My least favorite thing about recent monster books (A small rant)

[Segev]

Would you prefer if the statblock said "Abjuration Enemy" instead of "Abjurer?" That's an easy enough fix.

How would that fix anything? Are now "enemies" somehow a different race/species? Is that a new term for "NPC?" Why can they know a technique/method/power that it is impossible for a "non-enemy" to know/have?

Maybe I can give you a better response if you can explain to me why you think the statblock saying "Abjuration Enemy" would make it better.

You can. Why are you viewing a default game setting as a manacle?

Then why do you need to remove it from the race in order to play one that doesn't have it? And, er, isn't the default setting going to have everything but PCs of those races having the trait, since only the PC entry for those races lacks it? Do you seriously not see how that pretty much states that the PC "race" is not the same thing as the NPC "race?"

Or, perhaps I again am misunderstanding you. What are you saying I'm viewing, in your perception, as a "shackle," and, if so, how does that not also serve as an argument why the change was a bad idea/unnecessary?

[Psyren]

How would that fix anything? Are now "enemies" somehow a different race/species? Is that a new term for "NPC?" Why can they know a technique/method/power that it is impossible for a "non-enemy" to know/have?

"Abjurer" is neither a race nor a species. Your objection seemed to be that the NPC version having the same name as the PC class but being able to do some different things was the primary source of your dissonance, so I was suggesting changing the name of the NPC version. "Enemy" was a facetious way of doing that, but the underlying point remains.

Then why do you need to remove it from the race in order to play one that doesn't have it?

Because WotC has to pick a default. Either they make playable drow with the drawback and then tell individual tables they can remove it, or they make playable drow without it and tell indivudal tables they can reinstate it. You quite literally cannot have both. And for reasons that keep getting threads locked around here when we go into detail on them, they chose the former. At some point you have to accept it or don't, but either way, they've explained themselves at length and it's not changing.

[Segev]

"Abjurer" is neither a race nor a species. Your objection seemed to be that the NPC version having the same name as the PC class but being able to do some different things was the primary source of your dissonance, so I was suggesting changing the name of the NPC version. "Enemy" was a facetious way of doing that, but the underlying point remains.

That's even more of a problem. It's not "it has the same name" when we're not talking about races/genetics/inherent properties. It's the fact that there is a barrier that says, "if you're a PC, you cannot learn this thing that this other person who in theory learned what he's doing, rather than having it as an innate trait of his species that you cannot play," that is the problem.

It's every bit as obnoxious as telling PCs they can't wield greatswords because greatswords are an NPC-only weapon. The rules rightfully DO NOT say that, but if they did, it would be the same problem.

"Well, why can't I? I'll just pick this one up!"
"Nope, sorry, it's impossible for you to figure out how to use it. No training is feasible. Because you're not an NPC."

Because WotC has to pick a default. Either they make playable drow with the drawback and then tell individual tables they can remove it, or they make playable drow without it and tell indivudal tables they can reinstate it. You quite literally cannot have both. And for reasons that keep getting threads locked around here when we go into detail on them, they chose the former. At some point you have to accept it or don't, but either way, they've explained themselves at length and it's not changing.

Then why is their default moving from, "You're playing a drow, and all drow have light sensitivity by default," to, "You're playing a drow, and PC drow don't have light sensitivity, but all the non-PC drow do?"

[Psyren]

That's even more of a problem. It's not "it has the same name" when we're not talking about races/genetics/inherent properties. It's the fact that there is a barrier that says, "if you're a PC, you cannot learn this thing that this other person who in theory learned what he's doing, rather than having it as an innate trait of his species that you cannot play," that is the problem.

There are plenty of things NPCs can learn that PCs can't. Like the specific means of becoming a lich for instance.

Then why is their default moving from, "You're playing a drow, and all drow have light sensitivity by default," to, "You're playing a drow, and PC drow don't have light sensitivity, but all the non-PC drow do?"

Because sunlight sensitivity has cultural implications/baggage for your drow character that they don't want to mandate or prescribe.

