"Customizing your Origin in D&D"

[Boci]

Ah, the 14/14/14/14/10/10 (sorted) stat line is not one I'm used to seeing, and helps me understand why this doesn't matter to you as much.

Thanks!

Yeah, also funny story, I had to check my character sheet to get her precise state line, I didn't remember by heart, and when I did I also saw her trinket. I roll for trinket last, so I already had her character. Minor Drow noble doing drow stuff in the underdark, private tutor, bit of fencing, learning the game of politics, stint at the Lolth temple, goes on a surface raid, falls in love with the stary sky and decides to stay there. Fairly standed stuff for playing a non-evil drow.

What do I roll for my trinket? "a shard of crystal that glows in the moon light", which just fit so perfectly. He had a bracelet with a shard of crystal embedded in it, she'd worn it for years, and the first time she goes to the surface she sees it also glows.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

I just don't see how a 15 vs. a 17, or an 18 vs. a 20, cripples a build to the point that it can't keep up with the others that are more in alignment. I do see why it creates pressure to play the thing that synergizes well, but I think that pressure is a good thing. Not a compulsion, not a punishment for not going with the pressure, but a reward nonetheless that helps explain in-character why certain class/race combinations are more common than others.

Let's look at the standard array: [15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8]

Let's assign stats to a wood elf barbarian with and without the new rules. Under standard rules, the wood elf gets +2 Dex, +1 Wis.

Without even thinking about stat modifiers, we would blindly prioritize Str and Con (and then later reconsider whether Dex is better than Con based on what kind of armor we want to wear, if any). Int is probably our dump stat, as Cha is useful for intimidation and Wis is useful for noticing threats (not to mention avoiding being whammied).

Pre-adjustment: Str 15, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 10

Now, if we're making it under standard rules, applying the racial stat mods gives us: Str 15, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 13, Cha 10.
As we want to optimize this, we may consider shuffling things to get different final stats. Maybe even lean into the racial modifiers a bit, swapping Dex and Wisdom: Str 15, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 10. That's a pretty respectable barbarian, with an unarmored AC of 14 and an armored AC of up to 16. She also has a +2 to her Wisdom checks, which includes both insight and the all-important perception. She's only got a +2 to her attacks from stats, but the level +2s across much of the board are actually pretty nice, and certainly aren't weak. A half-feat at level 4 would get her up to a +3. It also leans nicely into the elven reputation for being aware of nature and what's going on around them, creating a somewhat different flavor of barbarian from "normal."

Let's examine this under the new rules. Same pre-adjustment stats. The new rules say that the wood elf gets a +2 and a +1 to assign wherever she likes. The obvious choices are +2 Str and +1 Dex, given this statline and class:

Str 17, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 10.

This doesn't look too terribly different from the first one, but is definitely a more stereotypical barbarian, with only a +1 to Wisdom and now a +2 to Strength rolls. She's even likely to take the same half-feat at level 4 to get up to Str 18. One can argue that the +1 to attack rolls and damage is a bigger deal than losing 1 to Wisdom checks, but if one does, one needs to remember that most spells that will take a barbarian out of a fight call for Wisdom saves. (These generate more frustration for the barbarian in my game than anything else. And before you say "elf charm resistance," let me point out that the effects she's complained most about are fear effects.)

In the end, if the +1/-1 difference is significant to you, then there is a significant shift between the second one being a more stereotypical barbarian whose race is largely irrelevant, while the first is a barbarian is informed by the unusual race choice to be a more aware, harder-to-thwart individual. If the +1/-1 difference is not significant to you, then why do you need to change the default rules?

Note: you can of course arrange the stats in other ways. I am just trying to make the best, most fair comparison I can in the simplest way possible.

With the second example, the race is only largely irrelevant specifically regarding ability scores. They might be a High Elf barbarian that uses Booming Blade in fights, which is definitely not stereotypical. Or an Aarakocra barbarian that flies around the battlefield delivering strikes from on high. Or a kobold that strategies with pack tactics to hit harder. You specifically picked Wood Elf so, let's talk about them: It means your barbarian gets to trance at night instead of sleeping, so maybe you get to take double guard duty since you're only out for 4 hours rather than 8. It means you can see in the dark, so maybe you can lean into that and take proficiency in Stealth instead of perception. You're can't be charmed, so you could establish that your character has a steel will and almost never changes their mind once it's set. ASIs are not the sole defining feature of races. People will now be able to pick based on the abilities they think are cool or interesting, rather than just Math Plus One which is uninteresting yet required to have a character as powerful as the other members of the party might be.
(And a minor point: That +1 to attack and damage rolls ends up being equivalent to a roughly ~20% DPR increase if I remember correctly. Not insignificant!)

