I'm sick of the dnd community

[JackPhoenix]

"It's easier for the DM" just strikes me as a cop-out for some reason.

Because it doesn't make any sense. A 5' or 10' difference in PC's movement has no impact on the DM.

[x3n0n]

The answer is no. A world where nothing is below the baseline is fine, that's why it's a baseline rather than an average or median. And that baseline is 30'.

Ok, so a world in which
* halflings and dwarves walk 30
* humans, half-orcs, half-elves, and most elves walk 35, and
* wood elves walk 40

is a fine world?

[Psyren]

Ok, so a world in which
* halflings and dwarves walk 30
* humans, half-orcs, half-elves, and most elves walk 35, and
* wood elves walk 40

is a fine world?

Why are humans and elves above the baseline? Shouldn't they be the most generic fantasy races?

[x3n0n]

Why are humans and elves above the baseline? Shouldn't they be the most generic fantasy races?

Ok, that's what I was missing: nobody is allowed to be slower than humans.
Yes?

[JackPhoenix]

You keep saying "PHB short race" as though that qualifier is supposed to matter. If you want your table to stick with 2014 design in 2022, go nuts. I for one see no reason to stagnate.

So it's just change for change's sake?

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm disappointed to see this sort of thinly veiled elitism from you, genuinely.

FWIW,

Spoiler: stuff I have learned

Show

sociologists and behavioral science types have written article after article over the last three decades concerning how people use / consume information has an impact on them. I was already familiar with task saturation, information overload, and the clumping process due to being involved in flight training, but that was just one aspect of this.

One of the better pieces I read a couple years back was comparing the profound change that the printing press brought, and the attendent increase in literacy, and how it made changes in how people use, spread, and process information with the technological revolution of the information age.
That too, from the radio to the TV to the PC to the flat screen, has had as profound of an impact as the printing press did, perhaps moreso.
(Yes, opinions vary on its extent).
(Oddly related tidbit from an educator I know, they stopped teaching cursive some years ago).

I ran into this wide array of information as we were developing training and education material a couple of decades ago, and I have some recent experience with learning and training in highly technical tasks that supports my (admittedly anecdotal) experience that I referred to.
And we have a thread recently on "how many people read the rules" on one of the forums here that is related to that.

But I certainly could have presented that thought better than I did.

[Psyren]

Ok, that's what I was missing: nobody is allowed to be slower than humans.
Yes?

No PCs should be slower than the baseline (because... baseline), and humans should in most respects be at the baseline (because humans are the generic standard).

Standard vision is another baseline humans exemplify. Some races get Darkvision (going above the baseline) or even Super Darkvision (e.g. Svirfneblin). But Light Sensitivity would be below the baseline.

So it's just change for change's sake?

They gave clear reasons for the changes, so no.

[angelpalm]

I saw power gaming and then saw 5e and immediately got confused.

I thought 5e was just wut you played if you wanted to play a blue/purple colored tiefling that some how still drinks pabst blue ribbon in the game world and didnt care about rules since most of them don't exist anyways

[x3n0n]

No PCs should be slower than the baseline (because... baseline), and humans should in most respects be at the baseline (because humans are the generic standard).

Standard vision is another baseline humans exemplify. Some races get Darkvision (going above the baseline) or even Super Darkvision (e.g. Svirfneblin). But Light Sensitivity would be below the baseline.

Ok, thanks. I happen to disagree, but at least I understand where you are coming from now.

That is, I'm fine with humans being a reference point, but IMO that reference point would be more like "typical" than "baseline", with it being fine for other races to be above or below typical in each characteristic.

[Keltest]

No PCs should be slower than the baseline (because... baseline), and humans should in most respects be at the baseline (because humans are the generic standard).

Standard vision is another baseline humans exemplify. Some races get Darkvision (going above the baseline) or even Super Darkvision (e.g. Svirfneblin). But Light Sensitivity would be below the baseline.