[Anymage]

How would that fix anything? Are now "enemies" somehow a different race/species? Is that a new term for "NPC?" Why can they know a technique/method/power that it is impossible for a "non-enemy" to know/have?

Maybe I can give you a better response if you can explain to me why you think the statblock saying "Abjuration Enemy" would make it better.

If I were to stumble back in time to when D&D was just released, and have an arcane caster NPC with a concentration-free mechanical pet and more than three items attuned, would that feel like NPCs got special rulebreaking treatment? Is it any better if that NPC exists now after the publication of the artificer?

I get the feeling that everybody should be playing with the same set of provided legos, but sometimes it's okay that someone knows a different way to do things. It's likely more involved than just poring over their spellbook. If you want your next character to be able to do that I'll be happy to look into homebrew, refluffing, or hoping that WotC sees the appeal of the concept and publishes an official version. I'm increasingly of the opinion that what's possible in a fantasy world shouldn't be constrained to just what WotC has published, though.

(If anything, I'm of the opinion that PCs should get more goodies. A little because they're protagonists and should have a thumb on the scale a bit, a little to make up for the fact that they're expected to face multiple encounters while NPCs don't need as much gas, and a little to help highlight that they're exceptional individuals. I get that this conflicts hard with older edition ideas that low levels should be gritty and that combat should be approached as war, but I'm okay with the design philosophy that you can feel exceptional right out the gate.)

Then why is their default moving from, "You're playing a drow, and all drow have light sensitivity by default," to, "You're playing a drow, and PC drow don't have light sensitivity, but all the non-PC drow do?"

I see it more as exceptional characters can overcome the malus, and PCs are assumed to be exceptional for the same reason they're adventurers in the first place. A player who wants their character to have the malus can ask the DM and is unlikely to be told no. Would you feel better if only most drow were sunlight sensitive and a handful of unusual individuals were also shown to have overcome it?

There are plenty of things NPCs can learn that PCs can't. Like the specific means of becoming a lich for instance.

I will take the position that a PC can chose to do or become just about anything, although some might trigger immediate retirement into an NPC. Deciding to stay in one room of a temple forever as an eternal guardian, for instance, doesn't leave much opportunity for adventure. It might conflict with the fact that certain concepts haven't had PCable options published yet, but at least in theory I don't like to flat out no-sell a player's ideas.

[Yamin8r]

I personally think that spellcasting npcs having bread and butter damage abilities that aren’t spells kind of sucks specifically because I appreciate counterspell wars and the techs that crop up around it, like preparing a spell behind cover and setting the trigger to go off after you step out from cover, or staying far enough away, or using subtle spell to make casting imperceptible.

I like casting shenanigans and I think WotC’s approach to at-will actions like the MPMM wizard arcane bursts doesn’t have enough space for them. On the flip side, my only reaction to complaints about a lack of PC/NPC symmetry is…good? If you want that you can play 3.PF? I’d like to stock my adventuring days with 6-8 medium to hard encounters, some featuring humanoid enemies, and not work myself into an early grave. 4e monster design is the shining pinnacle of the entire history of dnd because you don’t have to make PC sheets for dudes who exist for four rounds on average in the game.

Spellcasting npcs in the symmetrical paradigm are never not going to cast their juiciest spells as quickly as they can because they have no chance of running out of their resources so the pure fact of their existence as npcs violates the symmetry with the pc casters, who are heavily incentivized to cast encounter winning concentration spells turn one and then taking steps to maintain that concentration.

Anyways to sum up I really think there’s two things I’m saying here.

