"Customizing your Origin in D&D"

[cutlery]

They both do indeed look very cool, and as an Al-Qadim fan the Genie Warlock makes me squee (Sha'ir!)

But I really hate these new rules and especially the fact that this seems to be the direction going forward. I like the fact that elves, tieflings and dragonborn all have different niches for both cultural and physical reasons (a tiefling's tail is probably longer than the average halfling is tall!) I appreciate the way going against the conventional feels like it has heft, making (say) a dwarf monk feel that much more unique.

So yeah, going to give this a miss.

This was inevitable in a system that trends towards Single Attribute Dependency.

[Dork_Forge]

Again, look at Wizards' own reply. The Vistani is the clearest example (as they call out the Romani equivalency by name), but the orc and drow portrayals are tabbed as problematic as well. This is not unnecessary politicization--this is a very real issue that the game's creators are attempting to address.

I was not in any way shape or form talking about the Vistani. They are clearly separate to the race/species/ancestry part of this.

I will believe that they are sincerely trying to address an issue like this with no motivation when a press release isn't released during a turbulent time, announcing very big deal rule variants without playtest (going against their whole 5e philosphy) and on a relatively short timescale. Then the end result is as sloppy as it is doesn't help their case of independent sincerity.

[jas61292]

I don't want to tell you what should and shouldn't offend you, but I don't think "The jewish standins are only greedy because evil magic effected basically the entire race" is good writing.

I'm sure you don't feel that acceptable writing today, I just think its important to highlight that as a good a job as tolkien did basically founding the genre we currently enjoy, that was one of the weaker moments of his writing.

While I would probably agree if that was all there was to it, it is also important to note that there is thousands of years of history before that evil magic came into play. Its not just "they have bad trait, but its ok, cause its just evil magic, not innate. Trust me." They may not have ever gotten as much detail as Elves and Humans, but there is stuff there. What's more, on an individual level, we get to know a number of dwarves in the stories, and while some may be greedy, that is absolutely a case by case thing, and many are not. Honestly, as a whole, I'd say dwarves get painted in a significantly better light than (most) humans do.

And all this is not to say that individual people can't have their own opinions on thing. I'm not trying to say that any one person's experience is not valid. If something truly upsets someone, there is nothing wrong with them being upset. But personally, as a member of the group supposedly being stereotyped, I just don't get it here. Dwarves are my favorite of the classic D&D races, and the fact that they are heavily inspired by my own people does not upset me. It makes me like them more. Because hell yeah, we are a hardy people and damn good at crafting stuff. And that was my entire point from the beginning, just because the origins of something may be one thing, that does not mean the current interpretation has to be that way. Even if the original was a stereotype, so long as the race is being portrayed in a largely positive light, you will not see most people being as upset about it. Hence why the complaints center on Orcs, and not Dwarves.

[Edea]

For some reason, the Genielock ... bothers me. I can't really articulate why, though. I wish I could, because then I could either put aside my botherment as irrational, or come up with a personal "fix" for it to make me like it. Or at least know why I don't so that I can state WHY and make a rational judgment based on that.

The earth djinn irritates me in particular since its damage type is not on the same 'side' as the others.

[x3n0n]

I've had the secret (and probably straight up tinfoil hat) idea in my head that AL wrote their own simple rules and Tasha's will have a much more detailed and less ham fisted version. The only real reason I haven't agreed to use this in my upcoming campaign is because I want to be sure this is actually the final version we'll see in print first.

If it does turn out to be, I'll probably introduce it and Ludic's version for them to choose between, see which they prefer.

FWIW, the role is cited on the front page of the AL document as so: "The D&D Adventurers League now uses this variant system from Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything since it allows for a greater degree of customization."

Also, a second-hand Jeremy Crawford quote from one of the early Tasha preview articles said something about a new lineage system that would let you customize your origin simply/easily. (Don't remember which article, sorry. I think it's cited as one of the sources in the main Tasha thread.)