Also: I hadn't realized before that NPCs didn't get the racial ability score bonuses! If that's the case... Why did adventurers ever get racial ASI's to begin with? Elves are apparently not more graceful and dexterous, elven adventurers just...chose to focus on training those attributes for whatever reason? Which is a strange thing to enforce on a race-wide level, specifically for adventurers and only adventurers.

This just reinforces my belief that the level 1 ASI's should have been tied to class or background, or just been free floating from the start. Race fluff about certain races being more more cunning or charismatic than others can just stay that way: fluff, and you can reinforce it in your build with the points you're given if you so choose.

[x3n0n]

With these rules in place, there is no baseline.

Just in this specific point, quoting from their doc:

"For example, if you’re a dwarf, your Constitution increases by 2, because dwarf heroes in D&D are often exceptionally tough. This increase doesn’t apply to every dwarf, just to dwarf adventurers, and it exists to reinforce an archetype. That reinforcement is appropriate if you want to lean into the archetype, but it’s unhelpful if your character doesn’t conform to the archetype."

To me, this wording looks like it acknowledges a baseline ("archetype"), which is represented by the printed mod.

This variant rule doesn't abolish the printed mod, but it allows us to ignore it. (Maybe shades of "you have to know the rule to break it?")

If/when they stop printing races without modifier "suggestions", the baseline disappears, but it doesn't happen just because they say we are allowed to override it.

What do I roll for my trinket? "a shard of crystal that glows in the moon light", which just fit so perfectly. He had a bracelet with a shard of crystal embedded in it, she'd worn it for years, and the first time she goes to the surface she sees it also glows.

Very cool! Reminds me of Eilistraee, the drow moon goddess.

[Segev]

With the second example, the race is only largely irrelevant specifically regarding ability scores. They might be a High Elf barbarian that uses Booming Blade in fights, which is definitely not stereotypical. Or an Aarakocra barbarian that flies around the battlefield delivering strikes from on high. Or a kobold that strategies with pack tactics to hit harder. You specifically picked Wood Elf so, let's talk about them: It means your barbarian gets to trance at night instead of sleeping, so maybe you get to take double guard duty since you're only out for 4 hours rather than 8. It means you can see in the dark, so maybe you can lean into that and take proficiency in Stealth instead of perception. You're can't be charmed, so you could establish that your character has a steel will and almost never changes their mind once it's set. ASIs are not the sole defining feature of races. People will now be able to pick based on the abilities they think are cool or interesting, rather than just Math Plus One which is uninteresting yet required to have a character as powerful as the other members of the party might be.
(And a minor point: That +1 to attack and damage rolls ends up being equivalent to a roughly ~20% DPR increase if I remember correctly. Not insignificant!)

And they wouldn't do any of those things without being able to have +2 to Strength? Really?

Either it matters or it doesn't. Why are you shoehorning playing a booming-blade-casting Barbarian into being a high elf? Why can't my forest gnome barbarian do that? Why is he stuck using minor illusion rather than booming blade? (Let's ignore for a moment how counter-synergistic a combat cantrip is with a barbarian's rage.)

Also: I hadn't realized before that NPCs didn't get the racial ability score bonuses! If that's the case... Why did adventurers ever get racial ASI's to begin with? Elves are apparently not more graceful and dexterous, elven adventurers just...chose to focus on training those attributes for whatever reason? Which is a strange thing to enforce on a race-wide level, specifically for adventurers and only adventurers.

That's part of why I reject the new rules' justification: it wasn't until they wrote these new rules that they "revealed" this "fact." Why, it's almost as if, prior to writing these rules, NPCs DID get the racial mods.

In fact, one of the things in the Monster Manual it recommends doing if you're building NPCs for more than a single encounter is to consider adjusting their stats for their race.

This just reinforces my belief that the level 1 ASI's should have been tied to class or background, or just been free floating from the start. Race fluff about certain races being more more cunning or charismatic than others can just stay that way: fluff, and you can reinforce it in your build with the points you're given if you so choose.

If you're going to make them float, then yes, tying them to background rather than race makes more sense. But keep in mind that the idea that NPCs don't get racial mods is part of the same rule that allows the floating mods. It is not how things always were. And it is yet another thing I find undesirable about these new rules.

Just in this specific point, quoting from their doc:

"For example, if you’re a dwarf, your Constitution increases by 2, because dwarf heroes in D&D are often exceptionally tough. This increase doesn’t apply to every dwarf, just to dwarf adventurers, and it exists to reinforce an archetype. That reinforcement is appropriate if you want to lean into the archetype, but it’s unhelpful if your character doesn’t conform to the archetype."