1 is that caster npcs should be casting spells in the mechanics of the game as well as the fiction. I think counterspell is probably overall a spell that is too centralizing in the meta of 5e as a game but so long as 5e is a game where you can counterspell magical humanoid spellcasters should be counterspellable, just like how heat metal is a win button against melee PCs and NPCs both even though it’s awful for balance

2 is that NPC casters don’t cast the same spells/use the same spell-type attacks as PC casters. This is good actually. Play mork borg, another OSR, or something like GURPS if you want your combat as war crunch because their mechanics actually incentivize this type of play. 5e is a game with rules. It’s a tactical combat game that prioritizes resource attrition and management. You are expected to be getting into lots of fights in a given adventuring day that represent resource drains rather than other games where combat can snowball into PC sheets getting burnt at any moment. The game works best as a game when monster design is simple to parse, interesting, and not easily cheesed. BBEGs and other extremely important creatures can be built however you want them to be built but I wouldn’t be caught dead using PCs, which are ideally interesting to play for months on end and who participate in the resource management layer of the game, as NPCs, who exist for about 24 seconds of in game initiative order time.

[Psyren]

I see it more as exceptional characters can overcome the malus, and PCs are assumed to be exceptional for the same reason they're adventurers in the first place. A player who wants their character to have the malus can ask the DM and is unlikely to be told no. Would you feel better if only most drow were sunlight sensitive and a handful of unusual individuals were also shown to have overcome it?

I'd just like to point out that the PCs are, by definition, those "unusual individuals."

I will take the position that a PC can chose to do or become just about anything, although some might trigger immediate retirement into an NPC. Deciding to stay in one room of a temple forever as an eternal guardian, for instance, doesn't leave much opportunity for adventure. It might conflict with the fact that certain concepts haven't had PCable options published yet, but at least in theory I don't like to flat out no-sell a player's ideas.

To be clear, I'm not saying any player ideas should be "no-selled." What I am saying is that the default WotC rules don't have to allow everything, some things can be the province of the DM to grant.

[Azuresun]

Note that not all of the "Bursts" do force damage. Enchanter and Illusionist are psychic for instance and Necromancer is necrotic.

I was talking more about how so many creatures now deal force damage with their attacks (often inconsistently), sometimes alternating between physical and force in the same creature. Got to keep them overpowered barbarians under control!

(Also, if you want to fight a demon lord, round up some Helmed Horrors.)

[Xetheral]

Another related issue introduced by NPCs' new ability to bypass protections against spells is that that other NPCs are now much more dangerous to spell-resistant NPCs than the PCs are. If a caster-heavy party knows they're going to be up against a Rakshasha, they're heavily incentivized to subcontract with NPC casters whose new attacks completely bypass the Rakshasha's immunity to spells below 7th level.

In my opinion, encouraging subcontracting (whether or not subcontracting is actually feasible at a given point in a particular campaign) is a not a healthy incentive. It produces all kinds of disconnects between the mechanics and the roleplaying. For example, if a quest-giver is looking to hire a team to hunt a Rakshasha, do the PC casters know IC that they are the least qualified spellcasters in the game world to go after that target? Or are they just supposed to ignore the fact that Rakshasha have anti-PC-magic protection that NPC casters can effortlessly bypass?

Sure, in the scheme of things there aren't that many magic-resistant monsters out there, but it's still an annoying side effect of this change to NPC casters.

[Envyus]

I was talking more about how so many creatures now deal force damage with their attacks (often inconsistently), sometimes alternating between physical and force in the same creature. Got to keep them overpowered barbarians under control!

(Also, if you want to fight a demon lord, round up some Helmed Horrors.)

It’s a replacement for the magic weapons trait

Also I hated the Counterspell wars.

[Witty Username]

Then why is their default moving from, "You're playing a drow, and all drow have light sensitivity by default," to, "You're playing a drow, and PC drow don't have light sensitivity, but all the non-PC drow do?"

For the same reason that minotaur PCs are medium size, a game contrivance to allow the idea at all.
At least for Drow, sunlight sensitivity was considered some to be a deal breaker issue at the table. For those people the option was, they don't get to have it.
Several other races have these, usually to reign in high power, but some to avoid gameplay issues. Large size is another because it causes issues with module design (from what I've heard) and such.

Gameplay is as much a factor as verisimilitude. I am not against the basic of the idea, but I do feel kobold was an effective solution, sunlight sensitivity +pack tactics makes for a unique amount of focus on environment and positioning and more in that vein could be done.

