Okay well that makes...I want to say "more" sense but honestly it still feels like an overreaction. The internet randos may have truly thought that it would just be a one-off optional rule, or maybe they secretly knew ahead of time that it would become the new paradigm. Seems like it was a 50/50 flip, since Wizards could've backtracked after Tasha's release if the response had been bad, just like they have backtracked from other things in the past.

You were right in you prediction. I'd try to focus on the positives of that, instead of dwelling on the negatives.



I don't know why you're saying that saying it would become the new paradigm was 'verboten' when no threads were locked for saying so, no discussions were censored. People may have disagreed with you but that's not really the same thing, is it? You're ascribing both knowledge of the future and malice to those who disagreed with you. Maybe that's legitimate and some forum posters are secretly WotC insiders who knew everything ahead of time...but given that there aren't many Divination experts around it could be that they simply foresaw a different outcome and found the detractors doomsaying just as "insulting".

We had to put up with a bunch of people saying that everyone would just roll mountain dwarf wizards and custom lineage and oh no everyone will only play two races and of course that hasn't happened, but they weren't trying to "gaslight" anyone when they said that. They had a belief that turned out to be wrong. Just like the people who thought, sincerely, that the Tasha's stuff would be a one-off.





Who's gaslighting whom now? Where was it forbidden?

People disagreeing with you, and perhaps being more numerous than you, does not make saying it "forbidden". You're complaining about people denuding the term "optional" but what are you doing if not exactly that right now with the term "forbidden"?

Yep.

[GooeyChewie]

What about those of us who from the beginning said "this is a good change being made for good reasons, and hopefully it does become the default?"
If you mean to ask about people who provided positive feedback regarding the optional floating ASI rule, their concerns were not dismissed. WotC did not go back and remove the rule. If WotC had removed that option, those players would be justified in being upset, and I would be right there with them.

But if you mean to ask about people who provided feedback indicating that floating ASIs should become the default and that fixed ASIs should no longer be printed? That feedback strays from what you want to do at your table into what you want other tables to be allowed to do. That sort of feedback should be dismissed. And to be clear, I'm also saying that feedback that said other tables should be barred from using the optional rule should also be dismissed.

[Segev]

"You're wrong, because it won't go there, so it's not a problem, so stop discussing the consequences of it if it does go that direction," is more or less a major thrust of the arguments that happened on this very forum. Maybe that doesn't mean it's "forbidden," but it certainly means that no good-faith discussion of it was permitted without being shouted down as "crazy talk," essentially.

I hope that the redone races in the new book will actually have better thought-out changes on a fundamental level than just slapping TCE's optional rule onto them. The new races don't give me a lot of hope for that, though, given that their features are fairly lackluster. I fear we're going to wind up with race being as important to character design as hair style with the way things are going.

[Telwar]

Fair point.

I will say that Mountain Dwarf at +2 +2 is a bit of an odd duck.

Mountain dwarf's +2 Str and armor proficiencies didn't go with each other at all; any class that was likely to benefit from +2 Str already had medium armor proficiency, and classes that wanted the free armor proficiency were unlikely to benefit from the Strength.

One of the annoyances is that, somewhere, WotC stated "no, we don't balance ASIs and racial features at all," which, looking at the mountain dwarf, is plainly untrue.


Half elf at +1 +1 +2 Cha is another case of "why did they do that?" but regular human with +1 to all looks to be an attempt to make up for all of the other features that are absent.

I have to say, it boggles my mind that half-elf has so damn much going for it. Compared to vhuman, assuming a feat = an ASI, it still winds up with darkvision, an extra skill proficiency, an extra language, and Fey Ancestry over vhuman. Maybe they didn't think Charisma would be as important in this edition as it turned out to be?


I'd like even better the thematic idea behind my suggested 13th Age ripoff has: you get a plus (and you choose from 2) based on origin/race/ancestry, and you get a larger plus based on the class that you choose (and you again pick from a couple, not a single ability score).

Honestly, while something like 13th Age or PF2's systems would be great, and a system that completely removed ASIs from the race/legacy/ancestry/whatever would be great too, those take time and effort (especially the latter). While @jappleton says the Tasha's rules were in development for a while, it feels like they were crapped out over a two-hour lunch.

And yet...they're actually fairly reasonable, as far as something maybe crapped out over a long lunch can be. Perfect is the enemy of the good enough, after all, especially if you have a Twitter mob storming the gates and Hasbro can decide they don't need you if you're going to make that many people mad.

Now, maybe that bought them enough time to make a more elegant system, where they could have physiological differences represented in some manner other than ASIs or proficiencies (like elves being good at perception, rather than being represented as a proficiency, instead being represented by an additional d4, say). Of course, I doubt that highly.

[Amnestic]

"You're wrong, because it won't go there, so it's not a problem, so stop discussing the consequences of it if it does go that direction," is more or less a major thrust of the arguments that happened on this very forum.

Okay, but we are now 18 months down the line from Tasha's, we've seen the consequences.

The game balance isn't whack (at least no more than it already was), those who said it would be were wrong about that.
It has become the new standard, those who said it would be were right about that.

It does, for now, remain optional (the 'forbidden' word, I suppose) for existing races outside of those added since Tasha's dropped. As Psyren notes, we can expect the new 5.5e (in 2024, iirc?) to change that, though as memory serves they did say that - like 3.0 to 3.5 - 5.5e would be 'backwards compatible' so if you really wanted to, you could still play a wood elf with +2 dex/+1 wis fixed.

What further consequences do you expect, if any?



I hope that the redone races in the new book will actually have better thought-out changes on a fundamental level than just slapping TCE's optional rule onto them. The new races don't give me a lot of hope for that, though, given that their features are fairly lackluster. I fear we're going to wind up with race being as important to character design as hair style with the way things are going.

Some of the new race changes I quite like. Some not so much. Fire Genasi got cheated.

I'm not going to reiterate the flavour argument, but given that I still see too many v.humans, I dearly hope they fix that. Alas, deleting humans entirely from the game isn't really an option.

Not without some 10th level spells anyway.

[Psyren]

If you mean to ask about people who provided positive feedback regarding the optional floating ASI rule, their concerns were not dismissed. WotC did not go back and remove the rule. If WotC had removed that option, those players would be justified in being upset, and I would be right there with them.

But if you mean to ask about people who provided feedback indicating that floating ASIs should become the default and that fixed ASIs should no longer be printed? That feedback strays from what you want to do at your table into what you want other tables to be allowed to do. That sort of feedback should be dismissed. And to be clear, I'm also saying that feedback that said other tables should be barred from using the optional rule should also be dismissed.

If their request is specifically to ask for feedback on what the default design paradigm for the entire game should be changed to going forward, then no, people agreeing with the proposed change should not be dismissed. Because WotC is already starting from the premise that the current paradigm doesn't work (and they've explained in detail why.) So while you can ask that they try a different change, or suggest alterations to the change they're going with, saying there shouldn't be a change at all is very obviously a losing proposition. And "change vs. no change" are very clearly mutually exclusive positions so somebody is going to be dismissed.

[Psyren]

Both of those things happened, and still happen, regularly with regard to this aspect of Tasha's. On this forum and others.

No threads were locked for saying "this change is expected to become the new default for race design." They were locked for people repeatedly violating forum rules in expressing their displeasure with WotC's stated rationale.

[KorvinStarmast]

Okay, but we are now 18 months down the line from Tasha's, we've seen the consequences.

The game balance isn't whack
Incorrect 1. See additional items that add to spell save DC (used to only be rod of pact keeper) for all full casting classes.

Incorrect 2. Say Hello to Twilight Domain Cleric.

Incorrect 3. Say hello to two Sorcerer sub classes.

They aren't just power creep, other than the items, but they are sloppy implementation of a passably good UA into final form.
Granted, power creep is hard to avoid going back to 0D&D + Greyhawk being a substantial change to 0D&D, and all that stuff that piled in from Dragon Mag and ended up in the game bit by bit ...

[OldTrees1]

It should come as no surprise that players who want official fixed ASIs options (even if they also want the floating ASI as an optional rule) have a problem with having been hoodwinked then dismissed over and over again.


People who like said thing say it’s not happening and your just being crazy



Or "well, it's too late to do anything about it now!"


"You're wrong, because it won't go there, so it's not a problem, so stop discussing the consequences of it if it does go that direction," is more or less a major thrust of the arguments that happened on this very forum. Maybe that doesn't mean it's "forbidden," but it certainly means that no good-faith discussion of it was permitted without being shouted down as "crazy talk," essentially.

I was one of those that thought "it is clearly a variant and of course they would still provide fixed ASIs. They might make floating ASIs the default, but they would keep both models going forward. It is trivial to have both. Clearly these predictions are due to anxiety rather than foresight."

I was wrong. You were right that new species going forward will have floating ASIs (that was obvious), but will never have fixed ASIs examples. I dismissed this concern because I saw it was trivial to do both. You were right that, no matter how trivial to implement, WotC ended up not supporting both variants with the new content.

The critique is about the official material in the product. The fact a GM could create the fixed ASIs themselves is irrelevant to the critique.

I was wrong. I am sorry.

[GooeyChewie]

If their request is specifically to ask for feedback on what the default design paradigm for the entire game should be changed to going forward, then no, people agreeing with the proposed change should not be dismissed.
But they didn't ask for feedback on what the default design paradigm for the entire game should be. The floating ASI rules were presented as optional rules, not as a default design paradigm. Even Tasha's itself supports the existence of fixed ASIs, saying that dwarfs increase their Constitution by 2 "because dwarf heroes in D&D are often exceptionally tough," that this increase "exists to reinforce an archetype," and that this "reinforcement is appropriate if you want to lean into the archetype." And as PhoenixPhyre and Segev have pointed out, those who said they didn't like the floating ASI rules were told to simply not use them at their tables. After all, it's just an optional rule, not some big default design paradigm shift.



I was wrong. I am sorry.
Thank you.

And I should be clear, I don't blame anybody on this forum. It made reasonable sense when Tasha's was released to believe that WotC would continue to print fixed ASIs, and thus that the rules would actually be optional.

[Amnestic]

Incorrect 1. See additional items that add to spell save DC (used to only be rod of pact keeper) for all full casting classes.

Incorrect 2. Say Hello to Twilight Domain Cleric.

Incorrect 3. Say hello to two Sorcerer sub classes.

They aren't just power creep, other than the items, but they are sloppy implementation of a passably good UA into final form.
Granted, power creep is hard to avoid going back to 0D&D + Greyhawk being a substantial change to 0D&D, and all that stuff that piled in from Dragon Mag and ended up in the game bit by bit ...

We're pretty clearly talking about the race rules specifically and not the wider stuff of Tasha's as a book as a whole.

But even if we were to take it as a whole, I maintain, as I always have, that it has some good and some bad - same as every book they release. I'm not really interested in dissecting every piece of it here but it has some outliers for sure, I'm not a fan of Twilight cleric (and my houserules nerf it), Pact of the Talisman is a bit lackluster. Fathomless doesn't get talked about much but I'm not sure how much of that is flavour vs. power. It's got fewer outright "underpowered" subclasses than some other books, which I guess is nice?

[Psyren]

But they didn't ask for feedback on what the default design paradigm for the entire game should be.

Sure they did. Every single UA post-Tasha's (and pre-MPMM) that included races did so without any fixed ASIs, and that was your and others' opportunity to provide a critical mass of negative feedback. If not enough of you were able to do so, that's just the way it was.