To me, this wording looks like it acknowledges a baseline ("archetype"), which is represented by the printed mod.

This variant rule doesn't abolish the printed mod, but it allows us to ignore it. (Maybe shades of "you have to know the rule to break it?")

If/when they stop printing races without modifier "suggestions", the baseline disappears, but it doesn't happen just because they say we are allowed to override it.

Nope, if they tell us that the suggestions don't actually apply to anybody but PCs, and that PCs are exceptional enough that they shouldn't follow the suggestions, the "suggestions" are really something they're trying to sweep under the rug and pretend don't exist without coming out and saying "yeah, we're just removing them."

[PhoenixPhyre]

@Segev I don't generally give NPCs racial mods...because I'm horribly lazy and don't want to actually update the generic stat blocks unless it's a significant NPC. A large part of that is that I don't think that the ability mods, in the scheme of things, really matter unless the NPC is going to be "on screen" for a long time. Since my basic philosophy is that the ability scores aren't directly in-universe things (they're interface simplifications to make the on-camera game go smoother), it doesn't really matter IMO.

Which is why I don't really mind the changes. They're slightly annoying, but only because they're fuel for powergamers to think mechanics-first, which is something I dislike in my games. I dislike the mentality that starting with a 15 is that big a deal compared to a 17. The d20 overpowers all of it, and people have issues with probability. The times you missed by 1 are much more salient mentally than all the other times where it wouldn't have mattered at all. Not more common (very much less common in fact), just more noticeable.

[GooeyChewie]

Though yes, I would say the previous rules were unreasonably restrictive, that's why they are being changed. It was possible to be unconventional before, but you were punished for it, so many simply did not. And if you make it so undesirable that many don't bother, then is there really a difference between "Can't" and "Shouldn't"?

What is your definition of "unconventional"? To me, "unconventional" inherently means choosing options which are not mechanically ideal, options that you shouldn't take if you are concerned about keeping up with other builds. Thus, to me, the rules change doesn't so much allow players to make unconventional builds as it makes previously unconventional builds conventional (and in some cases makes previously conventional builds unconventional).

[x3n0n]

Nope, if they tell us that the suggestions don't actually apply to anybody but PCs, and that PCs are exceptional enough that they shouldn't follow the suggestions, the "suggestions" are really something they're trying to sweep under the rug and pretend don't exist without coming out and saying "yeah, we're just removing them."

That seems like an uncharitable interpretation that ignores the words in the document to me. It may be that their intention is as you say, but that's not what the words say.

(Nit: all PCs are adventurers. Are all adventurers PCs? If not, as implied by the existence of fiction that wasn't actual role play, then I think they never said "the suggestions don't actually apply to anybody but PCs".)

[Segev]

@Segev I don't generally give NPCs racial mods...because I'm horribly lazy and don't want to actually update the generic stat blocks unless it's a significant NPC.

Same here, honestly, unless I'm taking the time to write up the NPCs specifically for longer use than one encounter, or it's a variant that will show up a lot. (e.g. a bunch of dwarven bandits might get the thug template updated with dwarven traits if the party will encounter a lot of them.)

[Boci]

Same here, honestly, unless I'm taking the time to write up the NPCs specifically for longer use than one encounter, or it's a variant that will show up a lot. (e.g. a bunch of dwarven bandits might get the thug template updated with dwarven traits if the party will encounter a lot of them.)

I feel that often makes them weaker. Since they don't have a feat they're presumably non-varient humans, which means they have +1 to all stats, so unless the stat was odd, +2 won't increase the modifer, whilst an even stat without a bonus now drops a bracket.

[Segev]

I feel that often makes them weaker. Since they don't have a feat they're presumably non-varient humans, which means they have +1 to all stats, so unless the stat was odd, +2 won't increase the modifer, whilst an even stat without a bonus now drops a bracket.

Heh, actually, I hadn't considered that they were non-varient humans, and never dropped the +1 from everything, so it definitely made them stronger. :P

[Boci]

Heh, actually, I hadn't considered that they were non-varient humans, and never dropped the +1 from everything, so it definitely made them stronger. :P

That works too. You could also considered them to be raceless, and so if you decide they're human they get +1 to every stat. Plenty of ways to do it.

[OldTrees1]

As to the "15 vs 16 doesn't matter that much" argument, I think about a table where two people choose the same class. Will the elf barbarian player notice or feel like they're lagging behind the half orc? Is it noticeable? Would this be discouraging to a new player?

I think yes, but that's entirely due to my personal experiences of seeing newbies build mediocre characters and then getting frustrated when their stats aren't that great compared to the rest of the table.

