On Tasha's book and racial freedom...

[ironkid]

Personally I'm perfectly fine with almost all of it.

Halflings don't get a -2 strenght. Neither do gnomes, nor goblins, so I don't see why kobolds should get it. Goblins don't get a -2 to int, so I don't see why orcs should. Can't force this on your games, of course, but personally I'm fine with it.

Trading proficiencies, I'm mostly fine with it, Makes sense for an elf raised by goliaths to speak giant and not know a word in elvish for instance. If you make a half elf raised by humans that have anger issues with his elven family side, it would make sense for her to learn dwarven instead of elvish. Again, can't force you, but I personally like it.

Switching the racial bonuses however, thaaaaaaaats too much. An wood elf raised by Goliaths will still be a natural in dex and wis, thats how genetics work. Nothing stops her from placing her highest stat in strenght and even evenctually reaching a 20 - the fact that your race isn't perfectly modeled to synergize in a class doesn't mean that you cant play it. I wouldn't use this optional rule, and wouldn't allow it in my games.

Of course I cant force you, and I wouldn't judge your game as trash just because you disagree with any of this (how many people actually makes a kobold/orc pc anyway?).

Heck, if you allow racial bonus distribution and I REALLY want to even an odd number I might redistribute a +1 into that stat "just-this-once-and-only-because-it-makes-sense-to-me that-this-race-could-have-a-plus-one-in-this"

Opinions?

[Stangler]

I homebrewed a racial bonus change where you could only move 1 point out of the +2. So Mountain Dwarves become +1 STR, +1 CON, +1(times 2) Anywhere.

I personally think moving racial bonuses around is absolutely necessary to add options to the game. Working against type is a very important part of story telling and role playing IMO. A clumsy Elf, a smart orc, a wise old goblin, or whatever captures the imagination in a different way than yet another agile elf with a bow. These type of things add layers to the possibilities and even though I think they went a little overboard it is an extremely positive change overall.

[RogueJK]

*shrug* I'm good with it.

The racial bonuses were intended to shoehorn races into certain stereotypes based on "classic" D&D/Tolkein-esque fantasy. These are fine, but having an Elven Wizard, Dwarven Fighter, Halfling Rogue, etc. in most parties gets old. And those who want to play against type end up handicapped.

What if you're from a tribe of Elven Barbarians whose last 20 generations have spent their entire lives picking up heavy things and putting them back down again? Why would you be "naturally" more dexterous but weaker than a human?

What if you're a clumsy Halfling who's socially awkward and spends all his time reading books? Why would you still start off more nimble than a Dwarf, more persuasive than an Elf, and dumber than a Gnome?


The cool part about this flexibility is that folks like you who say "ALL elves are graceful, because Tolkein" can still put that bonus straight into DEX, while the person who wants to play the clumsy yet strong Elf can do so without feeling mechanically hamstrung.

[Catullus64]

Honestly, I don't think the problem is with the proposed changes themselves, so much as their presentation. I would have preferred that rules for customizing and modifying races were much more DM-facing; less "here's how you can customize the racial benefits for your character", and more "here's how you can modify staple fantasy races to better reflect a particular culture or group in your world." That would still help games that want to expand beyond "Western high-fantasy archetype", while still preserving race as a factor that helps inform the setting.

Of course every character in D&D is unique, and not wholly defined by their race. But surely the extent to which they are unique is what every other aspect of your character is meant to present, whereas the race, to my thinking, should define the traits in which they are not unique, but rather part of a larger culture and species. If the idea of characters being informed and defined by their race is troublesome or stifling to you, then what you should do is get rid of mechanical impact of race, not turn race into essentially a modular feat that you get at 1st-level.

[RogueJK]

If the idea of characters being informed and defined by their race is troublesome or stifling to you, then what you should do is get rid of mechanical impact of race

Is that not what the flexible racial stats, or especially the additional ability to create your own custom racial lineage within a specific overall race, are basically moving towards?

I mean, it's not totally getting rid of the mechanical impact, but it's lessening it and making it to where it can be more like other races.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't think it has a place in 5e personally, they should have waited until the next edition to uproot a basic concept of character creation like this. I agree that the genetics of a race show their bonuses and that the individualism they seem to be championing with this is actually how you assign your stats (rolls, points whatever you chose). Now we are going to have a balancing nightmare because the rules were sloppily rushed out without community feedback, making some races outright superior (Half Elf and Mountain Dwarf) and making some racial abilities free to just comepletely negate downsides of some classes (tired of being a squishy Wizard? Then just be a Goliath or Half Orc, no longer squishy and still get the +2 Int you want...).

