"Customizing your Origin in D&D"

[ProsecutorGodot]

My take as well.

Oh well. Participation trophies and fun for all.

Good take, if something might genuinely bother someone making changes to avoid that is weak and spineless, they should just not be uncomfortable.

I've mentioned it once already but I believe the timing of these changes is the largest part of the disdain. If it weren't obviously done as part of the times I think it would be seen much more positively. I do think it's an attempt at a positive and good change, done unfortunately at a bad time and a bit lazily to boot.

[diplomancer]

Yeah, reguarding orcs being Mongol, they seem to use bows a fair bit, but so does Rohan, and lots of cultures used bows, they were useful. Certain't its hard to imagine a race being Mongols of the Ghenkis Khan era inspired when they don't ride horses. Did orcs ever ride horses in LotR? I remember one Rohan character said they would raid and steal horses, only black ones and take them to Sauron. he would have needed 9 and some spare for his Nazgul and other servants, did he do anything else with them?

If you want Mongol stand-ins in Tolkien's writings, those would be the Easterlings (as the Southrons are stand-ins for Carthaginians).

Remember, Tolkien emphatically was NOT creating a "fantasy world". He was creating a "fantasy history" and "fantasy geography". Arda is Earth.

[cutlery]

The whole notion of being "'held back' by niche modifiers" was a balancing point.

One that fall utterly flat with how many races have a big cha modifier.

I've mentioned it once already but I believe the timing of these changes is the largest part of the disdain. If it weren't obviously done as part of the times I think it would be seen much more positively. I do think it's an attempt at a positive and good change, done unfortunately at a bad time and a bit lazily to boot.

For the most part I agree, but there would always be some people irritated by changes like this.

[Finney]

My take as well.

Oh well. Participation trophies and fun for all.

You're not wrong and I don't disagree with Dr. Cliché's opinion.

However, if you divorce the motivations behind creating the variant rules and just analyze the rules in a vacuum - they seem like fun to me. I can't speak for other tables, but given the popularity of variant humans at my table - the new rules will probably go unused for the most part.

[Boci]

If you want Mongol stand-ins in Tolkien's writings, those would be the Easterlings (as the Southrons are stand-ins for Carthaginians).

Remember, Tolkien emphatically was NOT creating a "fantasy world". He was creating a "fantasy history" and "fantasy geography". Arda is Earth.

Do we know that for sure? There's a a lot to the "east" on Earth, and the only detail I remember of the Easterling was that they were fierce and demanded no quarter.

I've mentioned it once already but I believe the timing of these changes is the largest part of the disdain. If it weren't obviously done as part of the times I think it would be seen much more positively. I do think it's an attempt at a positive and good change, done unfortunately at a bad time and a bit lazily to boot.

Already been mentioned in this thread, maybe to, but with their "No errata" stance this was pretty much the only way they could do this. I feel its a fair varient rule, sloppy sure I agree, but there was no way to do it cleanly. They could have decided to errata after all, but that would have split the play expirience even more with those who use pre and post errata races. This way there is clear distinction without basically making 2 version of each race.

[Dienekes]

Good take, if something might genuinely bother someone making changes to avoid that is weak and spineless, they should just not be uncomfortable.

I've mentioned it once already but I believe the timing of these changes is the largest part of the disdain. If it weren't obviously done as part of the times I think it would be seen much more positively. I do think it's an attempt at a positive and good change, done unfortunately at a bad time and a bit lazily to boot.

I’m personally not even opposed to the timing. I don’t think there’s a bad time to be positively reformist.

I do dislike lazy mechanics though. And I absolutely see this as the laziest version of such mechanics they could achieve. I honesty would have preferred a more deliberate built from the ground up inclusive design that both allows more flexibility, while still staying true to lore. Especially in races where lore’s influence is only represented in the Ability Scores.

Even if they were only able to do it with the Core Races, I think it would be better received.

Do we know that for sure? There's a a lot to the "east" on Earth, and the only detail I remember of the Easterling was that they were fierce and demanded no quarter.

There were many different Easterlings. One of them from the Sil are the Wainriders who were expressly cavalry. Though they also used chariots, which Mongols really didn’t.

The Easterlings during the War of the Ring were not Wainriders if memory serves. They were bearded axemen, which brings to mind the Norse more than anything else.

[Boci]

I do dislike lazy mechanics though. And I absolutely see this as the laziest version of such mechanics they could achieve. I honesty would have preferred a more deliberate built from the ground up inclusive design that both allows more flexibility, while still staying true to lore. Especially in races where lore’s influence is only represented in the Ability Scores.

Even if they were only able to do it with the Core Races, I think it would be better received.

Despite disliking this varient rule, I absolutly feel this is the way to do it. They minimally split play expirience this way, and get to see how the community actually takes to the rule which gives them more feedback for 5.5 (unlikely in my opinion, it wouldn't work in the current eviroment) or 6e (a more likely canditite to see this design philosophy if they decide to stick with it).

There were many different Easterlings. One of them from the Sil are the Wainriders who were expressly cavalry. Though they also used chariots, which Mongols really didn’t.