Based on my personal experience in AL and watching new players join through AL:

Players, especially new players, tend to have irrational and superstitious beliefs about dice and their own "skill at rolling". It takes a while before a player stops feeling "I am terrible at rolling a d20" (uncommonly it is "I am great at rolling a d20") to "A d20 is just a fair RNG for 1-20 with a flat distribution".

This can cause them feel their 16 is worse than someone else's 15. Read that sentence again. Players can feel something that is factually false.

So if the issue exists independent of this topic, I suggest it is addressed independent of this topic. [Fix Problems at the source, not elsewhere] So for 15 vs 16, it really is not noticable to new players and once noticed (say due to hearing an overzealous opinion) it is only a short jump to also hearing that 5E has bounded accuracy so the Devs did not need to worry about a difference between 12 vs 20 (much less 15 vs 16).

But I hear you, which is why I think something in the middle would work even better. Say change all +2/+1 species to a +1 species but PCs get 2 floating +1s. That makes it a difference of 16 vs 16 without the downsides of the new rule. (Although the new rule is simple and does accomplish its objectives).

Although since I hear you, I also how you noticed why I mentioned 15 vs 16 is tiny. Nothing was locked out or prohibited before. You could have Elf Barbarians in the old system. I was correcting the hyperbole.

[cutlery]

When every drow is a misfit good guy rebelling against his evil culture, is the culture really evil?

I think a misfit lawful person rebelling from the chaos of drow culture is more interesting, but that's me.

That's not really the issue. D&D largely stopped saying all drow even around the time they were itnroduced when they were a playable race, before even Driz'zt. The problem was that the sadistic demon worshipping slave taking borderline stupid evil underdark cities culture had become synonemous with the drow.

The PHB specifically calls Drow out as possibly not playable:

"Drow adventurers are rare, and the race does not exist in all worlds. Check with your Dungeon Master to see if you can play a drow character." (PHB p. 24)

So the fact you might not get to play one is baked in to the rules, even in 5e.


Anyway, Drow were first called out as playable in 2e; in the Complete Book of Elves (1992). The Crystal Shard was released in 1988; one year before the release of second edition.

The character preceded Drow as a playable race, and they are still not core.

[RossN]

Whilst my preference to have MC allowed as well, I would avoid using the term "too restrictive" to describe a fairly common playstyle. Yes, its a bit wierd for me that without MC taking one level of fighter locks you away permenently from every knowing how to sneak attack or having access to a domain, but eh, its D&D these things happen, I can still happily play at the table.

As for this varient rule, I don't like it. I like elves being natural more graceful than other races. Its not cultural, they are literally born. I play a lot of PF and 3.5, where elves are not only born more graceful than humans, they're also born frailer. I really don't mind it. Its by no means a deal breaker, but I'm not even sure I would use it if playing at a group that did. I had a drow druid once that had 14 wisdom, and if i remade her, I can't say I'd love her concept much more if she had 16 instead. In fact being graceful and charismatic was an important part of how I imagined her. If I was going to use an option on her, it would probably be weapon training.

That does sound a really cool character. :)

I've often considered a Dwarf Wizard (there is plenty of cool art out there that inspires me) and to me that very Dwarvish... 'sturdiness' feels like it would have to be a part of the character even if I put my lower scores in Strength and/or Constitution. Likewise I'd see the lack of an Intelligence bonus not as a punishment but more that they came from a culture and way of lie were the whole wizardly pursuit of magic was alien.

[Boci]

So the fact you might not get to play one is baked in to the rules, even in 5e.

Which seems to be exactly the kind of thing wizards are now trying to undo in line with the press release. This supports my argument, that drow can be considered problematic because their culture having grown to represent the entire race.

"Drow adventurers are rare" is the players handbook overstepping IMO. That's up to the DM. What they meant is "Drow adventurers are rare in FR".

Anyway, Drow were first called out as playable in 2e; in the Complete Book of Elves (1992). The Crystal Shard was released in 1988; one year before the release of second edition.

I heard they were introduced in a module from the previous edition, before Crystal Shards.

and they are still not core.

They still are core, even with a "check your DM" tag. They're in the PHB and not marked as varient.

I think a misfit lawful person rebelling from the chaos of drow culture is more interesting, but that's me.

To me that sounds like a very one note difference.

"I left the underdark, I didn't fit in"

"Because you're good, not evil?"

"No, because I'm lawful, not chaotic"

I don't really see where that goes any different from there, especially since the difference isn't as stark. Drow society is quite regimented, which multiple segregations not based off raw power, which doesn't sound chaotic.