I think 5e has mostly been okay with each supplement so far (besides outliers like Ravnica backgrounds and Dragonmarks adding spells), but Tasha's as a whole looks like it'll just up end 5e as we know it.

[clash]

then what you should do is get rid of mechanical impact of race, not turn race into essentially a modular feat that you get at 1st-level.

I like these rules, but I totally get this point. Instead of giving each race floating bonuses why not just increase point buy stats and remove racial stat bonuses entirely.

[MadBear]

I love the racial stat bonus changes. Here's why:

1. PC do not equal average person. Sure the average elf has more dex then the average dwarf, but a PC is specifically special by comparison and therefore should be given leeway to exercise that.

2. Every race had the same cap anyway. A gnome and a Goliath could both get to 20 strength. So it's not like genetics actually matter much at all if the only difference is at what level.

3. Mechanically it opens up the ability for people to make more interesting characters. Now if I want to play a mad orc artificer I'm not punished for my choice.

4. Now people will pick races based upon either liking the idea of being that race, or because they like the unique traits of that race. Both of those are more interesting choices then "I guess my barbarian will be a mountain dwarf, because mechanically the stats make the most sense".

[ironkid]

Honestly, I don't think the problem is with the proposed changes themselves, so much as their presentation. I would have preferred that rules for customizing and modifying races were much more DM-facing; less "here's how you can customize the racial benefits for your character", and more "here's how you can modify staple fantasy races to better reflect a particular culture or group in your world." That would still help games that want to expand beyond "Western high-fantasy archetype", while still preserving race as a factor that helps inform the setting.

You have a very good point here. It should be presented as "hey this options might enrich your game so-and-so"; instead its like "Contractual obligations make us present this optional changes so nobody sues us so we present them to you, even if we don't really believe in them".

I'm pretty sure the way it's delivered is what bothers people, more so than the chenges themselves, as you say.

[zinycor]

I believe is a case by case scenario and will change depending on the table.

First of all, some of the racial bonuses appear to be assigned pretty arbitrarily. Like Tabaxi getting Charisma, there is the space to believe these Tabaxi would get Wisdom instead and it would not break anyone's immersion.

Second, a different racial bonus might represent better a different aspect on a race. Like some mountain dwarves getting a bonus to their intelligence to represent how good they are at crafting.

Third, it might just feel better for someone to get a better stat even with an unusual race/class combo, and at some tables that might be all that matters.

[Segev]

*shrug* I'm good with it.

The racial bonuses were intended to shoehorn races into certain stereotypes based on "classic" D&D/Tolkein-esque fantasy. These are fine, but having an Elven Wizard, Dwarven Fighter, Halfling Rogue, etc. in most parties gets old. And those who want to play against type end up handicapped.

What if you're from a tribe of Elven Barbarians whose last 20 generations have spent their entire lives picking up heavy things and putting them back down again? Why would you be "naturally" more dexterous but weaker than a human?

What if you're a clumsy Halfling who's socially awkward and spends all his time reading books? Why would you still start off more nimble than a Dwarf, more persuasive than an Elf, and dumber than a Gnome?


The cool part about this flexibility is that folks like you who say "ALL elves are graceful, because Tolkein" can still put that bonus straight into DEX, while the person who wants to play the clumsy yet strong Elf can do so without feeling mechanically hamstrung.

The "what if you're from a tribe that's totally different from the norm?" thing is handled by talking with your DM about it. By enshrining it as "well, er, any race can have any stat mod," you've thrown both the encouragement of playing to type AND a certain amount of balance out the window.

I'm for removing the -2s. They have no place in 5e.

But unfixing the stat boosts is... well. It's something they should have saved for a new edition, when they could have balanced the races around it.

This isn't good game design. And I frankly have limited sympathy for players who felt they "couldn't" play a wood elf barbarian because they didn't get a +2 Strength from race. (Not none, but limited. You also can't play an armor-wearing wizard without multiclassing or being a mountain dwarf; should I feel bad about that and encourage WotC to make wizards have all armor prof?)