I think this is probably what we'll get.

[ftafp]

Why is everyone so upset for this? Why is it suddenly a bad thing that players want to be punished slightly less for playing an unconventional race/class combo

[Boci]

While I would probably agree if that was all there was to it, it is also important to note that there is thousands of years of history before that evil magic came into play. Its not just "they have bad trait, but its ok, cause its just evil magic, not innate. Trust me." They may not have ever gotten as much detail as Elves and Humans, but there is stuff there. What's more, on an individual level, we get to know a number of dwarves in the stories, and while some may be greedy, that is absolutely a case by case thing, and many are not. Honestly, as a whole, I'd say dwarves get painted in a significantly better light than (most) humans do.

That's fair. Gimmli certainly didn't seem greedy, and the friendship between him and Legolas was a nice subplot of the story.

Why is everyone so upset for this? Why is it suddenly a bad thing that players want to be punished slightly less for playing an unconventional race/class combo

I don't think people got too upset. There were preferneces for and against, which inevitable led to discussion of playstyle, which can probably get heated, and racism in D&D also came up, another hot topic, but overall people just exchanged ideas. Some liked it because as you not you can now play unconventional combitions with minimal loss of efficiency, some didn't because they liked the cost of unconventional combination, or just felt the implementation was poorly handled.

[Segev]

Why is everyone so upset for this? Why is it suddenly a bad thing that players want to be punished slightly less for playing an unconventional race/class combo

Because they weren't being punished, and the pressures applied by giving benefits to particular paths are useful for encouraging and explaining tropes and setting trends.

I mean, I'm not going to make this argument seriously, but I could take the "why are you wanting to punish these pour creative souls?" argument and turn it around to be, "Why are we coddling these entitled whiners who want a free +1 bonus on their most important rolls but aren't willing to make a choice that legitimately gives it to them?"

Again, I'm not actually calling anybody a whiner or entitled. I am pointing out the flaw in the argument about it being a "punishment:" it's very subjective. In fact, since there are no stat penalties (outside some races in Volo's Guide that are not technically addressed by the floating stats anyway), calling it a "punishment" is honestly a bit weird to me.

There absolutely is pressure, under the core rules, to make certain class/race combination choices, but it's not major pressure and making a different choice doesn't really hurt the character build all that much.

The earth djinn irritates me in particular since its damage type is not on the same 'side' as the others.

How so? I am not following what you mean by 'side.'

Also, I now recall a big part of it: something about being given an item by the Patron feels like it's trying to be a Patron and a Pact at the same time, in sort of a backwards way to how the Hexblade is a Pact patch in a Patron. I don't think that this is entirely reasonable of me, so I'll try to get over it. But it does bug me.

[Edea]

How so? I am not following what you mean by 'side.'

Also, I now recall a big part of it: something about being given an item by the Patron feels like it's trying to be a Patron and a Pact at the same time, in sort of a backwards way to how the Hexblade is a Pact patch in a Patron. I don't think that this is entirely reasonable of me, so I'll try to get over it. But it does bug me.

Bludgeoning feels like a physical damage type, while the others are clearly energy-typed. I would've preferred if they'd used acid.

[RossN]

Warlocks are my favorite class and this is a cool patron, so I'm happy with it too.

Yeah, it doesn't really correspond to the old Sha'ir exactly and I'm disappointed that there isn't at least a mention of a gen as a Pact of the chain familiar but it is still a very interesting flavour.

Its just a gut feeling and I could be wrong, but my instinct is this is a one note varient rule that won't be touched again until later, possibly even 6ed. Might be wrong though.

That's actually what I'm afraid of: that we are looking at the road ahead to 6ed and I don't much like it.