That does sound a really cool character. :)

I've often considered a Dwarf Wizard (there is plenty of cool art out there that inspires me) and to me that very Dwarvish... 'sturdiness' feels like it would have to be a part of the character even if I put my lower scores in Strength and/or Constitution. Likewise I'd see the lack of an Intelligence bonus not as a punishment but more that they came from a culture and way of lie were the whole wizardly pursuit of magic was alien.

I do like that way od handling a dwarven wizard as a character, and my drow druid was also inspired by a picture.

[Wildstag]

I know that this specific argument hasn't been talked on for a couple pages, but the idea that if a campaign setting is problematic, it shouldn't be changed and a new one should be used...

That's what happened in the shift from 3E to 4E to 5E, so why not just change it again? In 3E, the default was Oerth, and that was changed to Nentir Vale / Forgotten Realms for 4E. Then in 5E, it was made firmly as Forgotten Realms. If the lore (or the past) of a setting has a history of being one way, and a large part of the audience likes it despite (or because of) that past, just leave it be.

There are already less problematic settings out there? Why couldn't the main setting change to be Eberron instead? There's nothing stopping WotC, and the setting has a following among the older fans of 3E anyway. If Forgotten Realms are an issue for new players, and there's already a setting that has a fanbase in the older fans, shift to the one that is guaranteed to work.

I haven't seen a convincing argument against shifting to a new campaign setting that drops a lot of these problems. Tropes can change as a culture does, but erasing the past and covering it up with retcons or rewritten history is just as problematic. It is far better to leave something as it was but with a contextual message than it is to erase the problem and pretend it never happened.

As the overall debate stands, this highlights a noteworthy divide. In the playtest of DnDNext, for a long time WotC wanted ability score adjustments (ASA for short in the rest of the comment) to be derived from Backgrounds and Class. That lasted for several stages, but eventually the players voices could not be ignored any longer and the designers reattached the ASA system to race.

The larger part of the long-time fans of the game seem in favor of ASA being tied to race. The newer fans are adamantly against it (or at least if not the majority, a very loud minority is). There is really no way for WotC to move forward with any changes to ASAs without splitting their fanbase in some way. Making it a variant will not be enough, it is too wishy-washy a decision.

My personal thought is that it would be better to keep ASAs tied to race, but then remove all cultural abilities from races. Size, type, and biologic functions would remain part of the core racial features. Backgrounds would then have a couple features tied to them as well. So as an example, the centaur body type feature would remain, as would minotaur horns, a dragonborn's breath weapon, and dwarven resilience. Make culture and upbringing matter for everything else in the character creation phase.

If a race is to be more than just "palette-swapped human", then it must also have certain aspects tied directly to biology. So as an example, a centaur is part human and part horse. It'd be hard to argue in any sense that a horse is not inherently stronger than a human. Alternatively, if a dwarf is already resistant to poisons, a Constitution bonus would make sense. Orcs grow to be physically larger and are built stockier than humans , so giving a Strength bonus should not be an issue (it's not problematic when Goliaths do it!).

Tying mental ASAs to race is where most people tend to have an issue, and I'd say the arguments there are harder to justify. It'd be hard to argue, if we placed Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, Habilis, and Erectus in a room that Sapiens would have an edge intellectually over the others. After all, we've existed a lot less time than the others, and yet only we progressed to domestication of animals and advanced tool-making. So when compared to us, you might say those three have an intelligence penalty, or alternatively, you might say Sapiens has an intelligence bonus. But when Sapiens is the baseline surrounded by all these similarly intelligent species (D&D creatures), one that is more technologically advanced could reasonably have an Intelligence bonus. A species that has stronger senses could be argued to have higher Wisdom, as they perceive more than the baseline does. A creature that has an inherent allure without effort could easily have a Charisma bonus.

There shouldn't be a stigma towards biology at all. It could be equated in some ways to eugenics, but if we allow progress to be halted because of a single similarity to "insert bad thing here", we regress as a society instead of progress. Acceptance of biological limitations and strengths isn't a bad thing; rather, it makes personal growth more possible.

[RossN]

Tying mental ASAs to race is where most people tend to have an issue, and I'd say the arguments there are harder to justify. It'd be hard to argue, if we placed Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, Habilis, and Erectus in a room that Sapiens would have an edge intellectually over the others. After all, we've existed a lot less time than the others, and yet only we progressed to domestication of animals and advanced tool-making. So when compared to us, you might say those three have an intelligence penalty, or alternatively, you might say Sapiens has an intelligence bonus. But when Sapiens is the baseline surrounded by all these similarly intelligent species (D&D creatures), one that is more technologically advanced could reasonably have an Intelligence bonus. A species that has stronger senses could be argued to have higher Wisdom, as they perceive more than the baseline does. A creature that has an inherent allure without effort could easily have a Charisma bonus.