[Segev]

For the same reason that minotaur PCs are medium size, a game contrivance to allow the idea at all.
At least for Drow, sunlight sensitivity was considered some to be a deal breaker issue at the table. For those people the option was, they don't get to have it.
Several other races have these, usually to reign in high power, but some to avoid gameplay issues. Large size is another because it causes issues with module design (from what I've heard) and such.

Gameplay is as much a factor as verisimilitude. I am not against the basic of the idea, but I do feel kobold was an effective solution, sunlight sensitivity +pack tactics makes for a unique amount of focus on environment and positioning and more in that vein could be done.

See, a sidebar saying, "Some drow manage to overcome their light sensitivity; if your DM agrees, you can play one such," as an optional rule would've been way better as a means of achieving that.

Instead, we have a "drow" that is the PC race and a "drow" that is the NPC race, and they're two different things, meaning players can't actually have drow PCs. "But you can always slap light sensitivity back onto them!" Sure. You can also always make PHB half-orcs have their +2 and +1 go to any stat you like, without having TCE give you permission. Yet it was seen as very important to put in text that this latter option exists, and also very important to remove light sensitivity from drow.

There is a deliberateness and power to making choices as to what is printed in the books. Printing that all PC drow are not the same race as NPC drow, or that ALL PC drow have undergone an unspoken and unmentioned procedure to remove sunlight sensitivity, is making a statement about how much PCs are allowed to be "actual drow."

Besides, drow get superior darkvision for the same reason they have sunlight sensitivity; shouldn't they lose both? Or have the option to trade one for the other?

[P. G. Macer]

See, a sidebar saying, "Some drow manage to overcome their light sensitivity; if your DM agrees, you can play one such," as an optional rule would've been way better as a means of achieving that.

Instead, we have a "drow" that is the PC race and a "drow" that is the NPC race, and they're two different things, meaning players can't actually have drow PCs. "But you can always slap light sensitivity back onto them!" Sure. You can also always make PHB half-orcs have their +2 and +1 go to any stat you like, without having TCE give you permission. Yet it was seen as very important to put in text that this latter option exists, and also very important to remove light sensitivity from drow.

There is a deliberateness and power to making choices as to what is printed in the books. Printing that all PC drow are not the same race as NPC drow, or that ALL PC drow have undergone an unspoken and unmentioned procedure to remove sunlight sensitivity, is making a statement about how much PCs are allowed to be "actual drow."

Besides, drow get superior darkvision for the same reason they have sunlight sensitivity; shouldn't they lose both? Or have the option to trade one for the other?

I agree that the new racial changes are silly at best, but Deep Gnomes in 5e have always had Superior Darkvision while not having Sunlight Sensitivity, and pre-MotM Kobolds had Sunlight Sensitivity while only having standard Darkvision.

[Segev]

I agree that the new racial changes are silly at best, but Deep Gnomes in 5e have always had Superior Darkvision while not having Sunlight Sensitivity, and pre-MotM Kobolds had Sunlight Sensitivity while only having standard Darkvision.

Valid counterpoints. They, however, are not elves who've adapted to the underdark. (Honestly, I think if you're going to have sunlight senstitivity, you should get something extra for it, and if you're going to lose it, you should have fewer benefits since you lack the countervailnig weakness.)

[Psyren]

See, a sidebar saying, "Some drow manage to overcome their light sensitivity; if your DM agrees, you can play one such," as an optional rule would've been way better as a means of achieving that.

No, it wouldn't be. Such an optional sidebar would be treated as most optional sidebars are, an unassumed variant or offshoot of the "real" mechanics for PC drow (or duergar/kobolds/etc.) That's not what they wanted to achieve for PCs with the change, and therefore your stated approach would have failed at realizing their design intent.

Besides, drow get superior darkvision for the same reason they have sunlight sensitivity; shouldn't they lose both? Or have the option to trade one for the other?

As P.G. Macer said, this correlation was never a hard-coded law / only existed in your head.