My favourite race in D&D are Tieflings, partly for their backstory and partly for their aesthetics (they have an amazing look.) Having said that I recognise that their attribute bonuses don't translate well to certain classes. That can be irksome if I want to play a Tiefling Rogue or Fighter but it also gives me a strong sense that I'm not just playing a human in a funny suit but going against the cultural grain or compensating for biological elements that simply have no parallel in real life - no matter how lithe and nimble my Tiefling Rogue is she still has a long thick tail and full horns. She has to learn how to compensate for those things in a world which is mostly designed for beings without those particular traits. Likewise the particular bonuses of the Tiefling give me a good idea how to get inside their heads. The average Tiefling is just a shade sharper than the average human, and a shade more charismatic. Even if I personally dump those stats it still feels like I'm bouncing off something if that makes sense.

(I'm using Tieflings here because they are my favourite race but it applies to all the others too.)

[x3n0n]

I will believe that they are sincerely trying to address an issue like this with no motivation when a press release isn't released during a turbulent time, announcing very big deal rule variants without playtest (going against their whole 5e philosphy) and on a relatively short timescale. Then the end result is as sloppy as it is doesn't help their case of independent sincerity.

Re: "sloppy", that's not the word I'd use. If their goal was to concisely describe a system that lets you change the features of your origin to account for individual differences in fictional upbringing and innate characteristics, I'm not sure how to greatly improve on its concision, precision, or flexibility. I think most complaints I've heard are "it's so flexible that players can create origins that don't make sense (and potentially (ab)use that power for mechanical advantage)" (or conversely "it isn't powerful enough to get rid of all the things that upset people, so why bother?").

I think most people agree that the language thing is a non-issue: added flexibility, easily described, not particularly abusable.

We've talked a lot about the ability scores. If they were going to do anything even vaguely similar, this seems like the cleanest description to write in the book. This way, there aren't even any exceptions like v.human.

That just leaves proficiencies. I'm not sure how else they could have accomplished their goal in less than a page of writing. It still bothers me that one can so easily "abuse" it, but it's probably not a real-world problem for players who actually talk to their DMs. Social norms can accomplish a lot. ("Don't abuse this: I don't believe that every single dwarf and elf in the whole world is trained in lock picking.")

All in all, I wouldn't say sloppy.

Process comments: it's definitely a departure from their preferred process. But if we message-board people are this upset about an appendix of an AL document, how could this not be an even bigger firestorm if they had released it as UA? And then when (say) 30+% of people absolutely hate it and they decide to keep it anyway, how does that look? This way, only the really invested people see it before the book comes out, and the fights stay on the message boards.

Which brings me to the last: I suspect the people who wrote this believe it's the right thing to do, mostly because many of them sympathize with the real life concerns. That is, the people who sell the rules are among those who would happily buy them. Of course they're motivated by PR/sales appeal, but that's their expressed goal! How can they *not* make such a variant rule, especially when a significant portion of their fan base vocally wants it? This way, they can even invite those players to play in AL instead of "forcing" them to play at home.

tl;dr: They came up with an easily-described and easily-understood variant rule that lets more players make the characters they want and play them in a public setting. It seems like good business and decent game design within their constraints (tens of already-printed races and subraces to retcon in less than a page of text).

[Boci]

That's actually what I'm afraid of: that we are looking at the road ahead to 6ed and I don't much like it.

My favourite race in D&D are Tieflings, partly for their backstory and partly for their aesthetics (they have an amazing look.) Having said that I recognise that their attribute bonuses don't translate well to certain classes. That can be irksome if I want to play a Tiefling Rogue or Fighter but it also gives me a strong sense that I'm not just playing a human in a funny suit but going against the cultural grain or compensating for biological elements that simply have no parallel in real life - no matter how lithe and nimble my Tiefling Rogue is she still has a long thick tail and full horns. She has to learn how to compensate for those things in a world which is mostly designed for beings without those particular traits. Likewise the particular bonuses of the Tiefling give me a good idea how to get inside their heads. The average Tiefling is just a shade sharper than the average human, and a shade more charismatic. Even if I personally dump those stats it still feels like I'm bouncing off something if that makes sense.