The Easterlings during the War of the Ring were not Wainriders if memory serves. They were bearded axemen, which brings to mind the Norse more than anything else.

Okay, that makes sense.

[Segev]

One that fall utterly flat with how many races have a big cha modifier.

How so? I have not heard any +2 Cha races as having particularly good traits for non-caster classes?

[Aussiehams]

I've only read about half the thread, and I know that it's a deliberate choice, but this only works for me if all CR1 and below humanoids have 10/10/10/10/10/10 for stats.
I know they are pushing the "PCs are exceptional" line, but that is already represented in their high stat array.
The rules governing PCs being even more removed from the rest of the world is problematic for me.

[Luccan]

How so? I have not heard any +2 Cha races as having particularly good traits for non-caster classes?

I'd assume Hexblade and Cha classes being infamously better for multiclassing with each other than basically any others

[diplomancer]

Do we know that for sure? There's a a lot to the "east" on Earth, and the only detail I remember of the Easterling was that they were fierce and demanded no quarter.

Is the "that" in the question about the Mongols or about Arda being Earth? There's plenty of evidence for the second proposition in Tolkien's writings.

If it's about the Mongols, I was not exactly precise, as it's certainly not a 1 to 1 correspondence. Far less definitely than in Song of Ice and Fire, for instance. "Easterling" means "person from the East". The Mongols would be one of many different groups of "Easterlings" who invaded the West at different points in history. If you say that the Easterlings of LotR are, in the mythos, the distant ancestors of the Mongols, you would not be far wrong.

Also, the Gondorian wars described in Appendix A give a strong "Mongol invasion" vibe, specially with the wainriders.

[Boci]

Is the "that" in the question about the Mongols or about Arda being Earth?

Easterlings being the Mongols.

[diplomancer]

Yeah, because if there's one thing Tolkien is famous for, its cutting anything not directly relevant to the sotry :P

The joke is good, and I'd missed it earlier but the "mechanism" of LotR is that they are a translation from Hobbit records compiled by Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam, with some information from Merry and some lore from Gondor. Not much room there for the economy of Mordor and the lands under Sauron's control, but it IS touched upon very lightly in the Mordor chapters as how there were massive fields near Lake Nurn to feed the armies.

If I remember correctly, the ONLY moment in the whole book that "breaks" this mechanism is Gollum's almost redemption and repentance in Shelob's cave, as neither Sam nor Frodo saw that.

[Warpiglet-7]

Good take, if something might genuinely bother someone making changes to avoid that is weak and spineless, they should just not be uncomfortable.

I've mentioned it once already but I believe the timing of these changes is the largest part of the disdain. If it weren't obviously done as part of the times I think it would be seen much more positively. I do think it's an attempt at a positive and good change, done unfortunately at a bad time and a bit lazily to boot.

You are probably right about this actually.

They are lazy and not well conceived (and I am a big 5e fan). So if people think they are being given crappy rules for “reasons,” yeah.

Good rules for “reasons” pleases everyone.

The thing I will miss is playing against type such that the firbolg Paladin or orc warlock is still a little jaunty and different.

At this point we have video game skins. Good players will still play, the game will flourish etc etc

Not the end of the world in any event but hopefully not a trend (cobble things on for “reasons” without much thought to the actual long term health of the game).

[cutlery]

I'd assume Hexblade and Cha classes being infamously better for multiclassing with each other than basically any others

Basically this; it would be hard to be more broken than +2 cha and the huge pile of cha multiclass options.

[Dork_Forge]

Basically this; it would be hard to be more broken than +2 cha and the huge pile of cha multiclass options.

The number of Cha options is the same as the number of Wis options (4 and 4) followed by two primary Int options and three physical only options (two of which can utilise any mental stat as a secondary).

[RossN]

Good take, if something might genuinely bother someone making changes to avoid that is weak and spineless, they should just not be uncomfortable.

I've mentioned it once already but I believe the timing of these changes is the largest part of the disdain. If it weren't obviously done as part of the times I think it would be seen much more positively. I do think it's an attempt at a positive and good change, done unfortunately at a bad time and a bit lazily to boot.

While I dislike the changes for reasons I've stated before I think you are right that the timing plays a part in the reaction, both positive and negative.

I can see this quickly becoming a political cultural faultline at gaming tables (and indeed forums.)

[cutlery]

The number of Cha options is the same as the number of Wis options (4 and 4) followed by two primary Int options and three physical only options (two of which can utilise any mental stat as a secondary).

And if number of options was all it took, that would be fine.

The artificer is new (at least in semiofficial form) and doesn’t compare to the cha options.

Ranger+druid isn’t anything at all like the sorcerer/warlock/Paladin triad, and bards get to tap in to all of that; the same goes for monks and clerics - nothing has the synergy cha does.

[Dork_Forge]

And if number of options was all it took, that would be fine.

The artificer is new (at least in semiofficial form) and doesn’t compare to the cha options.