The floating ASI rules were presented as optional rules, not as a default design paradigm. Even Tasha's itself supports the existence of fixed ASIs, saying that dwarfs increase their Constitution by 2 "because dwarf heroes in D&D are often exceptionally tough," that this increase "exists to reinforce an archetype," and that this "reinforcement is appropriate if you want to lean into the archetype." And as PhoenixPhyre and Segev have pointed out, those who said they didn't like the floating ASI rules were told to simply not use them at their tables. After all, it's just an optional rule, not some big default design paradigm shift.

The passage you're quoting from Tasha's specifically links fixed ASIs to "D&D's past." That's a pretty clear indication, even back in 2020, of how the design team viewed them - as a relic. Their subsequent announcement (https://dnd.wizards.com/sage-advice/creature-evolutions) wasn't at all surprising to me, and frankly, shouldn't have been to anyone.

[Segev]

I was one of those that thought "it is clearly a variant and of course they would still provide fixed ASIs. They might make floating ASIs the default, but they would keep both models going forward. It is trivial to have both. Clearly these predictions are due to anxiety rather than foresight."

I was wrong. You were right that new species going forward will have floating ASIs (that was obvious), but will never have fixed ASIs examples. I dismissed this concern because I saw it was trivial to do both. You were right that, no matter how trivial to implement, WotC ended up not supporting both variants with the new content.

The critique is about the official material in the product. The fact a GM could create the fixed ASIs themselves is irrelevant to the critique.

I was wrong. I am sorry.
No need to apologize, but I definitely appreciate the validation and acknowledgement that I was correct. (I would've accepted silence on the issue, but the discussion in this thread irked me because it seemed to be saying, "No, you were not right, what you said would happen isn't happening, and it is a good thing that it is happening anyway." Else I wouldn't be so...prickly about it. I extend my own apologies for any rudeness on my part.)

And again, thanks for the acknowledgement. My ego is fragile enough that it's nice to get it sometimes. :)

[P. G. Macer]

Sure they did. Every single UA post-Tasha's (and pre-MPMM) that included races did so without any fixed ASIs, and that was your and others' opportunity to provide a critical mass of negative feedback. If not enough of you were able to do so, that's just the way it was.



The passage you're quoting from Tasha's specifically links fixed ASIs to "D&D's past." That's a pretty clear indication, even back in 2020, of how the design team viewed them - as a relic. Their subsequent announcement (https://dnd.wizards.com/sage-advice/creature-evolutions) wasn't at all surprising to me, and frankly, shouldn't have been to anyone.

If I recall correctly, several of the first few surveys for the race and lineage UAs did not offer a specific area to express one’s (dis)satisfaction with the de-optional-ization of flexible ASIs, and WotC only started offering an area to show one’s (dis)approval with the Spelljammer Races UA, so (again, if my memory serves) to simply dismiss those in favor of keeping the old default as statistically negligible may not in fact be true, as when the Gothic Lineages UA came out, there was not a specific channel to express opinions on the change, instead being relegated to the “insert all miscellaneous concerns here”.

Additionally, while unlikely given Hasbro and by extension WotC’s profit-driven nature, it is possible that given how WotC linked flexible ASIs with the 2020 Diversity Statement, they backed themselves into a corner in pressing forward with Tasha’s-Style ASIs to avoid (oh how I loathe this term) the Twitter Mob’s wrath. Again, given the corporate nature of WotC, it’s unlikely that this was the case, but still possible. It’s also possible that that Wizards’s feedback said that a majority of players disliked the change, but not enough to stop buying 5e products, and/or a vocal and sizable minority liked them enough that they would stop buying 5e books if fixed ASIs remained the default. Again, this is speculation, but the way you think it played out may not necessarily be the case.

[Psyren]

If I recall correctly, several of the first few surveys for the race and lineage UAs did not offer a specific area to express one’s (dis)satisfaction with the de-optional-ization of flexible ASIs, and WotC only started offering an area to show one’s (dis)approval with the Spelljammer Races UA, so (again, if my memory serves) to simply dismiss those in favor of keeping the old default as statistically negligible may not in fact be true, as when the Gothic Lineages UA came out, there was not a specific channel to express opinions on the change, instead being relegated to the “insert all miscellaneous concerns here”.

That's how all the UA surveys have worked (one freeform comments field at the end where you can explain your scores elsewhere) and they've certainly had no trouble hearing and acting on negative feedback around other things. So I don't buy that a critical mass of negative feedback would have been somehow impossible to convey for this specifically.



Additionally, while unlikely given Hasbro and by extension WotC’s profit-driven nature, it is possible that given how WotC linked flexible ASIs with the 2020 Diversity Statement, they backed themselves into a corner in pressing forward with Tasha’s-Style ASIs to avoid (oh how I loathe this term) the Twitter Mob’s wrath. Again, given the corporate nature of WotC, it’s unlikely that this was the case, but still possible. It’s also possible that that Wizards’s feedback said that a majority of players disliked the change, but not enough to stop buying 5e products, and/or a vocal and sizable minority liked them enough that they would stop buying 5e books if fixed ASIs remained the default. Again, this is speculation, but the way you think it played out may not necessarily be the case.

All of those scenarios you listed (detractors are a minority, detractors were not a minority but not mad enough about it to change their spending habits, or the proponents spending > the detractors spending) all ultimately mean the same thing - the detractors didn't matter enough, in either quantity or potency or both, to outweigh WotC's reasons for doing this. And if that's the case, then the correct decision from a business standpoint is clear - to do the thing they ended up doing.

[P. G. Macer]

That's how all the UA surveys have worked (one freeform comments field at the end where you can explain your scores elsewhere) and they've certainly had no trouble hearing and acting on negative feedback around other things. So I don't buy that a critical mass of negative feedback would have been somehow impossible to convey for this specifically.


The Spelljammer and Dragonlance UA surveys both offered entire feedback sections on the new Creating Your Character rules, including a section specifically asking the participants to rate how much they enjoyed the new rules for Ability Score Increases. This was not present in the first surveys on UAs where the flexible ASIs appeared.

[Telesphoros]

Sure they did. Every single UA post-Tasha's (and pre-MPMM) that included races did so without any fixed ASIs, and that was your and others' opportunity to provide a critical mass of negative feedback. If not enough of you were able to do so, that's just the way it was.



The passage you're quoting from Tasha's specifically links fixed ASIs to "D&D's past." That's a pretty clear indication, even back in 2020, of how the design team viewed them - as a relic. Their subsequent announcement (https://dnd.wizards.com/sage-advice/creature-evolutions) wasn't at all surprising to me, and frankly, shouldn't have been to anyone.


Not really. The Gothic Lineages UA had a Design Note that stated Tasha's was the definitive way forward. Two months after Tasha's "It's All Optional" and 9 months before Creature Evolutions.



Design Note: Changes to Racial Traits
In 2020, the book Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything
introduced the option to customize several of your
character’s racial traits, specifically the Ability Score
Increase trait, the Language trait, and traits that give
skill, armor, weapon, or tool proficiencies.
Following in that book’s footsteps, the race options in
this article and in future D&D books lack the Ability
Score Increase trait, the Language trait, the Alignment
trait, and any other trait that is purely cultural. Racial
traits henceforth reflect only the physical or magical
realities of being a player character who’s a member of
a particular lineage. Such traits include things like
darkvision, a breath weapon (as in the dragonborn), or
innate magical ability (as in the forest gnome). Such
traits don’t include cultural characteristics, like language
or training with a weapon or a tool, and the traits also
don’t include an alignment suggestion, since alignment
is a choice for each individual, not a characteristic
shared by a lineage.
Finally, going forward, the term “race” in D&D refers
only to the suite of game features used by player
characters. Said features don’t have any bearing on
monsters and NPCs who are members of the same
species or lineage, since monsters and NPCs in D&D
don’t rely on race or class to function. Moreover, DMs
are empowered to customize the features of the
creatures in their game as they wish.

So it didn't matter because they had already made the change and announced that's just the way it was. Two months after Tasha's and not a single book had come out. Considering they are working on things years in advance, they already knew Tasha's wasn't really going to be optional, or they're just slapping things together willy-nilly. Look at all the changes to the monster stat blocks over the past year. Another problem is they're not really consistent with their communication of upcoming changes. Sometimes it'll show up in a UA. Sometimes a Design blog. Sometimes in a Twitter post. Other times in Sage Advice. And so on.


Note: Don't get me wrong I like a lot of the changes in Tasha's and the books that followed. But they really do seem like they're making up a lot of it up as they go since Winninger took over. And the consistency is lacking. 5e is becoming a convoluted mess in my opinion.

[Witty Username]

Also, no, there would be no need to reprint TCE's rules for floating ASIs in every new book even if they made no mention of them and gave fixed ASIs to each new or reprinted race: TCE exists, so you can use its optional rule with any other content you like.

That is how optional content works.


Doesn't that apply to fixed ASIs too though?Even if they aren't reprinted in every new book, you can use them with any other content you like.
For example, all the MOTMV races have existing fixed ASIs you can use, no need to reprint them.
Sure there are races without a reference point for their ASIs like half-elf, human, changeling and warforged. But you can use them as is with the old content without too much issue.

[Pex]

Doesn't that apply to fixed ASIs too though?Even if they aren't reprinted in every new book, you can use them with any other content you like.
For example, all the MOTMV races have existing fixed ASIs you can use, no need to reprint them.
Sure there are races without a reference point for their ASIs like half-elf, human, changeling and warforged. But you can use them as is with the old content without too much issue.

But they didn't have to publish Monsters of the Mutiverse. All the content there already existed. Nothing needed reprinted, except they felt the need to do away with fixed ASI so they had to reprint what already existed, remove the old content, and not have fixed ASI in the reprint. Ergo, Tasha lied.

[JackPhoenix]

Mountain dwarf's +2 Str and armor proficiencies didn't go with each other at all; any class that was likely to benefit from +2 Str already had medium armor proficiency, and classes that wanted the free armor proficiency were unlikely to benefit from the Strength.

One of the annoyances is that, somewhere, WotC stated "no, we don't balance ASIs and racial features at all," which, looking at the mountain dwarf, is plainly untrue.

What's funny is that the result was a race that had something to offer to both those who wanted to play a warrior type who benefited from increased Str and those who wanted armor proficiency on their spellcaster. But with the floating ASI, that's no longer true: Spellcasters benefit more, and warriors benefit less, because they can instead pick a race with more useful features and still get the Str bonus they want. And that, in my eyes, is the main point of failure from WotC: They make following the archetypes a worse option than going against it. It is better to play a dwarf wizard than a dwarf fighter; it is better to play goblin... well, literally anything that isn't a rogue... than a goblin rogue (well, that's not much of a change, but still).

[Witty Username]

But they didn't have to publish Monsters of the Mutiverse. All the content there already existed. Nothing needed reprinted, except they felt the need to do away with fixed ASI so they had to reprint what already existed, remove the old content, and not have fixed ASI in the reprint. Ergo, Tasha lied.

But the ASIs weren't the only changes though, all of the races got new features, and most lost old ones.
Also, the changes aren't being applied to the existing books as errata. Wotc is deliberately choosing to preserve both.

[Dork_Forge]

But the ASIs weren't the only changes though, all of the races got new features, and most lost old ones.
Also, the changes aren't being applied to the existing books as errata. Wotc is deliberately choosing to preserve both.

Sorry, that doesn't feel right when they're stopping the sale of the books the others exist in.