I can understanding that fear, but I think there's 2 things worth barring in mind:

1. 6ed won't be coming for several years at least, and a lot can change in that time. Wizards will gather data, see how often this varient rule is used, and based on that they wuill decide, but I imagine it would have to be hugely popular to be anything but a varient rule in 6ed, and

2. If this becomes the default rule in 6ed, something I already find unlikely, races will be designed with this in mind, they will be given abilities with the design knowledge that racial attribute bonuses aren't a thing, and so the existing traits will be made to compensate for that, giving the race increased relevance and quite possibily a preferred class, just in more subtles ways than a stat boost.

[JackPhoenix]

Bludgeoning feels like a physical damage type, while the others are clearly energy-typed. I would've preferred if they'd used acid.

Acid being associated with earth was stupid since it was introduced. It makes no sense.

[Luccan]

I think Sonic might've been ok, but that has been converted to Thunder and given to the Djinni. Force seems too good. Not sure what else you could use

[Mjolnirbear]

I mean, I'm not going to make this argument seriously, but I could take the "why are you wanting to punish these pour creative souls?" argument and turn it around to be, "Why are we coddling these entitled whiners who want a free +1 bonus on their most important rolls but aren't willing to make a choice that legitimately gives it to them?"

For me, it's more "You can start with a 16 or 17 in one stat, so long as you only do it the way I want you to." It irks. There is no mechanical reason for not starting with a 16. Anyone can do it. But I'm forced to take the human-ish one instead of the scaley one, because someone who's not even playing at this table with this lore and setting decided All Tieflings Are Sexy And Smart ^{(but also terrifying and so misunderstood, single lonely tear)}

People who only powergame will always pick an option to get the 16. In their Mental Manufacturing Map they see the goal and slot alternatives in until they find the one they want best. Race is just a cool skin they slapped on at the end.

The one that wants a cool story, their Mental Manufacturing Map is partly blocked by the story. They want an elf raised by hobgoblins that's a barbarian, so all they see is a single path with no crossroads of choice. So they slot in the options, and find their elf just isn't as strong as they pictured. Their Strong Barbarian is, necessarily, a Second-Rate Barbarian.

What's wrong with the Tale Of The Strongest Goblin anyways? Why can't the kobold, that lived with dragons, and when their dragon died drank its blood, and became a sorcerer, be the strongest sorcerer? Because some dude in sweat pants decided I don't get to decide my own character's best strength for myself? Why must the kobold always be one step behind someone else, when he works just as hard and got a serious magical juice in his veins thanks to a quick nibble?

I could rewrite the story, you might say. And sure, I could. The point though is that right now, I *must* rewrite the story. I have to change my mind on something, because the Skin I want doesn't have *everything* I want. The Skin should be cosmetic, malleable, to tell a story but allow you to break free of stereotype.

I want my Tiefling to have the Strength of Demogorgon. I want my gnome to be a wise druid. I want my dwarf to be the best damn inventor under the mountain. I want my character to be Epic, not Second Best. I want the Skin to be a Cosmetic Purchase, not a Buy (-in) To Win.

But what I have is one of two choices: be a powergamer and play to win, or be second-best just cause I dislike stereotypes. The powergamer doesn't care about the stereotypes, and people like me are "really, another elf ranger? Why not an elf barbarian??" I can make an elf barbarian, but for some reason it must therefore be the Mediocre Barbarian.

There's nothing wrong with powergaming. It's just not the reason I play. "Breaking the mold" is one of the things I enjoy, but I can't do it without sacrificing Awesome Fighter.

I want to have my cake, and eat it too. I don't want to have to give up one part of the game I enjoy in order to enjoy the Skin I chose, because the powergamer doesn't have to make that sacrifice. He gets everything he wants and doesn't need to make any sacrifices because the 'sacrifice' he has to make doesn't actually matter to him. For him, any Skin is good enough.