There shouldn't be a stigma towards biology at all. It could be equated in some ways to eugenics, but if we allow progress to be halted because of a single similarity to "insert bad thing here", we regress as a society instead of progress. Acceptance of biological limitations and strengths isn't a bad thing; rather, it makes personal growth more possible.

I don't have a problem with mental ASAs. Why shouldn't a completely different fictional species be smarter or dumber than humans?

Do Star Trek fans have issue with the idea that Vulcans are on average more intelligent than humans?

[Boci]

I know that this specific argument hasn't been talked on for a couple pages, but the idea that if a campaign setting is problematic, it shouldn't be changed and a new one should be used...

I don't think anyone is against this, I don't recall someone saying we should totally keep FR as the default setting but rewrite the history to white-wash the impliciations of the setting.

As for an argument against it, well, as you mention Eberron is kinda the only choice and with skyscrapers, flying ships and trains on the "main" continent is a tough sell to be the default setting. Other than that we have Greyhawk and Dragonlance, which I don't think are that much different to FR, or a new setting entirely, which would almost certainly lack the selling power of a setting that has been around for decades.

I'd like WotC to do it, certainly wouldn't mind, I have no love for FR, but I'm skeptical they will.

[JackPhoenix]

Also: I hadn't realized before that NPCs didn't get the racial ability score bonuses! If that's the case... Why did adventurers ever get racial ASI's to begin with? Elves are apparently not more graceful and dexterous, elven adventurers just...chose to focus on training those attributes for whatever reason? Which is a strange thing to enforce on a race-wide level, specifically for adventurers and only adventurers.

Except that's not true. NPCs still get the bonuses:

If you want to take an NPC stat block and adapt it for a specific monster race, apply the ability modifiers and add the features listed in the NPC Features table. If the NPC's AC, hit points, attack bonus, or damage changes, recalculate its challenge rating.

[KorvinStarmast]

The setting should stand on its own.

Amen. And that can take some work; ask any author.

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

It isn't.

It’s a minimal effort maximum profit move (and wonderful marketing on Tasha’s).

I'd not thought of that, but I suspect that you are correct.

[RossN]

I don't think anyone is against this, I don't recall someone saying we should totally keep FR as the default setting but rewrite the history to white-wash the impliciations of the setting.

As for an argument against it, well, as you mention Eberron is kinda the only choice and with skyscrapers, flying ships and trains on the "main" continent is a tough sell to be the default setting. Other than that we have Greyhawk and Dragonlance, which I don't think are that much different to FR, or a new setting entirely, which would almost certainly lack the selling power of a setting that has been around for decades.

I'd like WotC to do it, certainly wouldn't mind, I have no love for FR, but I'm skeptical they will.

Multiple aspects of Eberron annoy me and I'd be very disappointed if it became the default but I have to concede it's popularity.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't think anyone is against this, I don't recall someone saying we should totally keep FR as the default setting but rewrite the history to white-wash the impliciations of the setting.

As for an argument against it, well, as you mention Eberron is kinda the only choice and with skyscrapers, flying ships and trains on the "main" continent is a tough sell to be the default setting. Other than that we have Greyhawk and Dragonlance, which I don't think are that much different to FR, or a new setting entirely, which would almost certainly lack the selling power of a setting that has been around for decades.

I'd like WotC to do it, certainly wouldn't mind, I have no love for FR, but I'm skeptical they will.

It's not like they haven't created a default setting for an edition before. Nentir Vale is pretty good, as far as generic settings go. Best thing about 4e, really.

[Boci]

It's not like they haven't created a default setting for an edition before. Nentir Vale is pretty good, as far as generic settings go. Best thing about 4e, really.

Yeah, but then they chose not to do that 5e, presumably for a reason, possibly relating to market research. Maybe when 6e comes around they'll feel differently/the audience will change, but my guess is they won't make a generic setting just for 6e.

I mentioned earlier liking the sound of Wildemont, but someone else said it was unlikely.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Based on my personal experience in AL and watching new players join through AL:

Players, especially new players, tend to have irrational and superstitious beliefs about dice and their own "skill at rolling". It takes a while before a player stops feeling "I am terrible at rolling a d20" (uncommonly it is "I am great at rolling a d20") to "A d20 is just a fair RNG for 1-20 with a flat distribution".

This can cause them feel their 16 is worse than someone else's 15. Read that sentence again. Players can feel something that is factually false.