[Catullus64]

Is that not what the flexible racial stats, or especially the additional ability to create your own custom racial lineage within a specific overall race, are basically doing?

Maybe. I reserve judgment until I have a final copy of the book in my hands. From what I've seen, the racial customization is a very circuitous way of accomplishing that.

And I think that the rest of my post makes it clear that, while I acknowledge its more socially problematic baggage, I do think that hard mechanical impact for specific races is a good thing, and that a modification system should fall more squarely into DM options than player options.

I know that the DM has final say on even using things like this, but when it's in print, and prominently displayed, even an "optional" rule creates pressure on the DM to allow it. I've never encountered a DM who disallowed feats, which are an "optional rule", and I think most tables would riot against one who did.

Let's say I'm running a game in which I've put a lot of time and effort into designing the setting and the cultures, and I've made it so that the hardiness of dwarves, the nimbleness of elves, or the cleverness of Gnomes is actually important, to say nothing of non-numerical racial features like Stonecunning or Trance or Artificer's Lore. If a player comes to me, and says "actually, I'm using Tasha's rules, my Gnome has +2 Strength and a different feature", I no longer feel comfortable saying no to that. I'm sure that a lot of people don't exactly pity me in that scenario, but that's just where I'm coming from.

[jaappleton]

My table actually did a CoS campaign, start to finish, with homebrewed rules that are now in Tasha's.

1. Put your stat bonuses wherever you want.
2. No racial restrictions on Feats

And everything went fine, as far as character creation goes.

No weird shenanigans happened. I mean, I made a Lore Wizard and crippled Baba Lysaga by changing Hold Person to key off Dexterity, but that wasn't a result of the rules which are now in a book.

[RogueJK]

Let's say I'm running a game in which I've put a lot of time and effort into designing the setting and the cultures, and I've made it so that the hardiness of dwarves, the nimbleness of elves, or the cleverness of Gnomes is actually important, to say nothing of non-numerical racial features like Stonecunning or Trance or Artificer's Lore. If a player comes to me, and says "actually, I'm using Tasha's rules, my Gnome has +2 Strength and a different feature", I no longer feel comfortable saying no to that. I'm sure that a lot of people don't exactly pity me in that scenario, but that's just where I'm coming from.

That's understandable.

And I can see how this has shifted it from "I want to do a STR Gnome so I have to see if the DM will say Yes" to "I'm going to do a STR Gnome unless the DM steps in and says No". Slightly more character creation say-so for the player, and less for the DM.

However, personal character creation is one of the things in which the player likely should have more say in than the DM.

I guess it can come down to Player's vision for their character vs. DM's vision for their setting. It doesn't have to conflict, and hopefully if it does the player and DM can come to a compromise.

[Segev]

That's understandable.

And I can see how this has shifted it from "I want to do X, so I have to get the DM to say Yes" to "I'm going to do X unless the DM says No". Slightly more character creation say-so for the player, and less for the DM.

However, personal character creation is one of the things in which the player likely should have more say in than the DM.

I guess it can come down to Player's vision for their character vs. DM's vision for their setting. It doesn't have to conflict, and hopefully if it does the player and DM can come to a compromise.

Then why should players be bound to elite arrays or dice? Why not just assume players can assign 20s to any stat they like because they player's vision should trump game balance and such.

[RogueJK]

Flexible stat bonuses are not significantly balance-shifting, like "everyone gets 20s" would be.

[zinycor]

Then why should players be bound to elite arrays or dice? Why not just assume players can assign 20s to any stat they like because they player's vision should trump game balance and such.

If that's what you want at your table. Sure, go for it.

[jaappleton]

That's understandable.

And I can see how this has shifted it from "I want to do X, so I have to get the DM to say Yes" to "I'm going to do X unless the DM says No". More character creation power for the player, and less for the DM.

However, character creation is one of the things in which the player should have more control than the DM. It's their character, which they are going to be playing. If the DM wants to curtail that more than the books allow, that's up to the DM to discuss with the player.

I mostly agree with this.

As a player, I want the freedom. I want to be able to make a Hobgoblin Sorc that's just as effective mechanically, just as charismatic, as a Tiefling Sorc starting at first level.

At the exact same time, I don't want to be able to completely and totally outshine everyone else at the table because I came up with some super niche build that is nigh unstoppable. I shouldn't be able to make Pun Pun.