For me, the Skin really matters. For him, no sacrifice because he doesn't care. But for me, it's an actual sacrifice. I have to give something up. I can choose between Skin I Want and Less-Talented At Thing I Should Be Best At.

Simply because my playstyle and what I get out of the game is different than powergamers.

Does that help demonstrate why it feels sometimes like a punishment?

[Edea]

Acid being associated with earth was stupid since it was introduced. It makes no sense.

Disagree.

Could also pick a different energy type, I suppose, but it should be an energy type, not slashing, piercing or bludgeoning.

[Segev]

Starting at 15 rather than 16 or 17 is not really “sacrificing awesome fighter.” Nor is it “breaking the mold” when all you’ve done is made it do that the skin you want to wear fits in the mold.

At least, that’s how I see it. I suppose if it lets you feel differently, that’s good for you and your table.

[Sindal]

Starting at 15 rather than 16 or 17 is not really “sacrificing awesome fighter.” Nor is it “breaking the mold” when all you’ve done is made it do that the skin you want to wear fits in the mold.

At least, that’s how I see it. I suppose if it lets you feel differently, that’s good for you and your table.

That's probably the main point here.

To some people, getting to have the stats that support their class (the more important part of your character, because it defines what you are able to do in this make believe game) is valuable.

They can do this in the current system "if they pick the races that do this". Which gives some people a dilemma. Not everyone, because some people will want to be a big strong goliath with a giant hammer anyway. But a dilema non the less.

Do I:
1) pick thr race that fits my class but not my mental image all thay great.
Or
2) pick the race and class that I want, but understand that I will be hampered.

Because you will be slightly hampered. Because stat increases are not that easy to come by.

I will be functional, no doubt. But I will be hampered. And that's not a big deal to you because you understand that it's not going to be thr death of a character. Which is fine, that's a valid viewpoint to have.

In the new optional rule, this is no longer a question. I can simply change one aspect of the race ( the stats they usually come with) and leave everything else the same. The same racials. The same size. The same background. The same lore. The same everything else about the race that makes it appealing because stats are alot more than what makew a race a race.

This rule is intended to be a fix for people who happen to have a class interest thay contradicts their race. It enables other combos, but at the end of the day those combos (in my opinion) are not that big of a deal.

[Dork_Forge]

Re: "sloppy", that's not the word I'd use. If their goal was to concisely describe a system that lets you change the features of your origin to account for individual differences in fictional upbringing and innate characteristics, I'm not sure how to greatly improve on its concision, precision, or flexibility. I think most complaints I've heard are "it's so flexible that players can create origins that don't make sense (and potentially (ab)use that power for mechanical advantage)" (or conversely "it isn't powerful enough to get rid of all the things that upset people, so why bother?").

I think most people agree that the language thing is a non-issue: added flexibility, easily described, not particularly abusable.

Personally I don't care about the languages thing, it's the least significant part of any mechanical racial benefit.

We've talked a lot about the ability scores. If they were going to do anything even vaguely similar, this seems like the cleanest description to write in the book. This way, there aren't even any exceptions like v.human.

Creating races that are clearly the best stat wise doesn't seem to fit what their desired intent was, multiple posters suggested giving a unifying 2/1 stat boost to those that choose to use the variant.

That just leaves proficiencies. I'm not sure how else they could have accomplished their goal in less than a page of writing. It still bothers me that one can so easily "abuse" it, but it's probably not a real-world problem for players who actually talk to their DMs. Social norms can accomplish a lot. ("Don't abuse this: I don't believe that every single dwarf and elf in the whole world is trained in lock picking.")

All in all, I wouldn't say sloppy.

Process comments: it's definitely a departure from their preferred process. But if we message-board people are this upset about an appendix of an AL document, how could this not be an even bigger firestorm if they had released it as UA? And then when (say) 30+% of people absolutely hate it and they decide to keep it anyway, how does that look? This way, only the really invested people see it before the book comes out, and the fights stay on the message boards.