So if the issue exists independent of this topic, I suggest it is addressed independent of this topic. [Fix Problems at the source, not elsewhere] So for 15 vs 16, it really is not noticable to new players and once noticed (say due to hearing an overzealous opinion) it is only a short jump to also hearing that 5E has bounded accuracy so the Devs did not need to worry about a difference between 12 vs 20 (much less 15 vs 16).

But I hear you, which is why I think something in the middle would work even better. Say change all +2/+1 species to a +1 species but PCs get 2 floating +1s. That makes it a difference of 16 vs 16 without the downsides of the new rule. (Although the new rule is simple and does accomplish its objectives).

Although since I hear you, I also how you noticed why I mentioned 15 vs 16 is tiny. Nothing was locked out or prohibited before. You could have Elf Barbarians in the old system. I was correcting the hyperbole.

The difference between a 15 and a 16 isn't tiny, though. If you're talking about dex, for example, that's +1 to your initiative, to what is arguably the most common (maybe 2nd most? not sure) save in the game, to a suite of some of the most important skill rolls in the game (including stealth which is basically necessary for a rogue and directly contributes to DPR in some situations), to your armor class, to your to hit chance, and to your damage. That all adds up in a very significant way, it isn't just a "new player" issue. Even just focusing on DPR instead of the other fringe benefits, it's a huge benefit! Look at what LudicSavant posted earlier in the thread:

Just as a note: It's not actually true that a +1 is only a +5% improvement in outcomes.

For a relatively simple example, let's say you hit 50% of the time, and deal 1d8+4 damage. Then you get +1 strength, and then hit 55% of the time, and deal 1d8+5 damage.

Original DPR: (.45*(1d8+4))+(.05*(2d8+4)) = 4.475
New DPR: (.5*(1d8+5))+(.05*(2d8+5)) = 5.45

Total difference: ~22%. Not 5%.[/u]

A ~22 % DPR increase is by no means tiny. Its frankly ridiculous to throw a player 20% behind other players based off their racial choice, it just plain should not function like that. Honestly, just rid the game of ability scores altogether and make everything scale off a larger proficiency bonus to compensate. That way no one is left in the dust because they chose an "incorrect" race/class combo like orc wizard.

Even if you want to maintain after all of this, that the difference is negligible... Then what is the harm in letting that orc wizard make up the "negligible" difference? There is none.

[Boci]

That seems to be the difference between 18 and 20. I'm not too good with maths, but since we're discussing 1st level characters, it should be 15 and 16. Is the different still 22% for 1d8+2 and 1d8+3? Higher, lower?

[RossN]

Yeah, but then they chose not to do that 5e, presumably for a reason, possibly relating to market research. Maybe when 6e comes around they'll feel differently/the audience will change, but my guess is they won't make a generic setting just for 6e.

I mentioned earlier liking the sound of Wildemont, but someone else said it was unlikely.

I'm genuinely surprised we haven't seen an official D&D Wuxia setting at this point. The genre is globally popular (and China itself is presumably a huge market that could be tapped) and much of the framework already can be mapped onto existing D&D rules and themes.

[cutlery]

To me that sounds like a very one note difference.

Not as the alignment system was originally introduced - or, it's exactly as one-note as leaving because a character isn't evil. As introduced (and as the novels supporting it detail) drow society is Lolth + CE, or bust.



Law and Chaos are just as important as good and evil in the original system; the only key difference for FR was that as a setting it was designed as a war between "goodly and evil races" (however simple that sounds). However, even within that setting war between Law and Chaos remains significant.



And, of course, Drow (and the Underdark) exist in Greyhawk, too.


Anyway, any option where it specifically calls out that your DM might not let you play it can't be considered core, whether or not it is in the PHB. Drow are an optional role, and it says it right there, even if the word "optional" isn't present.


Moving beyond this would be good, but to do so requires that Drow aren't always associated with a chaotic, evil empire. WotC has realized that orienting whole cultures to specific points on the alignment spectrum is negative enough for some players to move away from.

I'm curious what they'll do as far as the FR drow - it wouldn't be too terribly hard to have a few cities where Lolth is rejected; and it isn't like there's a complete map of the Underdark, anyway - it's the size of a planet (and there's more than one!). These cities don't exist as of yet, though; and nearly all of the drow who reject lolth are exiles.

I'm genuinely surprised we haven't seen an official D&D Wuxia setting at this point. The genre is globally popular (and China itself is presumably a huge market that could be tapped) and much of the framework already can be mapped onto existing D&D rules and themes.

It is rather weird - but it also seems like the sort of thing that is safer to farm out to a partner. Kara-Tur is around, I guess, and pretty much all DnD characters approach Wuxia levels of power in Tier 3.