So I agree, but with some obvious limitations. Limiting something like Pun Pun is absolutely within the DMs right, and its a restriction I want in place as a player.

I want to look at my fellow players and smile as I see weird, fun things they've created. I want to see the Goblin Barbarian, the Tortle Wizard, the custom race creation of someone playing a sentient floating Maul, the Bugbear Paladin, I want all their weird and kooky stuff.

I don't want to see God in the party that has 30 in all stats that gets 400 temp HP every round, y'know?

[Hael]

I don’t agree with the notion that having more options is a necessarily a good thing. The obvious unintended consequence here is that every table will have far more homogeneity. Both in build and racial representation.

When race features and stats become a skill system, most people will comfortably take their elf and human 90% of the time. You’ll get a few cool races like Dragonborn, dwarves, or Aasimar but for the most part you’ll never see Kobolds, Gnomes and Halflings ever again. In general, the majority of people don’t like playing certain races unless they provide a unique game mechanic.

Anyway, I won’t rehash all of this.. it’s gotten several discussions banned.

[Stangler]

The "what if you're from a tribe that's totally different from the norm?" thing is handled by talking with your DM about it. By enshrining it as "well, er, any race can have any stat mod," you've thrown both the encouragement of playing to type AND a certain amount of balance out the window.

I'm for removing the -2s. They have no place in 5e.

But unfixing the stat boosts is... well. It's something they should have saved for a new edition, when they could have balanced the races around it.

This isn't good game design. And I frankly have limited sympathy for players who felt they "couldn't" play a wood elf barbarian because they didn't get a +2 Strength from race. (Not none, but limited. You also can't play an armor-wearing wizard without multiclassing or being a mountain dwarf; should I feel bad about that and encourage WotC to make wizards have all armor prof?)

I don't really buy the argument that they had to wait. 5e is likely to be around for years more.

I agree that it doesn't fit their established approach to race design and messes with balance. That said, overall it still isn't as imbalancing as giving one race a level one feat.

Overall it is a change that will help a lot of tables become more fun for players and some tables who don't like it just won't include it as an option. Seems like a clear win from WotC perspective.

[Catullus64]

And I frankly have limited sympathy for players who felt they "couldn't" play a wood elf barbarian because they didn't get a +2 Strength from race. (Not none, but limited. You also can't play an armor-wearing wizard without multiclassing or being a mountain dwarf; should I feel bad about that and encourage WotC to make wizards have all armor prof?)

I very much groove with this. I find the language of being "punished" for an unorthodox race-class combination to be very melodramatic.

And unorthodoxy tends to lose its punch and flavor if there's no orthodoxy for it to differ from. Fully customizable race, on the player end, tends towards eliminating orthodoxy. A Half-Orc wizard doesn't strike me as all that bold and innovative if Half-Orcs have no less innate arcane aptitude than anybody else.

The Half-Orc wizard can shine just as much as his Gnome and Elf counterparts, but because of how his player plays him and infuses him with life and personality. If the player does that, his on-average lower Intelligence score won't be much of a hinderance, and may even be an asset. Weaknesses can be more interesting than strengths.

[Segev]

Because game balance is still important, and players sign on to a system that they know will be bounded by mechanical rules.

Flexible stat bonuses are not significantly balance-shifting, like "everyone gets 20s" would be.

I agree that it's not AS big a problem, but it isn't well-balanced for this edition, where stat mods were part of balancing racial features.

But the argument that player vision should trump the setting lore is pretty weak.

This should have waited for a new edition. The pushback would be significantly less. If any at all, really, because they could have tied stat bonuses to class or background or simply made them universally floating. "They're racial bonuses, but not really because, uh, there's a really good reason, honest."

I know I won't be allowing it in general in my games. I'll exploit it mercilessly in games that do allow it, though.

[jaappleton]

I don’t agree. The obvious unintended consequence here is that every table will have far more homogeneity. Both in build and racial representation.

When race features and stats become a skill system, most people will comfortably take their elf and human 90% of the time. You’ll get a few cool races like Dragonborn, dwarves, or Aasimar but for the most part you’ll never see Kobolds, Gnomes and Halflings ever again. In general, the majority of people don’t like playing certain races unless they provide a unique game mechanic.

Anyway, I won’t rehash all of this.. it’s gotten several discussions banned.