And do we know for a fact they aren't ruining errata'ing the old ones?

[Witty Username]

Sorry, that doesn't feel right when they're stopping the sale of the books the others exist in.

And do we know for a fact they aren't ruining errata'ing the old ones?

They stated that D&D beyond will continue to support the books no longer available
for purchase, the only reason to do that is to maintain the content in the books.

As for errata, a small assumption(but Admittedly, an assumption) that a for profit company won't endanger the sales of its new book by making the content within freely available.

[Dork_Forge]

They stated that D&D beyond will continue to support the books no longer available
for purchase, the only reason to do that is to maintain the content in the books.

That's technically true, but there's a big difference between preserving old books for the sake of the content and for the sake of your customers not lighting some torches and grabbing pitchforks.

They've owned Beyond for all of five minutes, this is a bad move, but taking the content away would be even worse. Again, you're technically correct that they are 'preserving the content' but all that means is not deleting it.


As for errata, a small assumption(but Admittedly, an assumption) that a for profit company won't endanger the sales of its new book by making the content within freely available.

They errata'd the SCAG with updates, and I assume the content that was tweaked in Tasha's otherwise was errata'd, so that doesn't seem like a strong argument.

[Witty Username]

They errata'd the SCAG with updates, and I assume the content that was tweaked in Tasha's otherwise was errata'd, so that doesn't seem like a strong argument.

SCAG having one subclass from Tasha's (bladesinger) is less likely to hurt sales as having no concent that is not available to existing users. Errata for Volo's and Tome for the monsters and races would run a significant risk of rendering MOTMV obsolete. Which is not good for sales, similar products out of wotc in the past have worked around that problem by either by including new content with old, or making changes in the interim to make them distinct. This reads to me like the second, which they haven't done as I recall, since 3.5 but wotc has definitely done it before.

--

As for the reasoning, why wotc does what is less important than what they do. I assume all for profit companies are shady, too-faced, and in it for the money. To avoid pitchforks is definitely a possible motivation, but that wouldn't change that there are two versions of the rules supported, apparently. If they errata the old books to match the new, my argument is dead and my confusion will disappear.

[Telesphoros]

MotM doesn't contain over 200 pages of lore included in the other two books. And they've deleting a bunch of lore, especially in Volo's as regards to many of the races.


First they replaced the promise of more lore for other monsters with this one, effectively funneling the leftover lore to the Forgotten Realms.



Chapter 1
[New] Monster Lore (p.5). The third paragraph has been replaced with the following: “The lore in this chapter represents the perspective of Volo and is mostly limited to the Forgotten Realms. In the Realms and elsewhere in the D&D multiverse, reality is more varied than the idiosyncratic views presented here. DM, use the material that inspires you and leave the rest.”

Does this mean that Tasha's only applies to Greyhawk campaigns from Tasha's persepective? Mordenkainen too? Xanathar is also Forgotten Realms related too? Lol. Anywho, why do I say leftover lore? Because things like this:



[New] Roleplaying a Beholder (p. 8–9). The three paragraphs before the tables have been replaced with the following: “When you’re roleplaying a beholder, the following tables contain possible inspiration. They suggest characteristics that a beholder might possess.”

[New] Paying the Price (p. 26). This section has been removed.

[New] Roleplaying Gnolls and Cultists of Yeenoghu (p. 36). The two paragraphs before the tables have been replaced with the following: “When you’re roleplaying a cultist or gnoll of Yeenoghu, the following tables contain possible inspiration. They suggest characteristics that the NPC might possess.”

[New] Roleplaying a Kobold (p. 66). This section has been removed.

[New] Roleplaying a Mind Flayer (p. 74). The paragraph before the tables has been replaced with the following: “When you’re roleplaying a mind flayer, the following tables contain possible inspiration. They suggest characteristics that a mind flayer might possess.”

[New] Orcs as Underlings (p. 87). This sidebar has been removed.

[New] Roleplaying an Orc (p. 87). The two paragraph before the tables have been replaced with the following: “When you’re roleplaying an orc, the following tables contain possible inspiration. They suggest characteristics that an orc might possess.”

[New] Half-Orcs (p. 88). This section has been removed.

[New] Roleplaying a Yuan-ti (p. 98). The four paragraphs before the tables have been replaced with the following: “When you’re roleplaying a yuan-ti, the following tables contain possible inspiration. They suggest characteristics that a yuan-ti might possess.”

[New] Cannibalism and Sacrifice (p. 99). This sidebar has been removed.


Hey, where did my 5e canon go? Replaced. Removed. Replaced. Removed. Rinse. Repeat...

So even Volo's is still being preserved in some form on DnD Beyond, don't think it hasn't been gutted in the lore department that isn't included in MotM.

[Segev]

But, don't you see? By removing that lore, they free up these races to be so much more! They can be anything! The DM's imagination can go wild, in ways it was utterly incapable of doing before they removed this lore! Why, they should probably remove everything but the names of the creatures' races and their statblocks, so that they aren't constraining them in the slightest with petty things like physical descriptions hinted at by limiting artwork, or text that might dictate ideas on how these creatures fit into the setting the DM might concoct! Adding value by removing all lore is the best way to go!

[diplomancer]

Or "well, it's too late to do anything about it now!"

{Scrubbed}

[Thunderous Mojo]

MotM doesn't contain over 200 pages of lore included in the other two books. And they've deleting a bunch of lore, especially in Volo's as regards to many of the races.


Hey, where did my 5e canon go? Replaced. Removed. Replaced. Removed. Rinse. Repeat....

Quotes from Volo’s regarding Kobold ‘Lore’ are in Bold type:

It knows it is puny, bigger creatures will exploit it, it will probably die at a young age, and its life will be full of toil.

Not Abelist in the slightest🤦!
Why is the same not stated for Halflings and Gnomes…or any small race?

A kobold isn't clever, but it isn't as stupid as an orc.

If Volo’s guide is supposed to written in the voice of the character of Volo, then Volo is a racist. Imagine if someone wrote in a game product:

“Ethnic Group A isn’t clever, but it isn’t as stupid as Ethnic Group B”

If one wants poorly conceived lore that is abelist, and prejudiced from an in-game/ out of game perspective there are RPG companies that will accommodate you, like TSR3. (TSR3 is not the same as TSR)

Based off Real World Animal Behaviors, (including humans), everything has committed cannibalism due to need at some point or other. Hell, real life humans have engage in it, as a form of psychological warfare.

If realistically all races have engaged in the practice out of desperation, why do Kobolds get 1/4 page column detailing how Kobolds do not generally eat other sapient creatures, yet when Kobolds do….they are funny and goofy because they are Kobolds?

In any case, kobolds that eat humanoids don't simply start consuming ·corpses or prisoners right after a battle ; they're more inclined to tie their victims to saplings and slowly roast them over a fire, or put them in a giant cook pot to make stew. Fortunately for the prisoners, the kobolds' almost comedic preparations sometimes give rescuers time to locate and free the captives before the kobolds settle down for the main course.

Good Riddance to subpar lore, in my view!
In my opinion most of 5e Lore is snore worthy. Fizban’s is one giant Glyph of Warding containing an Upcast Sleep spell!

[Unoriginal]

If Volo’s guide is supposed to written in the voice of the character of Volo, then Volo is a racist. Imagine if someone wrote in a game product:

“Ethnic Group A isn’t clever, but it isn’t as stupid as Ethnic Group B”

Species are not ethnic groups.

Would anyone deny the fact the average human is dumber than the average Illithid?

Or weaker than the average Hill Giant, for that matter?

[Thunderous Mojo]

Species are not ethnic groups.

Would anyone deny the fact the average human is dumber than the average Illithid?

Mindflayers are, (to date) not a playable race. Orcs and Kobolds are widely viewed as playable races. Would anyone deny that?

Dark Sun Halflings were also described as somewhat cannibalistic in the original Dark Sun product….but I do not recall that Dark Sun Halflings were described as goofy, Ewok style cannibals.

Simply put, I can understand why WotC decided to remove the offending passages. At best, the excised segments, are not shinning prose…at worst the excised segments will offend.

[OldTrees1]

Mindflayers are, (to date) not a playable race. Orcs and Kobolds are playable races. Would anyone deny that?
Illithids were a playable species in 3E. 5E has not released an Illithid playable species, but I have seen no sign that Warforged turned from a 4E species into an 5E ethnicity.

I can understand why WotC removed that prose, however WotC has not changed their stance that species =/= ethnicity. This means they removed it despite it talking about different species.

Some of the offending passages are offending even when talking about different species.

[Havrik]

Mindflayers are, (to date) not a playable race. Orcs and Kobolds are widely viewed as playable races. Would anyone deny that?

Dark Sun Halflings were also described as somewhat cannibalistic in the original Dark Sun product….but I do not recall that Dark Sun Halflings were described as goofy, Ewok style cannibals.

Simply put, I can understand why WotC decided to remove the offending passages. At best, the excised segments, are not shinning prose…at worst the excised segments will offend.

Maybe the problem is in making orcs and kobolds playable races? When people start playing mind flayers and beholders does that mean they can't be described as villains anymore? Of course, D&D players have been playing monsters since the beginning of the game, and people understood that these represented exceptions to the typical monstrous nature of the creatures.

Kobolds have always been goofy and comedic, whether the yapping dog critters of AD&D or their farcical worship and imitation of dragons from 3e and later.

[Telesphoros]

Quotes from Volo’s regarding Kobold ‘Lore’ are in Bold type:

It knows it is puny, bigger creatures will exploit it, it will probably die at a young age, and its life will be full of toil.

Not Abelist in the slightest🤦!
Why is the same not stated for Halflings and Gnomes…or any small race?

A kobold isn't clever, but it isn't as stupid as an orc.

If Volo’s guide is supposed to written in the voice of the character of Volo, then Volo is a racist. Imagine if someone wrote in a game product:

“Ethnic Group A isn’t clever, but it isn’t as stupid as Ethnic Group B”

If one wants poorly conceived lore that is abelist, and prejudiced from an in-game/ out of game perspective there are RPG companies that will accommodate you, like TSR3. (TSR3 is not the same as TSR)

Based off Real World Animal Behaviors, (including humans), everything has committed cannibalism due to need at some point or other. Hell, real life humans have engage in it, as a form of psychological warfare.

If realistically all races have engaged in the practice out of desperation, why do Kobolds get 1/4 page column detailing how Kobolds do not generally eat other sapient creatures, yet when Kobolds do….they are funny and goofy because they are Kobolds?

In any case, kobolds that eat humanoids don't simply start consuming ·corpses or prisoners right after a battle ; they're more inclined to tie their victims to saplings and slowly roast them over a fire, or put them in a giant cook pot to make stew. Fortunately for the prisoners, the kobolds' almost comedic preparations sometimes give rescuers time to locate and free the captives before the kobolds settle down for the main course.

Good Riddance to subpar lore, in my view!
In my opinion most of 5e Lore is snore worthy. Fizban’s is one giant Glyph of Warding containing an Upcast Sleep spell!


Yes, I think a lot of their supposed lore could use a good scrub with a better rewrite that would best appear in a setting book. I do realize it's much easier to just remove the problematic stuff than add anything of real value though. Or just not print lore at all. A lot of the current lore does feel like filler at times.

Since NuTSR has yet to publish any books to my knowledge, I don't think the backhanded comparisons with WotC are really warranted. In a sense the WotC stuff is worse because it is out there in print. WotC might want to start slapping the Legacy Disclaimer on their WotC items going forward though. Or something to that effect since 5e is technically still the current edition, at least in name.