With that said, two things:

1) I'd assume that, like Duergar, Drow PCs will both lose SS and keep 120ft. Darkvision - so even if the two traits had been initially coupled, they won't be going forward.

2) Even if the original intent was to "balance" the SD pro with the SS con, the proper way to balance races is to look at all their abilities taken as a whole. If Drow keep SD and lose SS, they will be strictly better at seeing in the dark than other elves, but we don't know whether that will have an impact on any other abilities they'll get relative to those other elves until they're actually updated.

Instead, we have a "drow" that is the PC race and a "drow" that is the NPC race, and they're two different things, meaning players can't actually have drow PCs. "But you can always slap light sensitivity back onto them!" Sure. You can also always make PHB half-orcs have their +2 and +1 go to any stat you like, without having TCE give you permission.

It's true that any DM could have implemented floating ASIs on PHB races without Tasha's suggesting the idea, or subclass retraining, or proficiency swapping etc. But there's still considerable value in the game designers tacitly approving of such variations by putting them in an official book, especially one that isn't setting-specific.

[Segev]

It's true that any DM could have implemented floating ASIs on PHB races without Tasha's suggesting the idea, or subclass retraining, or proficiency swapping etc. But there's still considerable value in the game designers tacitly approving of such variations by putting them in an official book, especially one that isn't setting-specific.

Then any statement of, "Well, you can add sunlight sensitivity back onto drow," or a variation of the same suggesting PCs can be drow who have it, is at least as invalid as the statement I made that you could have had the lack of it in a sidebar.

[Psyren]

Then any statement of, "Well, you can add sunlight sensitivity back onto drow," or a variation of the same suggesting PCs can be drow who have it, is at least as invalid as the statement I made that you could have had the lack of it in a sidebar.

I mean, I have no intentions or desire for doing such a thing anyway, so whether a DM considers it "invalid" or not doesn't really matter to me; I'm quite happy with formerly SS PCs losing the drawback. It's still an option regardless.

[Segev]

I mean, I have no intentions or desire for doing such a thing anyway, so whether a DM considers it "invalid" or not doesn't really matter to me; I'm quite happy with formerly SS PCs losing the drawback. It's still an option regardless.

It is no more an option than removing it was before the change.

[Psyren]

It is no more an option than removing it was before the change.

How exactly is "if you don't like what WotC has implemented, work with your DM to revert it" not an option? That's always an option

[Anymage]

Valid counterpoints. They, however, are not elves who've adapted to the underdark. (Honestly, I think if you're going to have sunlight senstitivity, you should get something extra for it, and if you're going to lose it, you should have fewer benefits since you lack the countervailnig weakness.)

Fair. I also think that giving one PC the ability to see farther than the others creates an odd table dynamic. I have no problem saying that whatever sunlight acclimatization also takes the edge off of your darkvision, that most drow (or members of other races with superior darkvision) consider keen darkvision more important than handling a sun they rarely see, and including a sidebar that boils down to "if your DM okays it and you take pains to avoid spending too much time in the sun, you get both the sensitivity and the extended darkvision range".

Given the whole political/social thing going on now, I do agree with Psyren that it's better for the stock PC drow to be sunlight acclimatized with the option for a sunlight sensitive/enhanced darkvision version than vice versa.

[GooeyChewie]

How exactly is "if you don't like what WotC has implemented, work with your DM to revert it" not an option? That's always an option

I recently read somewhere that there's still considerable value in the game designers tacitly approving of such variations by putting them in an official book, especially one that isn't setting-specific.

[Psyren]

I recently read somewhere that there's still considerable value in the game designers tacitly approving of such variations by putting them in an official book, especially one that isn't setting-specific.

I also read that they can't do that with mutually exclusive things, so they must pick the one they find more valuable.

[Telok]

I also read that they can't do that with mutually exclusive things, so they must pick the one they find more valuable.

And here I thought that was what the sidebars of optional rules were for. I actually use popup annotations for the pdfs I do but a sidebar would work just as well to note "here's an alternate take on this". Seems like a solved problem to me, but d&d devs have never really seemed to be good at learning from other games, media, etc.