They gave clear reasons for the changes, so no.

You are aware that "baseline" means "starting point" not "minimum" right?

[Psyren]

Ok, thanks. I happen to disagree, but at least I understand where you are coming from now.

That is, I'm fine with humans being a reference point, but IMO that reference point would be more like "typical" than "baseline", with it being fine for other races to be above or below typical in each characteristic.

Thank you. I'm not saying that design approach is totally invalid. But I can also understand them wanting to avoid "subhuman" PC races wherever possible, and that is what the new design direction appears to be doing.

You are aware that "baseline" means "starting point" not "minimum" right?

I'm aware of the dictionary: "a minimum or starting point used for comparisons."

[Jophiel]

You keep saying "PHB short race" as though that qualifier is supposed to matter.

It's a clarification to hopefully avoid "But kobolds!!". It's also quicker than looking up or typing out every 25 speed race. Again, you seem to keep missing the point entirely; it has nothing to do with "2014 design", that's just your own strawman.

[x3n0n]

Thank you. I'm not saying that design approach is totally invalid. But I can also understand them wanting to avoid "subhuman" PC races wherever possible, and that is what the new design direction appears to be doing.

That feels problematic; it means that humans are almost guaranteed to appear worse than everything else.

That is, if every option has to be same or better than human on every obviously quantifiable metric, you have to "hide" the power of human somewhere else or all of the other options will actually be significantly stronger than humans. That's a strange bit of dissonance for anyone who's not system savvy.

Edited to add: just to clarify, Variant Human does hide that power today by potentially packing a LOT of power into a starting feat. In a featless game, it seems like humans will spend most of tier 1 being just plain bad if nobody else can be worse than them at anything.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That feels problematic; it means that humans are almost guaranteed to appear worse than everything else.

That is, if every option has to be same or better than human on every obviously quantifiable metric, you have to "hide" the power of human somewhere else or all of the other options will actually be significantly stronger than humans. That's a strange bit of dissonance for anyone who's not system savvy.

Exactly. IMO, humans should be average. Which means that there have to be things worse than humans on some metric (but better than humans on others). So humans can't be the floor on all metrics. Or even all substantive metrics.

[Psyren]

It's a clarification to hopefully avoid "But kobolds!!". It's also quicker than looking up or typing out every 25 speed race. Again, you seem to keep missing the point entirely; it has nothing to do with "2014 design", that's just your own strawman.

Why would I avoid "but kobolds/goblins?" You have yet to counter it in any meaningful way.

That feels problematic; it means that humans are almost guaranteed to appear worse than everything else.

That is, if every option has to be same or better than human on every obviously quantifiable metric, you have to "hide" the power of human somewhere else or all of the other options will actually be significantly stronger than humans. That's a strange bit of dissonance for anyone who's not system savvy.

Exactly. IMO, humans should be average. Which means that there have to be things worse than humans on some metric (but better than humans on others). So humans can't be the floor on all metrics. Or even all substantive metrics.

There are in fact a great many D&D creatures worse off than humans, with subhuman intellect, speed, senses, even morals etc. These creatures are generally called "monsters."

Humans being the baseline for playable races is not problematic at all. It's in fact a pretty common RPG trope.

[Keltest]

Why would I avoid "but kobolds/goblins?" You have yet to counter it in any meaningful way.





There are in fact a great many D&D creatures worse off than humans, with subhuman intellect, speed, senses, even morals etc. These creatures are generally called "monsters."

Humans being the baseline for playable races is not problematic at all. It's in fact a pretty common RPG trope.

I'd like to think you see the problem with declaring anything worse off than humans in some respect to automatically be a monster.

Perhaps more to the point, did you accidentally mistake halflings and dwarves for monsters because theyre slower than humans?

[x3n0n]

Humans being the baseline for playable races is not problematic at all. It's in fact a pretty common RPG trope.

?? If you didn't just switch definitions for baseline on me, then I'm totally confused.