The did recently change the lore for the Drow and Lolth's influence in the Player's Handbook. And removed the Darkness of the Drow sidebar. But they left all the problematic material like the Mark of Gruumsh stuff for Half-Orcs (and Orcs as well since much of the lore is lumped together) as far as I can tell. Some spicy stuff in there:


THE MARK OF GRUUMSHThe one-eyed god Gruumsh created the orcs, and eventhose orcs who turn away from his worship can't fullyescape his influence. The same is true of half-orcs. Though their human blood moderates the impact of theirorcish heritage. Some half-orcs hear the whispers ofGruumsh in their dreams, calling them to unleash therage that simmers within them. Others feel Gruumsh'sexultation when they join in melee combat-and eitherexult along with him or shiver with fear and loathing.Half-orcs are not evil by nature, but evil does lurk withinthem, whether they embrace it or rebel against it.

Beyond the rage of Gruumsh, half-orcs feel emotionpowerfully. Rage doesn't just quicken their pulse, itmakes their bodies burn. An insult stings like acid,and sadness saps their strength. But they laugh loudlyand heartily, and simple bodily pleasures-feasting,drinking, wrestling, drumming, and wild dancing-filltheir hearts with joy. They tend to be short-temperedand sometimes sullen, more inclined to action than contemplation and to fighting than arguing. The most accomplished half-ores are those with enough self-control to get by in a civilized land.TRIBES AND SLUMS Half-orcs most often live

There is a slightly better version on the DnD Beyond site under the half-orc race details page. So at there's that.

[strangebloke]

And here we go again.

FR lore is problematic. People have been rightly criticizing it as such for decades now. Heck, the entire setting of Eberron can in some ways be seen as a response to FR. Making so many releases (such as SCAG, Volo's, and a lot of campaign modules) be tied to FR was a weird decision that a lot of people on this very forum were not happy with, and the response elsewhere in the fandom was even more angry. Not only because it's problematic, but because its just bad. A lot of FR feels like it came out of the mind of a power tripping DM who wanted to abuse his players for ever going off script, given the ubiquity of super high level organizations and actively interfering gods.

I like Volo's, or more accurately I like the monster design, but fixating on other settings is something I wish they'd done from the start.

[TyGuy]

{Scrubbed}

[Telonius]

Some people want to play in Minas Tirith. Some people want to play in Ankh-Morpork. The game's big enough to accommodate both, but you've got to make clear which one you're going to be in, or misunderstandings and lots of hurt feelings will happen.

[Psyren]

But they didn't have to publish Monsters of the Mutiverse. All the content there already existed. Nothing needed reprinted, except they felt the need to do away with fixed ASI so they had to reprint what already existed, remove the old content, and not have fixed ASI in the reprint. Ergo, Tasha lied.

MotM did far more to those races than simply removing fixed ASIs and a few minor tweaks. Some were altered pretty substantially, especially the ones that previously had short-rest resources. That needs playtesting and development, which incurs a cost.


The Spelljammer and Dragonlance UA surveys both offered entire feedback sections on the new Creating Your Character rules, including a section specifically asking the participants to rate how much they enjoyed the new rules for Ability Score Increases. This was not present in the first surveys on UAs where the flexible ASIs appeared.

The beauty of a freeform comments field is that it's freeform. If not enough people chose to use it, that's unfortunate but hindsight is 20/20.

I notice you didn't respond to the "majority/minority scenarios" point either.



So it didn't matter because they had already made the change and announced that's just the way it was. Two months after Tasha's and not a single book had come out.

Two months after Tasha's - so you agree people had plenty of time to express their displeasure in every subsequent UA survey (including the very one you mentioned) as well as vote with their wallets well before MPMM right? Before Witchlight and Fizban's even?


MotM doesn't contain over 200 pages of lore included in the other two books. And they've deleting a bunch of lore, especially in Volo's as regards to many of the races.

Yeah I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to keep endorsing racially sociopathic Lizardfolk, anhedonic Duergar, Kenku with no creativity, Goliaths who kill off their elders and infirm, dimwitted Orcs, narcissistic Tritons and bullying Bugbears among other gems.

Also, what Thunderous Mojo said.

[strangebloke]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

My fellow DND player, people have been saying FR's lore has unfortunate implications since like the 90s. This isn't something new or unusual at all. No shame on you if you like FR, its a popular and storied setting for a reason, but its possible to both like something (I really like Volo's) and also see that it has issues.

[Unoriginal]

Yeah I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to keep endorsing racially sociopathic Lizardfolk, anhedonic Duergar, Kenku with no creativity, Goliaths who kill off their elders and infirm, dimwitted Orcs, narcissistic Tritons and bullying Bugbears among other gems.

This, but without blue text.


Mindflayers are, (to date) not a playable race. Orcs and Kobolds are widely viewed as playable races. Would anyone deny that?

What does them being playable have to do with anything?

If something is offensive, it's offensive regardless of it concerns a PC or a NPC.

[Segev]

Yeah I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to keep endorsing racially sociopathic Lizardfolk, anhedonic Duergar, Kenku with no creativity, Goliaths who kill off their elders and infirm, dimwitted Orcs, narcissistic Tritons and bullying Bugbears among other gems.

The trouble with this is that you can substitute literally any traits and associated races and have it be every bit as "true" and "useful" a statement. What are races allowed to have as traits? Why do we have races at all?

[Unoriginal]

My fellow DND player, people have been saying FR's lore has unfortunate implications since like the 90s. This isn't something new or unusual at all. No shame on you if you like FR, its a popular and storied setting for a reason, but its possible to both like something (I really like Volo's) and also see that it has issues.

It's not just FR, there was and still is a ton of unfortunate implications in D&D. I personally don't see why "the average member of 8-ft tall giant-related species is stronger than the average human" or "all the members of this oppressive culture are taught that joy is a weakness and that weakness gets you killed if you're lucky" are considered unfortunate implications, though, and that's my issue with the changes.

[Telesphoros]

And here we go again.

FR lore is problematic. People have been rightly criticizing it as such for decades now. Heck, the entire setting of Eberron can in some ways be seen as a response to FR. Making so many releases (such as SCAG, Volo's, and a lot of campaign modules) be tied to FR was a weird decision that a lot of people on this very forum were not happy with, and the response elsewhere in the fandom was even more angry. Not only because it's problematic, but because its just bad. A lot of FR feels like it came out of the mind of a power tripping DM who wanted to abuse his players for ever going off script, given the ubiquity of super high level organizations and actively interfering gods.

I like Volo's, or more accurately I like the monster design, but fixating on other settings is something I wish they'd done from the start.


I'm hoping for the 50th anniversary edition WotC leans a little more heavily into the setting stuff that came out after they took over D&D. Stuff like Eberron, the Feywild, Shadowfell, the Far Realms, the World Axis Cosmology (I do like that Spelljammer mentions the Astral Sea and doesn't say Astral Plane), Nentir Vale or at least the Dawn War Deities (although I do rename Asmodeus, Tiamat and Bahamut when I use them as I tend to shy away from old mythological stuff where possible). Especially something like the Dawn War Deities. I think it would solve a lot of problem areas if the existing deities weren't tied to specific cultures and races (especially in terms of creator gods), but instead represent different portfolios.

I don't like a lot of the early settings. This coming from a fifty-something grognard.




Two months after Tasha's - so you agree people had plenty of time to express their displeasure in every subsequent UA survey (including the very one you mentioned) as well as vote with their wallets well before MPMM right? Before Witchlight and Fizban's even?

Yes, I agree they've had time to express their displeasure. I was saying it didn't matter if they expressed their dispeasure or not because it was after the fact as they had already made the decision to change it going forward. Pretty much meaningless. You also gave a link to Creature Evolutions which was posted almost a year later than Tasha's so I wanted to show that CE wasn't where that was first stated. Better Late than never I guess for people that don't expect to find definitive design changes in UA playtest material.

Personally, I like Tasha's so I didn't express displeasure for those changes themselves. My displeasure comes from how they want about making those changes and how they've gone back and changed some books to match Tasha's but not others, and that continuing that way with every book after Tasha's.

For instance, Candlekeep and the Guide to Ravenloft Guide have monster stat blocks that are different from the Monster Manual. Fizban's, Witchlight, and Strixhaven are different yet again. Now Monsters of the Multiverse is out and yup, different again.

I like Monsters of the Multiverse, but I do wish there was an updated Monster Manual as well so it would be consistent with it. But I might have to wait up to 30 months for that to happen. So why even change the monster stat blocks so meaningfully now? To make it simpler for DMs? Well, yes it would be simpler for DMs if it was a consistent. Right now it's not. My hot take: Monsters of the Multiverse should have been the 4th or 5th book published for the anniversary edition coming out. They could have kept the old consistent monster stat blocks


Yeah I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to keep endorsing racially sociopathic Lizardfolk, anhedonic Duergar, Kenku with no creativity, Goliaths who kill off their elders and infirm, dimwitted Orcs, narcissistic Tritons and bullying Bugbears among other gems.

Also, what Thunderous Mojo said.

We all know why, but is removing the content the best way to go about it? You know, they could have rewritten the problematic lore like they did as it concerns the Drow and Lolth in the Player's Handbook. You know, instead of offer less product that's supposed to be canon. Well, until they start axing it altogether anyway.

[PhoenixPhyre]

We all know why, but is removing the content the best way to go about it? You know, they could have rewritten the problematic lore like they did as it concerns the Drow and Lolth in the Player's Handbook. You know, instead of offer less product that's supposed to be canon. Well, until they start axing it altogether anyway.

A question from someone who doesn't own the new book--

How much lore is there for the races that got reworked?

My fear is that they basically junked all the old lore (which I don't care so much about because I wasn't using it anyway) and then didn't replace it. Which would lead races (including lots of major NPC groups) basically floating in the void. What are goblin societies like? Shrug. No one knows. It's not in setting books, because WotC doesn't really publish real setting books any more. It's not in core, because that's problematic. All we know is that they have this bundle of stats if they're PCs. And this other, completely different, set of stats if they're not. Which include all the "problematic" elements without even a fig leaf of explanation. My fear is that they're going for total homogeneity. No setting can do anything interesting, because "interesting" might be "problematic". No race can be bigger, smaller, faster, stronger, or different in any notable way other than maybe hair color and a few features. And whatever happens in one published setting must correspond to this Multiverse-blob-thing. All published settings will be required to have fey goblins (or no goblins at all). Kender? They're all over the multiverse. Etc.

Personally, I find that there's a very strong correlation between "multiverse" creation and bland mushyness and smoothing out all the interesting wrinkles. Doesn't matter who's doing it or in what piece of fiction. Multiverse == end of interesting, distinct worlds. Because everything must be broken on the bed of procrustes, marketing edition.

[strangebloke]

It's not just FR, there was and still is a ton of unfortunate implications in D&D. I personally don't see why "the average member of 8-ft tall giant-related species is stronger than the average human" or "all the members of this oppressive culture are taught that joy is a weakness and that weakness gets you killed if you're lucky" are considered unfortunate implications, though, and that's my issue with the changes.

Oh for sure. And I don't have a problem with fixed racial ability mods, to be clear. I particularly feel that the "your PC can be whatever size they want to be" blurb is sort of silly and feels performative on WotC's part. But if the question is "why wouldn't they want to use FR lore going forward?" Its pretty clear why. It's been a controversial decision to release FR material since the start, and even oldschool folks who are fans of FR are probably also fans of settings that will cause less controversy. Also there's just already a lot of FR material published.