[Psyren]

And here I thought that was what the sidebars of optional rules were for. I actually use popup annotations for the pdfs I do but a sidebar would work just as well to note "here's an alternate take on this". Seems like a solved problem to me, but d&d devs have never really seemed to be good at learning from other games, media, etc.

A sidebar solves nothing when their goal is "we're moving PCs in our products away from this implication entirely." Is it really that hard to accept that they just don't want to publish PC races with that drawback anymore?

[Witty Username]

See, a sidebar saying, "Some drow manage to overcome their light sensitivity; if your DM agrees, you can play one such," as an optional rule would've been way better as a means of achieving that.

Or a sidebar saying drow are sensitive to sunlight, this has been omitted for gameplay concerns, but if you want more immersion have thing.
I like more options, generally.

Instead, we have a "drow" that is the PC race and a "drow" that is the NPC race, and they're two different things, meaning players can't actually have drow PCs. "But you can always slap light sensitivity back onto them!" Sure. You can also always make PHB half-orcs have their +2 and +1 go to any stat you like, without having TCE give you permission. Yet it was seen as very important to put in text that this latter option exists, and also very important to remove light sensitivity from drow.

Sure, but this isn't exactly a new thing for 5e, bugbears and brute, Minotaurs and large size. Alterations between NPC an PC stats for gameplay reasons has been a thing, as well as distancing from downside mechanics.
I sorta agree with you though, I like goblin as much as I do because the PC stat block managed to work in nimble escape. Orcs, Kobolds and Yuan-ti having aggressive, pack tactics and magic resistance like there monster stat blocks is satisfying from a sense of symmetry. And cool race abilities are more fun then random +1s you hardly ever think about.

Besides, drow get superior darkvision for the same reason they have sunlight sensitivity; shouldn't they lose both? Or have the option to trade one for the other?

That assumes superior darkvision and sunlight sensitivity are equal in terms of gains and losses.
For kobold losing both pack tactics and sunlight sensitivity make sense because they cancel eachother, and come up comparable amounts of the time.
Given that people were complaining about drow since 5e came out that they were unplayable, there is probably not a power concern with dropping sunlight sensitivity without a tax of one of the other abilities.

[Telok]

A sidebar solves nothing when their goal is "we're moving PCs in our products away from this implication entirely." Is it really that hard to accept that they just don't want to publish PC races with that drawback anymore?

What implication? That people who spend their whole lives underground in darkness & general low indoor light levels might be a bit sensitive to the light? That happened to me when I worked swing shift for a few years, bright sun still seems to bother me more than others. Really, a sidebar saying "some drow spend more time above ground than others and trade off superior darkvision for no light sensitivity and you can have your PC be either one" is simple, makes sense, and doesn't cause problems with anything. You don't have to retcon an entire species or split it into pc only & npc only versions.

The thing with pc minos and only pc minos not getting the actual mino size is just devs stupidly overvaluing strength & size again. Npcs get nice stuff, pcs get stunted growth, pc-only weaknesses, or are too dumb to learn stuff all the npcs of the same trope-class can do. Why? Its not balance, they bloody printed the strixhaven stuff and dumped it on dndbeyond mixed in with the base rules, you still have warlocks or flying elf wizards with longbows & sharpshooter in the same group as fighters with a sword*. Really, does making goblins into fey do anything other than make them more like "extraplanar invaders that need to be genocided for the safety of everyone" and less like "short green people with bad public image"?

* No, seriously, game I'm in the warlock & sorcerer intentionally take stupid risks & try to get hit to make the fighter & barb feel better about sucking all the cleric's slots into heals. Maybe once or twice a level are they in actual danger, and that with basically everything thats an actual fight being able to down them in 3 or 4 hits. The melees go down about every other fight and run out of hit dice before anyone else.

[GooeyChewie]

I also read that they can't do that with mutually exclusive things, so they must pick the one they find more valuable.