[LudicSavant]

That seems to be the difference between 18 and 20. I'm not too good with maths, but since we're discussing 1st level characters, it should be 15 and 16. Is the different still 22% for 1d8+2 and 1d8+3? Higher, lower?

It depends on a variety of variables, such as the AC of the monster you're fighting.

But as an example, +5 to hit with 1d8+3 against AC 13 (e.g. what the DMG says is average for CRs up to 3) is about a ~24% increase in DPR over +4 to hit with 1d8+2 against the same AC.

[Boci]

Not as the alignment system was originally introduced - or, it's exactly as one-note as leaving because a character isn't evil. As introduced (and as the novels supporting it detail) drow society is Lolth + CE, or bust.

No, Drow used to be neutral evil, not chaotic. Lolth was chaotic yes, as a demon goddess, but drow society was neutral evil. They were structured to be chatoic.

Law and Chaos are just as important as good and evil in the original system; the only key difference for FR was that as a setting it was designed as a war between "goodly and evil races" (however simple that sounds). However, even within that setting war between Law and Chaos remains significant.

I get that. I just don't see how "I left the underdark because I'm good and didn't want to live in an evil society" is markedly different from "I left the underdark because I'm lawful and didn't want to live in a chaotic society", except for the latter being much weaker because characterizing lolth-drow society is questionable.

Anyway, any option where it specifically calls out that your DM might not let you play it can't be considered core, whether or not it is in the PHB. Drow are an optional role, and it says it right there, even if the word "optional" isn't present.

Its in core and isn't called out as being optional. That makes it core.

I'm curious what they'll do as far as the FR drow - it wouldn't be too terribly hard to have a few cities where Lolth is rejected; and it isn't like there's a complete map of the Underdark, anyway - it's the size of a planet (and there's more than one!). These cities don't exist as of yet, though; and nearly all of the drow who reject lolth are exiles.

I know there is a goddess for non-evil drow, I think she's in FR, so there is stuff to work with when expanding the race into multiple cultures.

It depends on a variety of variables, such as the AC of the monster you're fighting.

But as an example, +5 to hit with 1d8+3 against AC 13 (e.g. what the DMG says is average for CRs up to 3) is about a ~24% increase in DPR over +4 to hit with 1d8+2 against the same AC.

Thank you, that's good to know.

[Wildstag]

I don't think anyone is against this, I don't recall someone saying we should totally keep FR as the default setting but rewrite the history to white-wash the impliciations of the setting.

As for an argument against it, well, as you mention Eberron is kinda the only choice and with skyscrapers, flying ships and trains on the "main" continent is a tough sell to be the default setting. Other than that we have Greyhawk and Dragonlance, which I don't think are that much different to FR, or a new setting entirely, which would almost certainly lack the selling power of a setting that has been around for decades..

Earlier in this thread, there were people expressing the preference for the retconning of elements in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting to make it less problematic, and that's one of the things WotC seems to want to do with the setting anyway.

Eberron could work, but that was more an example in general. They could just as easily make an entirely new campaign setting as the default instead of changing Forgotten Realms to fit the current thought. It's not like they change Al-Qadim to fit a modern cultural idea of non-problematic settings.

I don't have a problem with mental ASAs. Why shouldn't a completely different fictional species be smarter or dumber than humans?

Do Star Trek fans have issue with the idea that Vulcans are on average more intelligent than humans?

That ignores the main reason people were against Orcs in D&D (and why it was trending on Twitter for a while). It makes sense that some races (which in the PHB is equated to species) would be more or less intelligent than humans. In fact, with my "Hominids" example, I'd say it's reasonable to say that some of those might have a Constitution or Strength bonus while having an Intelligence or Charisma penalty when compared to Sapiens (irony not lost on me).

But in practice, reflavored humanity with "big but dumb" is treated as problematic because that has roots in racist thought (allegedly). I don't really see arguments aside from that for why they shouldn't be used, and I don't favor arguments that just use "well it's tied to certain things in the past" as a core point.

P.S. That last point is actually partially why I dislike when people compare Tolkein-Orcs to D&D-Orcs, since the former is never stated to be less intelligent than the Eldar or Edain. In fact, it'd be reasonable to say they're more technologically advanced in certain ways. The D&D-Orcs really only borrow a few aspects of the appearance from Tolkien-Orcs, and aside from appearance, only keep the "all evil". There are setting reasons for why they're all evil in Tolkien's world that are lazily used with broad strokes in D&D in general.

From there, the major arguments against Tolkien-Orcs are the ways they're described, but as someone else said in the thread, "what a surprise that a man born in the 1800s might be racist!" What was not considered problematic writing back then is seen as problematic now.