Ranger+druid isn’t anything at all like the sorcerer/warlock/Paladin triad, and bards get to tap in to all of that; the same goes for monks and clerics - nothing has the synergy cha does.

It would help if you actually described the synergy you were talking about. So far all you have done is mention stat based classes, and I provided you with how many of each there was.

[OldTrees1]

How so? I have not heard any +2 Cha races as having particularly good traits for non-caster classes?

Wait, you hadn't heard of Half Elves? Rogues love them. For my recent Dungeon Guide rogue I waffled between Half Elf vs Wood Elf. I could have gone either way. Those +2 Skills & Darkvision are juicy.

Half Elf Bard 1 / Arcane Trickster X
Wood Elf Knowledge Cleric 1 / Arcane Trickster X

[Finney]

While I dislike the changes for reasons I've stated before I think you are right that the timing plays a part in the reaction, both positive and negative.

I can see this quickly becoming a political cultural faultline at gaming tables (and indeed forums.)

That would be unfortunate.

Personally, I find it similar to being able to appreciate the skill, talent or artistry of an actor, musician, or athlete despite whatever political positions they hold. While the timing and motivations behind the new rules seem suspect, the rules themselves will likely make the game more fun for my players.

When it comes to my hobbies, fun is more important than politics.

[cutlery]

It would help if you actually described the synergy you were talking about. So far all you have done is mention stat based classes, and I provided you with how many of each there was.

You aren’t aware of the ways that sorcerer, warlock, and paladin can blend together to make a whole stronger than the sum of the parts?

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

My take as well.

Oh well. Participation trophies and fun for all.

This is...a very worrying take. I am glad the hobby is generally moving in a direction away from this sort of attitude. I'll refrain from saying more.

[KorvinStarmast]

When it comes to my hobbies, fun is more important than politics.

You are not alone.

I'll refrain from saying more.

REM wrote a whole song about that.

[Dork_Forge]

You aren’t aware of the ways that sorcerer, warlock, and paladin can blend together to make a whole stronger than the sum of the parts?

I am aware of synergies, there's a lot of synergies between classes, if you're going to make a claim then I'd personally rather you be clear about what you're talking about.

For example you don't rate Artificer, but it's a fantastic dip on a Wizard for many reasons.

[cutlery]

I am aware of synergies, there's a lot of synergies between classes, if you're going to make a claim then I'd personally rather you be clear about what you're talking about.

For example you don't rate Artificer, but it's a fantastic dip on a Wizard for many reasons.

Artificer isn’t core. Sorcerer, warlock, and paladin are.

[Boci]

If I remember correctly, the ONLY moment in the whole book that "breaks" this mechanism is Gollum's almost redemption and repentance in Shelob's cave, as neither Sam nor Frodo saw that.

And by this you mean because they were hardly likely to talk to him afterwards to find out what happened? Because there are several scenes in which no Hobbit is present, like the chase of the Urukhai or the jounrey through the dead mountain, the Frodo could have spoken to the trio to find out the details afterwards.

[RossN]

That would be unfortunate.

Personally, I find it similar to being able to appreciate the skill, talent or artistry of an actor, musician, or athlete despite whatever political positions they hold. While the timing and motivations behind the new rules seem suspect, the rules themselves will likely make the game more fun for my players.

When it comes to my hobbies, fun is more important than politics.

There have been people in this thread who seem to view a preference for fixed species attributes as real world racism.

As I said when I entered this thread I dislike the option so much I won't be getting Tasha's... even though other contents sounds cool. That was mostly because I think it undermines what makes each species unique, turning them into bland humans in funny suits. I still think that but getting called a racist - not personally but as someone who likes the current system - not fun.

[Warpiglet-7]

There have been people in this thread who seem to view a preference for fixed species attributes as real world racism.

As I said when I entered this thread I dislike the option so much I won't be getting Tasha's... even though other contents sounds cool. That was mostly because I think it undermines what makes each species unique, turning them into bland humans in funny suits. I still think that but getting called a racist - not personally but as someone who likes the current system - not fun.

Yep. Welcome to the new normal.

I like archetypes and maybe more importantly being able to play against type and species.

Therefore I love certain real world humans less? Absurd and not worth arguing about.

[diplomancer]

And by this you mean because they were hardly likely to talk to him afterwards to find out what happened? Because there are several scenes in which no Hobbit is present, like the chase of the Urukhai or the jounrey through the dead mountain, the Frodo could have spoken to the trio to find out the details afterwards.

Talk to Gollum, you mean? No, they certainly didn't, since Gollum betrays them almost immediately afterwards (to be more precise, he'd already betrayed them, but he had still the opportunity to tell them about it and help them get through Shelob, but decided to carry on with his plan), and is sulking and hurt for all the time between that moment and the betrayal.

As to the Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli scenes... the book takes care to have chapters where the trio TELLS Merry and Pippin what they experienced.

But there is simply no space for that in the Gollum scene. It's one of the most poignant moments in the book, partly because of that, it's the one moment Tolkien abandons his "cover as translator" to show something really important that he simply couldn't show otherwise.