But IMO that's all a sideshow, and the reason Volo's and MTOF are getting sidelined has more to do with them trying to push their new releases.

[Unoriginal]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
{Scrubbed}


Personally, I find that there's a very strong correlation between "multiverse" creation and bland mushyness and smoothing out all the interesting wrinkles. Doesn't matter who's doing it or in what piece of fiction. Multiverse == end of interesting, distinct worlds. Because everything must be broken on the bed of procrustes, marketing edition.

I mean, 5e had a multiverse for years before they started changing stuff for the current state of things.



Have to say, though, I wonder why no one mention the irony of using the name of Mordenkainen, who is in-universe a speciesist who expresses open admiration for oppressors and torturers if he likes their efficiency, for the book that retcon away a lot of that kind of stuff.

[Psyren]

What are races allowed to have as traits? Why do we have races at all?

Have you read Monsters of the Multiverse? The "Fantastical Races" section is full of answers to both of these questions.



I like Monsters of the Multiverse, but I do wish there was an updated Monster Manual as well so it would be consistent with it. But I might have to wait up to 30 months for that to happen. So why even change the monster stat blocks so meaningfully now? To make it simpler for DMs? Well, yes it would be simpler for DMs if it was a consistent. Right now it's not. My hot take: Monsters of the Multiverse should have been the 4th or 5th book published for the anniversary edition coming out. They could have kept the old consistent monster stat blocks

Because they wanted to / felt it was the right thing to do. Some of us will agree with their timing, some of us will disagree, and ultimately the market will be the judge.

Putting aside the ethical rationale they've provided, I find it to be wholly practical from both a game design and business perspective too. Removing fixed ASIs from all these races necessitated determining other ways of balancing their benefits against one another as well as indicating which classes/professions they might have affinities for, and that means design and playtesting, both of which cost money and benefit from as broad a spectrum of feedback as possible.

Furthermore, issuing a revamped PHB is something you only get one crack at in an edition's lifespan. Any lessons they learned from doing things like chopping fixed ASIs and shunting all SR racial abilities to PB/LR need to be weighed carefully before they carry those into the new core. For the best product possible, UA alone is not going to cut it. A big splashy release chock full of races for new and even current players to get excited over (see the threads popping up with new builds around various races - ones that AREN'T Variant Human and Custom Lineage even!) will provide that data. From my perspective, anything that might help guarantee we get the best 5.5 PHB possible is worth doing, period.


We all know why, but is removing the content the best way to go about it? You know, they could have rewritten the problematic lore like they did as it concerns the Drow and Lolth in the Player's Handbook. You know, instead of offer less product that's supposed to be canon. Well, until they start axing it altogether anyway.

1) They didn't remove the content, they just stopped selling new instances of it. If you own those books you can still use them to your heart's content.

2) If they had nuked VGtM and MToF from orbit via errata I guarantee the firestorm would be even worse. At least with this, people who like the old lore (warts and all) still have it, but not selling it makes it clear that WotC no longer endorses that older viewpoint of the game.

3) You might think "we all know why" but posts like Unoriginal's show that's not the case.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean, 5e had a multiverse for years before they started changing stuff for the current state of things.

It existed, but it was only kinda there. Sure, there were specific meta-settings where you could transition, but there wasn't the attempt to force everything into the multiverse mode. Although this has been brewing for a bit now, the "unification" of the "lore" (scare quotes very much intentional on that last one).

And personally, it's only a minor gripe on my part because I already have a custom setting that jettisons all of that stuff entirely and explicitly disclaims membership in the greater "multiverse". No, you won't be able to spelljam to it. No, you can't Dream of the Blue Veil to or from it. Its metaphysics and basic cosmology are completely different. Because I find WotC's attempts at lore/worldbuilding to be puerile and half-hearted at best. And always have been.



1) They didn't remove the content, they just stopped selling new instances of it. If you own those books you can still use them to your heart's content.

2) If they had nuked VGtM and MToF from orbit via errata I guarantee the firestorm would be even worse. At least with this, people who like the old lore (warts and all) still have it, but not selling it makes it clear that WotC no longer endorses that older viewpoint of the game.


They did errata Volos. So if you go online? Those pieces are just flat gone. Full stop. Memory-holed. Only if you have a dead-tree edition can you keep it.

[Zhorn]

The trouble with this is that you can substitute literally any traits and associated races and have it be every bit as "true" and "useful" a statement. What are races allowed to have as traits? Why do we have races at all?
To quote myself from last time

I see this focus cycling through every sentient race/species.

"Every one of X are evil"

DM/writer/player "I want to have an X that is an exception"

"Most of X are evil, with some notable exceptions"

DM/writer/player "I want to have moral complexity and misunderstood perspectives"

"Most of X's societal norms are seen as evil to outsiders"

DM/writer/player "This is a problem for them to be considered evil. They have a rich culture and anyone who defines them as evil is only doing so because of some type of -ism"

"X are no longer used as the stand-in for evil. Every one of Y are evil"

DM/writer/player "I want to have a Y that is an exception"

...
Have you heard about the revised lore on neogi? Friendliest group of intergalactic babysitters you'll ever meet


Have you read Monsters of the Multiverse? The "Fantastical Races" section is full of answers to both of these questions.
I give it less than 5 years before that book too is also pointed at as perpetuation harmful perspectives on fantasy groups. The cycle continues and nothing is safe.

[Unoriginal]

They did errata Volos. So if you go online? Those pieces are just flat gone. Full stop. Memory-holed. Only if you have a dead-tree edition can you keep it.

And the dead-tree edition's knowledge still has a big "No Longer Valid" stamp on it, even if it physically isn't present on the text itself.

WotC made its choice. It had the power to do it, and by doing so they likely ensured their game makes a lot more money. I'm just sad I'm left a dinosaur, who liked what was but is no more.

[GooeyChewie]

Yeah I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to keep endorsing racially sociopathic Lizardfolk, anhedonic Duergar, Kenku with no creativity, Goliaths who kill off their elders and infirm, dimwitted Orcs, narcissistic Tritons and bullying Bugbears among other gems.

Lizardfolk have been one of my favorite races to play precisely because they are so alien to "normal" humanoids. I enjoy exploring the "lizard brain" approach. I never considered them sociopathic; they just have a different way of looking at the world.

Kenku have an uncanny knack for imitation, but saying that they have no creativity is not isn't remotely true. Kenku have to creatively work around their communications limitations (even if the player themselves just tell the other players what their character means). A well-played Kenku can be among the most creative of characters in the entirety of D&D.

I've never thought of Orcs as dimwitted (and in that regard I do agree WotC should never have printed a version with -2 Int). They are no less intelligent than the vast majority of other races.

I've not played as (or with) the other races as much, so I will refrain from commenting on them. That said, at least for Lizardfolk and Kenku, this conversation has made me realize the recent changes WotC have implemented are weirdly ableist in some ways.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Illithids were a playable species in 3E

I think it is more accurate to say 3e’s Level Adjustments made Illithids theoretically playable….in actual practice…Mindflayer Level Adjusted PCs, sucked.

This is all a non sequitur, however, because we are in 2022 not 2001.
In 2001, WotC released Non-Occidental Adventures written by James Wyatt. In 2022, I would say it is absolutely guaranteed we will not see a repeat of this in the next several years.


5E has not released an Illithid playable species, but I have seen no sign that Warforged turned from a 4E species into an 5E ethnicity.

I must apologize, I’m uncertain as to what you are trying to convey here.


Maybe the problem is in making orcs and kobolds playable races?

I certainly do think one has to be very considerate of one’s language when describing playable races. I also think that different Campaign Settings can and should have different flavorful restrictions.

I think it would be acceptable to have a Lord of the Rings style setting, where Orcs are unquestionably agents of evil.

5e Gnolls are cool. The designers seem to realize that by keeping a creature clearly in the villain camp, one opens up the design space.

Gnolls are the worst! 5e Gnolls can be what in essence is an infectious plague from the Abyss, in part, because one can not play one.


When people start playing mind flayers and beholders does that mean they can't be described as villains anymore?

I met Shaquille O’Neal when he was playing for the Lakers.
My mind boggles, when I try to picture a world with Loxodons or Goliaths based off that experience.

Mind Flayers and Beholders are so alien, that I do not believe I could create a credible roleplay experience. One can roll-play one as a Capricious sack of powers, I’ve played that myself.

Some players don’t like it when someone in character skims some gold.
Those players are not going to appreciate it, when the Mind Flayer PC, in character, Dominates the Party into being Thralls, and eats their brains.

Some creatures just don’t lend themselves to being played as PCs.


Of course, D&D players have been playing monsters since the beginning of the game, and people understood that these represented exceptions to the typical monstrous nature of the creatures.

Orcs of Thar, had rules for playing ‘monsters’. It also divided Orcs into Red Orcs and Yellow Orcs. The Red Orcs leader was named Chief Sitting Drool.
I 💩 you, not.

The product was meant ‘to be funny’.

History, just does not support the thesis in the quoted section above.


Kobolds have always been goofy and comedic, whether the yapping dog critters of AD&D or their farcical worship and imitation of dragons from 3e and later.

In my experience, after Roger Moore’s Tucker’s Kobolds editorial appeared in Dragon Magazine, Kobolds became a race of little Chuckys..as in the movie villain.

Kobolds were for me, forever more, expert at setting and executing ambushes and traps, and excelled at hit and run tactics. There is nothing funny or cute about a group of hardened skirmishers dead set on killing you.

[strangebloke]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

At the end of the day, most of these species were made as enemies to impede the PCs progress through a dungeon. Dungeon delving itself heavily inspired not only by Tolkien, but also by oldschool "gentleman adventurer" stories {Scrubbed}

Its like how in the opening sequence of the first Indiana Jones movie, its shown that he was raiding a temple that's actively being used by a local tribe. Like dang, Indy, that's someone's gold statue you're stealing! You're not an archaeologist, you're a burglar! That's messed up! I don't think George Lucas is a racist, or meant to imply that Indy was, but the basic structure of the story has problems. {Scrubbed}

{Scrubbed} Making the "savages" more distant from normal humanoids is generally the solution here. People rarely have a problem with undead, particularly mindless undead, or fiends, or even evil dragons. Warhammer orcs are not generally seen as a huge issue either. Alternately just don't make it a species thing, and have them be a problem because of what they're doing, rather than because of what they are. People rarely have a problem with evil gangsters or cultists or dirty cops or whatever.

In other words, if you're going to have a magical always-evil species they need to truly feel inhuman, {Scrubbed}

[Psyren]

I personally don't see why "the average member of 8-ft tall giant-related species is stronger than the average human" or "all the members of this oppressive culture are taught that joy is a weakness and that weakness gets you killed if you're lucky" are considered unfortunate implications, though, and that's my issue with the changes.

Neither of these need to be part of the rules for PC character creation. Your DM can still make NPC communities or cultures that are known for being stronger or more brutal than others, without the game endorsing PC adventurers of any given race to be or behave that way.


It existed, but it was only kinda there. Sure, there were specific meta-settings where you could transition, but there wasn't the attempt to force everything into the multiverse mode. Although this has been brewing for a bit now, the "unification" of the "lore" (scare quotes very much intentional on that last one).