Which brings me to the last: I suspect the people who wrote this believe it's the right thing to do, mostly because many of them sympathize with the real life concerns. That is, the people who sell the rules are among those who would happily buy them. Of course they're motivated by PR/sales appeal, but that's their expressed goal! How can they *not* make such a variant rule, especially when a significant portion of their fan base vocally wants it? This way, they can even invite those players to play in AL instead of "forcing" them to play at home.

tl;dr: They came up with an easily-described and easily-understood variant rule that lets more players make the characters they want and play them in a public setting. It seems like good business and decent game design within their constraints (tens of already-printed races and subraces to retcon in less than a page of text).

Your comment about it 'just being an appendix in an Adventure's Leage document' are very confusing to me, it's clearly what is going to be in the book, so what does it matter that it's an Appendix anywhere? You're also talking like an Adventurer's League document doesn't really matter, certainly not as much as UA and say that table talk etc. are what matters. This is something that has bugged me throughout this thread:

Players generally get to decide sod all about what the DM allows, if you don't like this as a player, you certainly don't have to use it, but if your home DM allows it then it's quite possible or even likely that you'll have a party member using it. Then there's it being in AL, when you put it in AL it isn't some DM gated variant rule, anyone can choose to use it and some people either play a lot of or play AL exclusively. Simply saying it's a variant means nothing for a wide amount of people and is now and will always be a thinly veiled cop out. They shoved multiclassing and feats into variants, yet they're clearly more often than not on the table for many.

To be frank, who the hell cares about negative feedback from UA in a change that was obviously coming regardless? At the very least they could have got some feedback about the rules and adjusted them to make them more balanced and sensical. Then there's one simple fact, this does't allow unconventional builds, it makes everything conventional. It's unconventional to be x class when your race gives you nonsynergistic stats for it. This is just pick whatever race you want and put your stats in the associated slots and doesn't even address controversial aspects of the race system. Making an Orcs stat bumps float doesn't rewrite the Aggressive ability or a Half Orcs Savage Attacks and Menacing.

It's a patch over it at best unless more substantial rewrites are done (which seems unlikely), the very nature of its announcement, design process and timescale don't indicate thoughtful change, they indicate politically motivated reactionary design.

So whilst you may disagree, I stand by my usage of the term 'sloppy.'

[Xervous]

My main gripe is the appearance of this being reactive short sighted half donkeyed (admittedly they’ve written themselves into a corner with the whole no errata and sacred cows) bandwagoning. It’s a minimal effort maximum profit move (and wonderful marketing on Tasha’s). Recently there were all kinds of lectures and programs on cloud computing, six sigma, blockchain and I can’t see a better explanation beyond that while I’m glancing over a corporate inbox spammed up with anti racism seminars.


Again. It’s great for customization and optimization. Balance on the implementation was simply not a consideration (again, written into a corner with no errata). The timing and current trends don’t have me fooled that WotC’s heart has grown three sizes. That’s just the shape of their new wallet in their thousand dollar coat.

[Boci]

Again. It’s great for customization and optimization. Balance on the implementation was simply not a consideration (again, written into a corner with no errata). The timing and current trends don’t have me fooled that WotC’s heart has grown three sizes. That’s just the shape of their new wallet in their thousand dollar coat.

Sure, but then for a large part Wizards probably doesn't care if D&D is good or fun, making the game fun is just a means to the end, money. And there are some people at wizards that are involved enough with the hobby that they will like this change because of what it does for the game/the avenues it opens up.

[cutlery]

("Don't abuse this: I don't believe that every single dwarf and elf in the whole world is trained in lock picking.")

Anyone who wants proficiency in thieves' tools can have it - with or without these new rule and without taking a level in rogue. The background system already makes that easy.

But what I have is one of two choices: be a powergamer and play to win, or be second-best just cause I dislike stereotypes. The powergamer doesn't care about the stereotypes, and people like me are "really, another elf ranger? Why not an elf barbarian??" I can make an elf barbarian, but for some reason it must therefore be the Mediocre Barbarian.