I vehemently disagree.

I almost never player Humans or Elf.

They're BORING. Give me something WEIRD! Give me the Gnome Barbarian dressed in a lovely suit, top hat and monocle who rages whenever someone makes fun of his height or moustache, and beats people with his walking cane.

Maybe I'm the exception but in a world where I can be all sorts of fantastical creatures, the last thing I want to be is a human or something close to it.

[Xervous]

Remove the -2s because they are inconsistent with the established design pattern. That should be self explanatory.

Races as skins is fine, but the implementation is far from that. It’s tossing out the existing semblance of balance just to be able to say they checked a box. It’s corporate pandering that is just another facet of marketing in the vein of trending buzzwords such as Cloud or Blockchain. There is real impactful meaning behind the concepts, but too frequently it’s taken as another must have on the product label a la GMO free, This product was made with recycled X, and so forth. The message rings a tad hollow and certainly shows in the implementation.

Seeing the blatant money grabs WotC is consistently tossing out of MTG R&D puts this in more understandable context.

[zinycor]

I don’t agree. The obvious unintended consequence here is that every table will have far more homogeneity. Both in build and racial representation.

When race features and stats become a skill system, most people will comfortably take their elf and human 90% of the time. You’ll get a few cool races like Dragonborn, dwarves, or Aasimar but for the most part you’ll never see Kobolds, Gnomes and Halflings ever again. In general, the majority of people don’t like playing certain races unless they provide a unique game mechanic.

Anyway, I won’t rehash all of this.. it’s gotten several discussions banned.

I believe that's already the case, regardless of this rule.

[jaappleton]

A Half-Orc wizard doesn't strike me as all that bold and innovative if Half-Orcs have no less innate arcane aptitude than anybody else.

A Half Orc would still be unique because one of their major features, the ability to do extra damage when critting with a melee weapon, wouldn't be used anywhere near as often as it would be on the typical Half Orc Fighter.

Likewise, a Gnome Barbarian becomes much more appealing than before because of their Advantage VS mental saving throws against magic.

[Segev]

I vehemently disagree.

I almost never player Humans or Elf.

They're BORING. Give me something WEIRD! Give me the Gnome Barbarian dressed in a lovely suit, top hat and monocle who rages whenever someone makes fun of his height or moustache, and beats people with his walking cane.

Maybe I'm the exception but in a world where I can be all sorts of fantastical creatures, the last thing I want to be is a human or something close to it.

My issue is that this is a huge step towards your "weird" character actually not being any different than a "normal" one except in how you describe it.

[Scarytincan]

I don't think that 'wood elf raised by goliaths' is really a strong argument for or against 'genetics', nor do I think anyone could satisfactorily explain how any race could be generically predisposed to wisdom hehe.

The way I see it, let's go with humans. Humans can start with 8 strength. Humans can start with 16 strength. When there is such a range among humans that the starting stats can fall anywhere between those points, I don't see how one or two more are such an issue to people, especially when ALL races can get to 20 in anything (or higher as a barbarian, including halflings).

More options for many people is more fun. The sentiment of ignoring a great many races for a given class EXCLUSIVELY due to something like racial stat bonuses which is a bit flimsy anyway has way too often limited lots of great, fun, thematic builds for a lot of people.

Now there's an official option to change that. Or to ignore the change. Yey.

Scourge aasimar way of mercy monk, here I come!

[Catullus64]

A Half Orc would still be unique because one of their major features, the ability to do extra damage when critting with a melee weapon, wouldn't be used anywhere near as often as it would be on the typical Half Orc Fighter.

Likewise, a Gnome Barbarian becomes much more appealing than before because of their Advantage VS mental saving throws against magic.

It was my understanding that the rules presented in the book allow customization not just of racial ability score bonuses, but of other racial features as well. Am I mistaken in that? I'm going off of previews and interviews here, is there a more definitive and final resource that contradicts this?

[x3n0n]

If you would like to see hundreds and hundreds of posts about this, we have gone through several very long and contentious threads on this topic in the past month and a half, each of which have spent significant time being locked by mods.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...-of-Everything
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...n-D-amp-D-quot
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...ur-Origin-quot
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...-go-far-enough

I think everybody can probably find multiple posts in those threads that cover their opinions as well as the ones they disagree with.

Enjoy!