And personally, it's only a minor gripe on my part because I already have a custom setting that jettisons all of that stuff entirely and explicitly disclaims membership in the greater "multiverse". No, you won't be able to spelljam to it. No, you can't Dream of the Blue Veil to or from it. Its metaphysics and basic cosmology are completely different. Because I find WotC's attempts at lore/worldbuilding to be puerile and half-hearted at best. And always have been.

And that's perfectly fine. Anyone can do this. Working as intended.



They did errata Volos. So if you go online? Those pieces are just flat gone. Full stop. Memory-holed. Only if you have a dead-tree edition can you keep it.

I was referring to the prospect of the full extent of the MotM changes being applied to VGtM and MToF instead of being in a separate new book.



I give it less than 5 years before that book too is also pointed at as perpetuation harmful perspectives on fantasy groups. The cycle continues and nothing is safe.

Wait, you mean human culture progresses over time? What a wild concept!

[PhoenixPhyre]

And that's perfectly fine. Anyone can do this. Working as intended.

I'll note that it's been a ton of work. I only do it because I happen to really like worldbuilding. It's not something I would suggest for anyone who doesn't have 7+ years to work on it. It sucks for new DMs who are trying to cobble enough together to work in. Or anyone trying to work in an "established" setting which has had all the existing lore torn out from under them unless they have hard copies.

[Unoriginal]

I met Shaquille O’Neal when he was playing for the Lakers.
My mind boggles, when I try to picture a world with Loxodons or Goliaths based off that experience.

I apologize, I really don't understand what you mean here. Would you mind expanding the point?


In my experience, after Roger Moore’s Tucker’s Kobolds editorial appeared in Dragon Magazine, Kobolds became a race of little Chuckys..as in the movie villain.

Kobolds were for me, forever more, expert at setting and executing ambushes and traps, and excelled at hit and run tactics. There is nothing funny or cute about a group of hardened skirmishers dead set on killing you.

There are ton of people who find Chucky to be funny, though.

What is funny or cute is subjective, but being deadly and murderous certainly isn't a disqualifier for many. Many think that combining deadly with other traits make the concerned concept to be funnier, even, because of the contrast.


Alternately just don't make it a species thing, and have them be a problem because of what they're doing, rather than because of what they are. People rarely have a problem with evil gangsters or cultists or dirty cops or whatever.

That what 5e did, though. Orc communities aren't antagonists because they're Other and can be killed on sight, they're antagonists when they're raiding other communities for ressources, trying to conquer land or trying to exterminate them.

[Psyren]

There are ton of people who find Chucky to be funny, though.

What is funny or cute is subjective, but being deadly and murderous certainly isn't a disqualifier for many. Many think that combining deadly with other traits make the concerned concept to be funnier, even, because of the contrast.

Chucky might be funny but he isn't a hero. I'd also question whether an entire race of him would retain what few charms he possesses, even if WotC wanted to promote something like that as an implicitly heroic option.


I'll note that it's been a ton of work. I only do it because I happen to really like worldbuilding. It's not something I would suggest for anyone who doesn't have 7+ years to work on it. It sucks for new DMs who are trying to cobble enough together to work in. Or anyone trying to work in an "established" setting which has had all the existing lore torn out from under them unless they have hard copies.

You're assuming here that most "new DMs" are as dissatisfied with the default settings as you are. Whereas I find it unlikely that "it sucks" for the vast majority of them.

(Furthermore - if they're "new DMs" then nothing was "torn out from under them" - there's simply some outdated material that they can't purchase, but had no reason to buy over the current material anyway.)



That what 5e did, though. Orc communities aren't antagonists because they're Other and can be killed on sight, they're antagonists when they're raiding other communities for ressources, trying to conquer land or trying to exterminate them.

That's true for everyone though, so why tie it only to Orcs racially or culturally?

The human and elf entries don't include anything about them being raiders or bandits, even though they certainly can be.

[Dork_Forge]

(Furthermore - if they're "new DMs" then nothing was "torn out from under them" - there's simply some outdated material that they can't purchase, but had no reason to buy over the current material anyway.)

New DM does not mean new to 5E, nor does new mean right now or in the future. You can be a recent DM running a game and this happens before you get the books you want. Heck, you could be running for 6 months, but your game schedule is once a month. You're still a new DM in terms of actual experience.

You're very quick to write off the negatives of this change, is there any negatives to this to you?

[PhoenixPhyre]

You're assuming here that most "new DMs" are as dissatisfied with the default settings as you are. Whereas I find it unlikely that "it sucks" for the vast majority of them.

(Furthermore - if they're "new DMs" then nothing was "torn out from under them" - there's simply some outdated material that they can't purchase, but had no reason to buy over the current material anyway.)



The problem is that the "default settings" at this point just don't have any lore out there for most of the races. Because
a) they don't publish setting books any more in any depth. No, SCAG doesn't count--it's not aimed at DMs at all.
b) they've removed the lore that did exist and just not replaced it.
So now, instead of having something to work from, they have...modules. If even those.

If I were more cynical than I am, I'd suggest that part of the removal of the lore (not the main part, but a "happy side effect") is exactly that now people will have to buy modules and adventures, because there just isn't support for anything between
a) use a pre-written adventure
b) create the entire system, metaphysics, etc out of whole cloth with nothing to start from.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Some people want to play in Minas Tirith. Some people want to play in Ankh-Morpork. The game's big enough to accommodate both, but you've got to make clear which one you're going to be in, or misunderstandings and lots of hurt feelings will happen.

Well said!


I apologize, I really don't understand what you mean here. Would you mind expanding the point?

Shaq was massive.
It just gave a practical frame of reference, for imagining what are the impacts of a world with humanoid species larger than Shaq.

As for humor being subjective, I completely agree.
The person that wrote Orcs of Thar thought Chief Sitting Drool was a killer joke, afterall.

[Psyren]

You're very quick to write off the negatives of this change, is there any negatives to this to you?

As a matter of fact yes. I absolutely hate how this book was initially released. Thankfully they seemed to have learned their lesson there judging by the Spelljammer bundle. (Simultaneous DDB/physical release, only new books, bundle components purchasable individually etc.)

But if you're asking whether I have problems with the nature of the changes they made within MotM or the timing of said changes, no - none that outweigh the positives anyway.


The problem is that the "default settings" at this point just don't have any lore out there for most of the races. Because
a) they don't publish setting books any more in any depth. No, SCAG doesn't count--it's not aimed at DMs at all.
b) they've removed the lore that did exist and just not replaced it.
So now, instead of having something to work from, they have...modules. If even those.

If I were more cynical than I am, I'd suggest that part of the removal of the lore (not the main part, but a "happy side effect") is exactly that now people will have to buy modules and adventures, because there just isn't support for anything between
a) use a pre-written adventure
b) create the entire system, metaphysics, etc out of whole cloth with nothing to start from.

You could argue that blasting out a bunch of racial/cultural lore is what got them into the position of needing revisions and retractions in the first place. So I can understand them wanting to be a lot more judicious about how they do that going forward, possibly even relying on the setting authors like Keith Baker and Ed Greenwood to do that themselves quasi-officially via DM's Guild.

Having said that, I think they can indeed publish more detailed lore that would avoid perpetuating the stereotypes of yore and would welcome that.

[Dork_Forge]

As a matter of fact yes. I absolutely hate how this book was initially released. Thankfully they seemed to have learned their lesson there judging by the Spelljammer bundle. (Simultaneous DDB/physical release, only new books, bundle components purchasable individually etc.)

And how it was initially released was likely due to supply chain impacts anyway, at the very least I doubt the length of the delay of the standalone, if it was not intended for a simultaneous release originally (which I believe it was).


But if you're asking whether I have problems with the nature of the changes they made within MotM or the timing of said changes, no - none that outweigh the positives anyway.

I didn't ask about negatives that outweighed positives, I asked about negatives in general. So, what are the negatives (at all, in general, no on balance etc.) about the new book in your opinion?

[PhoenixPhyre]

You could argue that blasting out a bunch of racial/cultural lore is what got them into the position of needing revisions and retractions in the first place. So I can understand them wanting to be a lot more judicious about how they do that going forward, possibly even relying on the setting authors like Keith Baker and Ed Greenwood to do that themselves quasi-officially via DM's Guild.

Having said that, I think they can indeed publish more detailed lore that would avoid perpetuating the stereotypes of yore and would welcome that.

Sure. They should have actually published real setting information. But now they're in the worst possible case--

* Existing campaigns that tried to be setting accurate are now missing lots of information. Or have outright conflicting information--MotM goblins are not, in any way, similar to existing goblins in any setting. They've completely changed everything about them.
* New campaigns that want to use existing settings to minimize work...can't. They have to hope that someone, somewhere, publishes something (that they'll likely have to buy separately). Or make it up themselves. This is absolutely killer for new DMs that aren't just blindly playing old modules[1].
* People who want to build their own setting have no option other than do it all from the ground up. Which means they aren't as likely to purchase new books, because those are less likely to actually have anything useful in them. Can't steal ideas when there aren't any ideas for fear of offending people.

THERE IS NO GOOD HERE. There is no advantage to doing this, except that they can pretend to have papered over the "offensive" material. When they haven't. All they've done is drawn attention to it.

[1] Which also now conflict with themselves and the new stat blocks. Horrifically. Which will never cause any confusion.

[Psyren]

And how it was initially released was likely due to supply chain impacts anyway, at the very least I doubt the length of the delay of the standalone, if it was not intended for a simultaneous release originally (which I believe it was).

That might be the case but I still found it scummy. Supply chain impacts shouldn't have meant anything for a digital release. My personal belief is they were holding it hostage while the D&D Beyond acquisition negotiation finalized, as a big splashy release on their platform could have attracted more new users and raised the DDB's final price tag (as well as the stakes of a deal falling through.)



I didn't ask about negatives that outweighed positives, I asked about negatives in general. So, what are the negatives (at all, in general, no on balance etc.) about the new book in your opinion?

They're largely minor and almost all are balanced out by related benefits but since you're curious:

1) I agree that some of the spellcaster statblocks lost tactical depth along with their ability to upcast. Like the Abjurer not being able to upcast dispel magic and banishment anymore. But this is offset not only by the casters being easier for the DM to run but also by being more likely to fall into their expected challenge rating. I don't know in what world a full caster with multiple 5th level spell slots was supposed to be CR 5 (Enchanter) when it could almost certainly one-shot the party with a single fireball, never mind an upcast one.

2) I don't agree with all the racial changes, like PC Centaurs being Medium now. I guess we're all Ponytars? A human or elf riding their centaur buddy into battle is a pretty iconic bit of fantasy, so at the very least we should have been allowed to choose between Medium and Large. Equine Build already gave them a bit of Powerful Build so it should have included the ability to carry Medium riders. I'm also not a fan of Water Genasi losing Shape Water for Acid Splash.

3) While the races are closer to each other balance-wise now there are still outliers. There is a pretty substantial gap between Minotaur and Shadar-Kai for instance. Overall though I think the races are in a better place now (especially with fixed ASIs getting the chop.)

It's stuff like that really.


Sure. They should have actually published real setting information. But now they're in the worst possible case--

* Existing campaigns that tried to be setting accurate are now missing lots of information. Or have outright conflicting information--MotM goblins are not, in any way, similar to existing goblins in any setting. They've completely changed everything about them.
* New campaigns that want to use existing settings to minimize work...can't. They have to hope that someone, somewhere, publishes something (that they'll likely have to buy separately). Or make it up themselves. This is absolutely killer for new DMs that aren't just blindly playing old modules[1].
* People who want to build their own setting have no option other than do it all from the ground up. Which means they aren't as likely to purchase new books, because those are less likely to actually have anything useful in them. Can't steal ideas when there aren't any ideas for fear of offending people.