There's nothing wrong with powergaming. It's just not the reason I play. "Breaking the mold" is one of the things I enjoy, but I can't do it without sacrificing Awesome Fighter.

I want to have my cake, and eat it too. I don't want to have to give up one part of the game I enjoy in order to enjoy the Skin I chose, because the powergamer doesn't have to make that sacrifice. He gets everything he wants and doesn't need to make any sacrifices because the 'sacrifice' he has to make doesn't actually matter to him. For him, any Skin is good enough.

Only possible with racial traits rigidly balanced around a restricted set of classes; and unlikely to happen in a game like 5e. They've been moving away from that philosophy for some time.

The racial traits are all over the place and not really balanced with each other. This was the case before the TCoE rules; it will be the case after, too.


The two sorts of players you describe are looking for different things out of the game, and tend not to enjoy playing at the same table. The rules can't fix that.

[OldTrees1]

That's probably the main point here.

To some people, getting to have the stats that support their class (the more important part of your character, because it defines what you are able to do in this make believe game) is valuable.

They can do this in the current system "if they pick the races that do this". Which gives some people a dilemma. Not everyone, because some people will want to be a big strong goliath with a giant hammer anyway. But a dilemma nonetheless.

Um, a 15 Str is still getting to have the stats that support their class. You don't need a 16.

You are right that some people consider 15 vs 16 a dilemma, but it is being described as if it was as significant as 08 vs 18. And maybe it is that significant in their minds, but not to the d20. The d20 knows that 15 vs 16 is tiny. 5E was designed (Bounded Accuracy) to ensure 15 vs 16 is tiny.

[Amnestic]

5E was designed (Bounded Accuracy) to ensure 15 vs 16 is tiny.

Man if it's such a tiny issue then you wouldn't think we'd get 20 pages of (sometimes heated) discussion about it ya know?

If the stat difference isn't important then there shouldn't be any objections, right? It's just a small variant rule that doesn't affect anything off to one side.

[JackPhoenix]

Disagree.

Could also pick a different energy type, I suppose, but it should be an energy type, not slashing, piercing or bludgeoning.

Why not? When someone describes "damage from earth", the first image that comes to mind is being hit by a rock, not being splashed with caustic liquid. It's not like earth elementals are made out of acid either.

[Segev]

With racial stats removed, you’ll still see complaints about “another [race] [class];” it just will be based on the racial traits they still have that determine complementary combinations.

Kobold barbarians likely will become common go-tos, thanks to pack tactics and having higher strength than human barbarians.

If you use elite array, the difference between a 15 and a 17 is not nothing, but doesn’t make a character unplayable. Or even noticeably weak once you get to playing. But it is a pressure to push those who will be swayed by eking every numeric advantage to play to strengths. If you roll, it’s even less impactful beyond the psychological sense of “losing out” that is nearly (but not quite) illusory.

I do get it: starting with an 18 when you could’ve had a 20 feels like you’re giving up something big. But you’re not, really.

This is why the change doesn’t really break the game overly much, but will have a profound homogenizing effect on race choices. There’s no conflicting pressure between stat array and racial features anymore. It’s much easier to find an optimal set of features to complement a class when your stat boosts will always be fitting your class.

And it isn’t really playing against type, or anything “creative” like that, when the type is an informed attribute. “Oh, mountain dwarves are all stolid warriors and are often fighters,” the fluff might say, but any player examining them closely will see clearly that they make much better full arcane casters due to their only features being overwritten by class features if they go for a martial class, or even rogue or a divine caster.

Every PC mountain dwarf is pressured more strongly into an arcane caster class now than any elf was pressured away from barbarian or half-orc was pressured away from wizard, before.