Having Drow PCs default to not having Sunlight Sensitivity is not mutually exclusive with 'tacitly approving' of players adding Sunlight Sensitivity back in by providing a sidebar explaining that option.

A sidebar solves nothing when their goal is "we're moving PCs in our products away from this implication entirely." Is it really that hard to accept that they just don't want to publish PC races with that drawback anymore?

Are you asking me to accept the fact that they made that decision, or to accept the notion that the decision was entirely a good one? I accept that they did make the decision, but I think they could have made a better one.

I'm totally on board with allowing players the option to play Drow (and other races which previously had Sunlight Sensitivity) without that drawback. I'm even on board with presenting them as not having the drawback by default and adding the drawback in being the optional rule. But presenting the PCs as not having Sunlight Sensitivity at all while the NPCs of the same races have Sunlight Sensitivity does create a cognitive dissonance. PC Drow and NPC Drow feel like two different races, when they are supposed to be the same race. A sidebar that acknowledges that most members of certain races are affected by Sunlight Sensitivity, but that as an adventurer you likely overcame that drawback and only take it if you specifically choose to do so, would solve that cognitive dissonance.

That assumes superior darkvision and sunlight sensitivity are equal in terms of gains and losses.

They do not need to be entirely equal, just close enough that players might reasonably choose either option depending on the campaign. If I were about to play a campaign set mostly in the Underdark, I would accept Sunlight Sensitivity in exchange for superior darkvision; if I were about to play a campaign set mostly in the Sword Coast I would forego superior darkvision to avoid Sunlight Sensitivity. I think linking superior darkvision and Sunlight Sensitivity would have been a reasonable and thematically appropriate way to let players customize their characters from traditionally deep-underground-dwelling races.

[Segev]

How exactly is "if you don't like what WotC has implemented, work with your DM to revert it" not an option? That's always an option

I didn't say it wasn't. I said it is no more an option to do that now than it was to make such changes to the old drow.

If your argument is that you can get your DM to change it, why does that argument apply less to the old drow? And, if it doesn't, why did the change need to happen at all?

[Psyren]

What implication? That people who spend their whole lives underground in darkness & general low indoor light levels might be a bit sensitive to the light?

That's exactly the point, WotC is telling you that PC Drow do not have to have "spent their whole lives underground in darkness." They're trying to get you to let go of that misconception.

A sidebar that acknowledges that most members of certain races are affected by Sunlight Sensitivity, but that as an adventurer you likely overcame that drawback and only take it if you specifically choose to do so, would solve that cognitive dissonance.

Even commenting that "most members of certain races" have a physiological drawback is likely a bridge too far for them. Are there Drow and Duergar who lived underground all their lives and therefore may have developed sunlight sensitivity? Sure, they exist. Are they the majority of Drow and Duergar in the setting, or even the multiverse? They're basically saying "we'd like that to be up to your DM to determine, not us." And that's fine.

If your argument is that you can get your DM to change it, why does that argument apply less to the old drow? And, if it doesn't, why did the change need to happen at all?

I've answered "why did they make the change/why are they moving away from old drow" multiple times at this point. I'm not sure how many other ways I can explain it.

[Segev]

I've answered "why did they make the change/why are they moving away from old drow" multiple times at this point. I'm not sure how many other ways I can explain it.

We're going around in circles because you're using arguments that defeat your reasons for the change to refute my claims about the change.

"This change is bad, because it denies players the ability to play drow who are actually drow."
"You can always have your DM let you add Sunlight Sensitivity to them. It's not a big deal."
"You could also have had your DM remove Sunlight Sensitivity from them, before."
"That is unreasonable! Asking your DM to make changes is not a guaranteed thing! They had to make this change!"


This isn't about "moving away from the old drow;" they are keeping sunlight sensitivity on the NPC entries.

Frankly, I'm not sure why drow are even being kept at all, at this rate, though. What makes a drow different from a high elf that it's important to keep drow as a distinct subrace? It's mostly a cultural thing, and all the culture is being stripped away.