THERE IS NO GOOD HERE. There is no advantage to doing this, except that they can pretend to have papered over the "offensive" material. When they haven't. All they've done is drawn attention to it.

[1] Which also now conflict with themselves and the new stat blocks. Horrifically. Which will never cause any confusion.

1) Goblins are one of the ones where I thought the previous lore needed to be removed (an entire race of slave-drivers and cowards, yay) so that's a non-starter for me.

2) If "minimizing work" meant relying on reductive stereotypes and tropes for races, like savage marauding orcs, frankly I find that to be lazy at best. And if it didn't, the old lore wasn't helping those DMs anyway.

3) I agree that 5e is light in the setting info regard, but that doesn't mean DMs' only option is to "do it all from the ground up" either. There are a plethora of free resources on most published settings, ranging from wikis, to articles, to forums like this one, and youtubers etc. If it comes down to it there are even prior edition books which are still on sale, even if you ignore the outmoded racial bits there is still plenty of setting info ranging from cities and government to historical events and wars to faiths and organizations etc. "Refuse to evolve vs. homebrew" is a false dichotomy.

And lastly - there is a great deal of good here, which I think the vast majority of people who actually read those cringeworthy old racial entries will see, even if they're not a majority of this forum or thread.

[Telesphoros]

Sorry for the late reply, busy day.



A question from someone who doesn't own the new book--

How much lore is there for the races that got reworked?

None? All the extra lore is gone. Let's see if I can explain it a little bit better.


Monsters of the Multiverse has 33 reprinted races that are meant to cover character races you'd find in most worlds in addition to the PHB races. It also has most of the monsters from Volo's and Tome of Foes minus what I'm assuming were problematic monsters like Orcs dedicated to certain Orcish gods.

Approximately a 100 or so pages of Volo's discussing lore of certain monsters (beholders, giants, gnolls, goblinoids, hags, kobolds, mind flayers, orcs, and yuan-ti), lair maps for those monsters, and roleplaying tips for those monsters don't show up at all in MotM. And of course they want back an


In Tome of Foes, all the lore of the Blood War, demonic boons, fiendish cults lore for the demi-human races in the PHB plus some lore for new player races/subraces like the Gith, Eladrin, Shadar-Kai, variant Tieflings from other Archfiends not named Asmodeus etc. are all gone from MotM. Another 100 pages or so. Around 200 pages of stuff that doesn't show up in MotM. Maybe they've changed some lore from previous monster stat blocks? Don't think I've come across anything noteworthy yet.

Volo's was 226 pages and Tome of Foes was 258 for a total of 484... Subract 200 for a new total of 284. MotM is 291 pages and does pull a few races from other books and reworked the monster stat blocks for ease of use (at least when used by itself). Seems to work out. /shrug



Because they wanted to / felt it was the right thing to do. Some of us will agree with their timing, some of us will disagree, and ultimately the market will be the judge.

Putting aside the ethical rationale they've provided, I find it to be wholly practical from both a game design and business perspective too. Removing fixed ASIs from all these races necessitated determining other ways of balancing their benefits against one another as well as indicating which classes/professions they might have affinities for, and that means design and playtesting, both of which cost money and benefit from as broad a spectrum of feedback as possible.

Furthermore, issuing a revamped PHB is something you only get one crack at in an edition's lifespan. Any lessons they learned from doing things like chopping fixed ASIs and shunting all SR racial abilities to PB/LR need to be weighed carefully before they carry those into the new core. For the best product possible, UA alone is not going to cut it. A big splashy release chock full of races for new and even current players to get excited over (see the threads popping up with new builds around various races - ones that AREN'T Variant Human and Custom Lineage even!) will provide that data. From my perspective, anything that might help guarantee we get the best 5.5 PHB possible is worth doing, period.

Maybe instead of releasing Tasha's in 2020 they should have done something more of the start of a 5.5 Core update (At least the PHB and Monster Manual) instead of piecemeal bits here or there and waiting up to 4 years for the anniversary edition.

As an aside, I personally don't like short rests in this edition and would welcome more proficiency bonus abilities. A 14th level character should be better at their class/subclass than a 4th level one.

Anywho, they could have taken those same lessons learned in even better context when everything is working together as a whole. Then apply that info along with the various surveys and playtests closer to the release of the anniversary edition in 3 or 4 years. It's really hard to get excited when it doesn't feel like there's a solid plan in place. It's more like just consider Tasha's and everything after as playtest material until the anniversary edition.




1) They didn't remove the content, they just stopped selling new instances of it. If you own those books you can still use them to your heart's content.

2) If they had nuked VGtM and MToF from orbit via errata I guarantee the firestorm would be even worse. At least with this, people who like the old lore (warts and all) still have it, but not selling it makes it clear that WotC no longer endorses that older viewpoint of the game.

3) You might think "we all know why" but posts like Unoriginal's show that's not the case.


1.They did remove or replace a bunch of info from Volo's for reprintings. Err, probably for one reprinting if we are being honest as the errata is from December 2021 (when MotM was originally suppose to come out). https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/VGtM-Errata.pdf Not sure what's up with Tome of Foes. Maybe there was just too much to replace/remove and they figured dialing it back by no longer reprinting it and no longer offering it digitally was the way to go? Manual of the Planes confirmed?

2. I don't think a lot of people have realized it yet as they either have access to the old material or didn't want it in the first place. Or maybe they're becoming more apathetic towards the whole thing and waiting to see what the anniversary edition has to offer. Dunno.

3. Probably should have phrased that differently. I think most people that keep up with statements from WotC from their Commitment to Diversity post thru say Book Updates should have a good feel for the reasons why.

[TyGuy]

My fellow DND player, people have been saying FR's lore has unfortunate implications since like the 90s. This isn't something new or unusual at all. No shame on you if you like FR, its a popular and storied setting for a reason, but its possible to both like something (I really like Volo's) and also see that it has issues.

{Scrubbed}

[Segev]

And the dead-tree edition's knowledge still has a big "No Longer Valid" stamp on it, even if it physically isn't present on the text itself.

WotC made its choice. It had the power to do it, and by doing so they likely ensured their game makes a lot more money. I'm just sad I'm left a dinosaur, who liked what was but is no more.I doubt they've made themselves more money. At best, they've managed to avoid alienating enough of their audience to hurt their business; they certainly have gained nothing from it. The people who whined and complained until they got the change were either already customers, or were never going to be customers. The people who complain ABOUT the change will either stop being customers, or will continue being customers. At best, they'll retain the same customers, just with different ones upset at things. The trouble is, the people they moved to appease will keep complaining, too, demanding more changes, until they definitely alienate existing customers.


Lizardfolk have been one of my favorite races to play precisely because they are so alien to "normal" humanoids. I enjoy exploring the "lizard brain" approach. I never considered them sociopathic; they just have a different way of looking at the world.

Kenku have an uncanny knack for imitation, but saying that they have no creativity is not isn't remotely true. Kenku have to creatively work around their communications limitations (even if the player themselves just tell the other players what their character means). A well-played Kenku can be among the most creative of characters in the entirety of D&D.

I've never thought of Orcs as dimwitted (and in that regard I do agree WotC should never have printed a version with -2 Int). They are no less intelligent than the vast majority of other races.

I've not played as (or with) the other races as much, so I will refrain from commenting on them. That said, at least for Lizardfolk and Kenku, this conversation has made me realize the recent changes WotC have implemented are weirdly ableist in some ways.But you're a bad person for this. You're not allowed to have badwrongfun in this way. Only by embracing the new, creative-enabled Kenku who lack the restriction are you truly playing creatively. Green is not a creative color, after all. And you can still play a Kenku who only ever speaks in recordings; it's totally the same to have just your Kenku doing that, especially if he COULD speak normally if he chose, and not at all a different sort of character from a member of a race that is so limited. And YOUR Lizardman can be alien to others, even though all the others are humans in funny scaley skin makeup. So it's fine! Nothing's been taken away; just expanded! Made better!

[Azuresun]

Neither of these need to be part of the rules for PC character creation. Your DM can still make NPC communities or cultures that are known for being stronger or more brutal than others, without the game endorsing PC adventurers of any given race to be or behave that way.

The weird thing is, Golaiths apparently need to lose the +2 STR because they shouldn't be stereotyped as being big brutes, but every Goliath PC will still have a Powerful Build.


To quote myself from last time

Have you heard about the revised lore on neogi? Friendliest group of intergalactic babysitters you'll ever meet

I give it less than 5 years before that book too is also pointed at as perpetuation harmful perspectives on fantasy groups. The cycle continues and nothing is safe.

I think a lot of that is reflective of a general change in society, where groups once thought of as weird or scary are becoming better known and are telling their own stories (and usually, being just as mundane and silly as the majority group).

You can see the same progression with creatures such as vampires, werewolves, etc. Terrifying, unglamorous, inhuman monsters (the original myths), to urbane and charismatic but still thoroughly evil and with the monstrous side only thinly concealed (Dracula), to protagonists of their own stories with more focus on the upsides of their nature (Interview with the Vampire), to being full-on romantic heroes with the monstrosity shoved so far out the spotlight as to be effectively nonexistent. (Twilight and about 1.3 billion urban fantasy / paranormal romance novels).

Increasingly, audiences want stories where everyone is essentially a human, and only the bigoted and mean types would ever judge them for being a bloodsucking animated corpse or whatever. Sometimes this is done well, sometimes it's not (see: True Blood).

When it's done well, it's possible to get across that a character is, yes, fundamentally a person in every way that matters, but they're still weird and very much not a human in some way that's interesting and creates story potential. Take Eberron's takes on goblinoids and their intriguing three-species society and bond, or anything Keith baker wrote on changelings or warforged. When it's done badly, you have Star Trek rubber forehead aliens, where there are no plots being told that you couldn't tell with factions of humans and every city is the Mos Eisley cantina.

It is disappointing that there is such a heavy lean towards simply Bowdlerising away the differences rather than even trying to walk that line--what's the difference between a human and tiefling in Wildemount beyond the cosmetic?

[Amnestic]

But you're a bad person for this. You're not allowed to have badwrongfun in this way. Only by embracing the new, creative-enabled Kenku who lack the restriction are you truly playing creatively. Green is not a creative color, after all. And you can still play a Kenku who only ever speaks in recordings; it's totally the same to have just your Kenku doing that, especially if he COULD speak normally if he chose, and not at all a different sort of character from a member of a race that is so limited. And YOUR Lizardman can be alien to others, even though all the others are humans in funny scaley skin makeup. So it's fine! Nothing's been taken away; just expanded! Made better!
{Scrubbed}

[Warder]

I don't think a lot of people have realized it yet as they either have access to the old material or didn't want it in the first place. Or maybe they're becoming more apathetic towards the whole thing and waiting to see what the anniversary edition has to offer. Dunno.

I'm in the latter camp. I strongly dislike many of the changes and the way WotC went about these changes, and I'll gladly say so if anyone asks, but what's the point of getting upset about it anymore? I reached out to WotC through every channel I had access to, and since they still went ahead with it I just don't see the point in continuing. They don't want my business so they're not getting it - the books are expensive and of inconsistent quality anyway, so it's money I can spend on third party stuff or on another system entirely. Maybe I'll find my way back to D&D one day but WotC pushed me firmly away from 5e.