When every drow is a misfit good guy rebelling against his evil culture, is the culture really evil? When an even distribution of classes exists amongst dragonborn, is there any way to play “against type?” (Maybe a bad example; I’m not sure what stereotypes exist for dragonborn. But pick any race you like for this example.)

Creativity suggests innovation. Perhaps in a clever way to make something work better than expected, or in a way to deal with less-than-perfectly-optimal situations. This change makes these “unusual” concepts not unusual, but just the new meta.

“Wow! It’s rare to see a five-color sliver deck!”
“Well, not so much anymore, now that any land taps for any color.”

[Boci]

Man if it's such a tiny issue then you wouldn't think we'd get 20 pages of (sometimes heated) discussion about it ya know?

If the stat difference isn't important then there shouldn't be any objections, right? It's just a small variant rule that doesn't affect anything off to one side.

Small characters being uanble to wield heavy weapons is a pretty minor issue as well, it certainly wouldn't break anything to let them, and yet some group won't waive that rule because they dislike the end result. Same with this rule, its fine, its good, but its not for everyone. Some groups will prefer not to use it, like multiclassing and feats.

[JackPhoenix]

And it isn’t really playing against type, or anything “creative” like that, when the type is an informed attribute. “Oh, mountain dwarves are all stolid warriors and are often fighters,” the fluff might say, but any player examining them closely will see clearly that they make much better full arcane casters due to their only features being overwritten by class features if they go for a martial class, or even rogue or a divine caster.

Well, kinda. The armor and weapon proficiencies dwarves have mean every dwarf is a bit of a fighter, the cantrip and the weapon proficiencies means all high elves are tiny bit of a wizard and a fighter, and the extra damage and bonus action options means every goblin is a bit of a rogue, regardless of actual class. The attribute bonuses, on the other hand, make it so dwarf fighters, high elven wizards and fighters or goblin rogues still have a reason to pick the race/class combo, despite the redundant features.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, there's the half-orc, who doesn't really make anyone a bit of a barbarian, but whose features and ASI strongly synergize with the barbarian class.

And then there's the hobgoblin, who makes everyone a bit of a fighter, but doesn't have anything to offer to actual fighters, while also lacking the iconic ability of NPC hobgoblins.

[Boci]

And then there's the hobgoblin, who makes everyone a bit of a fighter, but doesn't have anything to offer to actual fighters, while also lacking the iconic ability of NPC hobgoblins.

I don't mind this personally. I like that it makes sense that mono-raced cultures broadly gravitate to what they are good at, but also like it when there's an acception to the rule.

"Hobgoblins don't make good fighters"

"Sorry, what was that? Couldn't hear you while we developed a production base, supply lines and tactics to conquier half a continent. Anyway, what have you been up to?" (Ofcourse the warrior vs. solider debate is also relevant here)

Lacking the iconic ability of hobgoblins is a bigger issue for me, but thats just a thing in 5e. Still I would quite possible change that if a player ever wanted to roll a hobgoblin.

[OldTrees1]

Man if it's such a tiny issue then you wouldn't think we'd get 20 pages of (sometimes heated) discussion about it ya know?

If the stat difference isn't important then there shouldn't be any objections, right? It's just a small variant rule that doesn't affect anything off to one side.

There are over 1000 pages in 3E about 18 vs 16 and this thread is connected to an announcement reacting to IRL events, and we are hoping for removal of ability modifier penalties. If this thread reaches 50 pages I will not be surprised.

However when you actually take the time, away from the Handbooks, and actually do an objective impartial analysis of the math you will notice that 15 vs 16 is not a big deal in 5E bounded accuracy world. Orcs having a -2 Int is a big deal (which I am expect to be removed). But my Barbarian having a 14 instead of a 17 would not be a big deal and this change only really affects 16/16/14 -> 15/14/14 in the worse case scenario. It is more like 16 -> 15 in other scenarios.

That said, I can see the rule accomplishes its goal. I just also see people not liking the complete removal of species ability modifiers (which is what this rule basically amounts to thematically).