[KorvinStarmast]

We're pretty clearly talking about the race rules specifically and not the wider stuff of Tasha's as a book as a whole. Problem is, the QC function was lackluster throughout. The PC race changes were kind of slap dash, not well thought through in my opinion, but it hasn't even come up at the tables where I play.
Fathomless doesn't get talked about much but I'm not sure how much of that is flavour vs. power. What little of that I have played I enjoyed, but I am also heavily biased for maritime/sailor/pirate stuff.

[Segev]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

In what sense? To be clear: the blue text is meant to indicate that I'm being highly sarcastic. I was agreeing with the person I was responding to.

{Scrubbed}

[strangebloke]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Not my experience. The Orc Babies in Orc Cradles thing has been a point of contention for as long as DND's existed. Problematic as a term is newer than that, but critique of DND and more particularly greyhawk/forgotten realms/dragon lance has been arounds since before I got into the hobby over a decade ago. {Scrubbed} "The adventurers are actually the evil ones for slaughtering goblin villages wholesale" is the most common subversion of DND standard stuff out there, and that's because basic DND makes a lot of people feel a bit awkward/skeevy.

And while "problematic" is subjective in one sense, it also isn't, in the same sense that its not subjective to consider something 'controversial.' People, real people, who I have met IRL, consider FR very uncomfortable to interact with on any level. That's "problematic" in a more basic sense.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Some people probably will, but this isn't how... most people behave? Outside of twitter anyway. The problem comes in when people get weird about defending something they like from any possible line of legitimate criticism. Nobody hates you for liking lovecraft, but if you're going to argue lovecraft wasn't racist (the man had a panic attack when he found out one of his ancestors was welsh) and didn't put that in his works (he explicitly said Innsmouth was about race-mixing with the Welsh) you're going to get weird looks. That's all that's at play here.

[Psyren]

None? All the extra lore is gone. Let's see if I can explain it a little bit better.


Monsters of the Multiverse has 33 reprinted races that are meant to cover character races you'd find in most worlds in addition to the PHB races. It also has most of the monsters from Volo's and Tome of Foes minus what I'm assuming were problematic monsters like Orcs dedicated to certain Orcish gods.

Approximately a 100 or so pages of Volo's discussing lore of certain monsters (beholders, giants, gnolls, goblinoids, hags, kobolds, mind flayers, orcs, and yuan-ti), lair maps for those monsters, and roleplaying tips for those monsters don't show up at all in MotM. And of course they want back an


In Tome of Foes, all the lore of the Blood War, demonic boons, fiendish cults lore for the demi-human races in the PHB plus some lore for new player races/subraces like the Gith, Eladrin, Shadar-Kai, variant Tieflings from other Archfiends not named Asmodeus etc. are all gone from MotM. Another 100 pages or so. Around 200 pages of stuff that doesn't show up in MotM. Maybe they've changed some lore from previous monster stat blocks? Don't think I've come across anything noteworthy yet.

Volo's was 226 pages and Tome of Foes was 258 for a total of 484... Subract 200 for a new total of 284. MotM is 291 pages and does pull a few races from other books and reworked the monster stat blocks for ease of use (at least when used by itself). Seems to work out. /shrug

Even putting the problematic/deprecated elements aside, remember too that MotM is intended to be a multiversal / setting-agnostic book. Several of the stuff you mentioned meanwhile is setting-specific and so doesn't really have a place there. The Blood War for instance is a big part of FR, but it's not really a thing in Eberron (gray morality) or Ravenloft (everyone including fiends has way bigger problems due to the Powers) etc.


Maybe instead of releasing Tasha's in 2020 they should have done something more of the start of a 5.5 Core update (At least the PHB and Monster Manual) instead of piecemeal bits here or there and waiting up to 4 years for the anniversary edition.

As an aside, I personally don't like short rests in this edition and would welcome more proficiency bonus abilities. A 14th level character should be better at their class/subclass than a 4th level one.

Anywho, they could have taken those same lessons learned in even better context when everything is working together as a whole. Then apply that info along with the various surveys and playtests closer to the release of the anniversary edition in 3 or 4 years. It's really hard to get excited when it doesn't feel like there's a solid plan in place. It's more like just consider Tasha's and everything after as playtest material until the anniversary edition.

I don't view this as a piecemeal change, they applied the racial updates very consistently after Tasha's. We got not a single fixed ASI nor blanket cultural mandate since then for any of the new races.


1.They did remove or replace a bunch of info from Volo's for reprintings. Err, probably for one reprinting if we are being honest as the errata is from December 2021 (when MotM was originally suppose to come out). https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/VGtM-Errata.pdf Not sure what's up with Tome of Foes. Maybe there was just too much to replace/remove and they figured dialing it back by no longer reprinting it and no longer offering it digitally was the way to go? Manual of the Planes confirmed?

2. I don't think a lot of people have realized it yet as they either have access to the old material or didn't want it in the first place. Or maybe they're becoming more apathetic towards the whole thing and waiting to see what the anniversary edition has to offer. Dunno.

3. Probably should have phrased that differently. I think most people that keep up with statements from WotC from their Commitment to Diversity post thru say Book Updates should have a good feel for the reasons why.

VGtM's lore was particularly egregious so I can understand it getting both an errata and a replacement treatment. There is a lot of cringe in the sidebars and preceding the tables.


The people who whined and complained until they got the change were either already customers, or were never going to be customers.

Let's put aside your insulting characterization of people in favor of the changes as being "whiners and complainers." You're ignoring, as usual, two important groups:

1) Newcomers who, seeing the efforts WotC is making to be more inclusive, feel more comfortable joining the hobby themselves and promoting it to others. That's a gain.
2) The designers themselves who are diverse and talented people (wow!) and want these changes, and feel more comfortable staying with a company that's willing to risk the bottom line to do what they see as morally and ethically right. Had WotC stubbornly stayed retrograde on this, it's not hard to imagine several of these creatives going to other companies that are willing to make similar changes, such as Paizo.

So to characterize this as pure loss on WotC's part is shortsighted at best.

[Xervous]

They don't want my business so they're not getting it - the books are expensive and of inconsistent quality anyway, so it's money I can spend on third party stuff or on another system entirely.

With setting details and other features being offloaded to the community this is the trend I foresee, though I expect most to remain with D&D.


it's not hard to imagine several of these creatives going to other companies that are willing to make similar changes, such as Paizo.

Do we have data available on WotC pay? Paizo has some godawful salaries as some news articles debuted recently.

Edit:

Quick google parks WotC graphic designer at 80k. Meanwhile Paizo devs read off at 45k, in Seattle which is apparently the 5th most expensive city to live in out of all USA options.

[KorvinStarmast]

Adding value by removing all lore is the best way to go! I confess, this got a chuckle out of me.

I personally don't see why "the average member of 8-ft tall giant-related species is stronger than the average human" or "all the members of this oppressive culture are taught that joy is a weakness and that weakness gets you killed if you're lucky" are considered unfortunate implications, though, and that's my issue with the changes. It's about Hasbro optics. If a major corporation is involved, why wouldn't they be clunky in implementation?

Lizardfolk have been one of my favorite races to play precisely because they are so alien to "normal" humanoids. I enjoy exploring the "lizard brain" approach. I never considered them sociopathic; they just have a different way of looking at the world. So does a sociopath. :smallwink: (Our lizardfolk druid seems to be doing fine in our Saltmarsh campaign, and he's not a sociopath.

Kenku ... are one of the worst ideas they have tried to implement in this edition.

The people who whined and complained until they got the change were either already customers, or were never going to be customers.
You're not allowed to have badwrongfun in this way. Only by embracing the new, creative-enabled Kenku who lack the restriction are you truly playing creatively. Please stop, yer killin' me. :smallcool:

[Amnestic]

In what sense? To be clear: the blue text is meant to indicate that I'm being highly sarcastic. I was agreeing with the person I was responding to.

I know what it means. I'm saying that portraying that position in that manner in a "sarcastic" light comes across as a strawman of the people you disagree with: "Here are my philosophical opponents, look at how ridiculous they are, look at the silly things they believe."{Scrubbed}

Perhaps that wasn't your intention when you wrote it. Certainly how it came across though.

Like if I wrote something along the lines of "I am literally incapable of creating any characters with depth or nuance unless they literally say that orcs are all baby eating monsters by birth, Wizards of the Coast taking that away from me has literally ruined every game and essentially destroyed D&D forever. It is incredibly important to me that all high elves have a +1 racial intelligence bonus otherwise my entire worldbuilding collapses." you can understand how, even if written in blue, there's more to it than "haha I am being sarcastic so it doesn't mean anything".

[Psyren]

When people make ridiculous claims like "remove all lore" and "why do we have races at all" then it makes it very hard (for me anyway) to commiserate with their positions.



Do we have data available on WotC pay? Paizo has some godawful salaries as some news articles debuted recently.

Edit:

Quick google parks WotC graphic designer at 80k. Meanwhile Paizo devs read off at 45k, in Seattle which is apparently the 5th most expensive city to live in out of all USA options.

Putting aside your very questionable assumptions about the reasons people stay in the jobs they do, I don't see what graphic design has to do with anything in this topic. Unless we're complaining about the artwork too now? :smalltongue:


So does a sociopath. :smallwink:

Okay thanks for the laugh :smallbiggrin:


... are one of the worst ideas they have tried to implement in this edition.

Yep.


I know what it means. I'm saying that portraying that position in that manner in a "sarcastic" light comes across as a strawman of the people you disagree with: "Here are my philosophical opponents, look at how ridiculous they are, look at the silly things they believe." {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Perhaps that wasn't your intention when you wrote it. Certainly how it came across though.

Like if I wrote something along the lines of "I am literally incapable of creating any characters with depth or nuance unless they literally say that orcs are all baby eating monsters by birth, Wizards of the Coast taking that away from me has literally ruined every game and essentially destroyed D&D forever. It is incredibly important to me that all high elves have a +1 racial intelligence bonus otherwise my entire worldbuilding collapses." you can understand how, even if written in blue, there's more to it than "haha I am being sarcastic so it doesn't mean anything".

Indeed.

[qube]

1) Newcomers who, seeing the efforts WotC is making to be more inclusive, feel more comfortable joining the hobby themselves and promoting it to others. That's a gain.More inclusive ... then what, exactly?

I was a newcommer back in 3.0, when half-orcs got +2 str / -2 int / -2 cha. Elves had +2 dex / -2 con. I had never occurd to me that this was somehow "not inclusive" -- because it fit the archetypes. And for a newcommer that surely was sufficient. ... or that this was more (or less) inclusive then 2nd edition (for obvious reasons).

As a newcommer - it makes perfect sense, that "Klingons" make for poor wizards, and "Vulcans" poor barbarians. The fact that kingons would make better wizards then vulcans because either ASI's got turned flexible, while klingons happen to have a racial ability that combo's up with spellcasting ... THAT doesn't make sense.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Here's another confirmation that it's not optional (if you play AL):

https://yawningportal.dnd.wizards.com/blog/monsters-of-the-multiverse-update/



If you possess a character with one of the race options presented in Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse, you must update your character to the new entry as presented in that product. This has always been the policy of D&D rules usable with D&D Adventurers League campaigns.


Yes, if you had a character built with Volos or MToF, you must either retire that character or buy the new book and transition over to it. No choice. Buy new stuff or make a new character, losing everything you had. Totally optional, guys!

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Thread closed.