It's "fine" for humans to be the minimum in everything, and for every other option to be strictly better?
(That is, it's fine for there to be zero mechanical reason to *want* to be a human?)

[Psyren]

I'd like to think you see the problem with declaring anything worse off than humans in some respect to automatically be a monster.

1) I listed some pretty specific respects actually - vision, speed, intellectual and moral capacity etc.

2) "Monster" in D&D is not an inherently pejorative term. All it means is that they are intended to not be playable. They can help, hinder, or be indifferent towards the PCs, have capabilities that exceed theirs or that are inferior, etc.

3) I notice you had no comeback for the correct definition of "baseline" so I'm assuming you ceded that point.

?? If you didn't just switch definitions for baseline on me, then I'm totally confused.

It's "fine" for humans to be the minimum in everything, and for every other option to be strictly better?
(That is, it's fine for there to be zero mechanical reason to *want* to be a human?)

I didn't "switch" anything, I've been operating off the dictionary definition the entire time (see the link I posted.)

As for "mechanical reasons" Human balance is definitely something I think they can continue to refine in 5.5e. As it stands, standard human is largely seen as a trap, while variant human might be too strong. But the design goal of them being the baseline for playable races is perfectly valid.

[Jophiel]

Humans being the baseline is a common RPG trope. Humans being the minimum isn't.
Before the "But the dictionary says..." I'll suggest you look at more than one source.
M-W:

Definition of baseline

1 : a line serving as a basis especially : one of known measure or position used (as in surveying or navigation) to calculate or locate something

Cambridge:

an imaginary line used as a starting point for making comparisons:

Collins:

A baseline is a value or starting point on a scale with which other values can be compared.

Etc, etc. Even the one you're clinging to says "A minimum OR starting point..."

[PhoenixPhyre]

There are in fact a great many D&D creatures worse off than humans, with subhuman intellect, speed, senses, even morals etc. These creatures are generally called "monsters."

Humans being the baseline for playable races is not problematic at all. It's in fact a pretty common RPG trope.

So humans are the worst playable race, by definition (everyone is better at something than humans and no one is worse than humans at anything). Got it. Yeah, that's totally not problematic.

No, that's not a common RPG trope. The common RPG trope is that humans are the reference point. The average. Capable of everything, not excelling at anything. But other races have strengths and weaknesses relative to humans. Elves are smart but weak/easy to kill. Orcs are strong but dumb. Dwarves are strong/tough but slow. These sorts of narrative tropes are everywhere in fiction. You can't just say "well, they all have strengths but no weaknesses" without making humans a trap option. Which they should never be.

[Keltest]

1) I listed some pretty specific respects actually - vision, speed, intellectual and moral capacity etc.

2) "Monster" in D&D is not an inherently pejorative term. All it means is that they are intended to not be playable. They can help, hinder, or be indifferent towards the PCs, have capabilities that exceed theirs or that are inferior, etc.

3) I notice you had no comeback for the correct definition of "baseline" so I'm assuming you ceded that point.

The correct definition supported the way I am using it more than you did, so I felt no need to add on to it. Its a starting point for the basis of comparisons. In the context of D&D using it as a minimum is extremely foolish, as we are demonstrating now.

Also, point 2 in particular is wildly incorrect. There are drow both with monster stat blocks and as a playable race, as with many other races. Orcs, kobolds, (hob)goblins, etc.. Monsters and PC races both.

[Segev]

Even fluff considerations like "your Drow doesn't have to be a vile Lolthite cultist if you don't want to be" and "your Lizardfolk doesn't have to be a wholly alien amoral savage anymore" are bound to attract more players than they repel. Similarly, "there isn't a printed race that perfectly captures the concept you have in mind, but let's see how close we can land working together on a Custom Lineage" is probably going to be more appealing than telling the player to kick rocks.

See, there's a difference between, "your drow doesn't have to be a vile Lolthite," and "Drow aren't vile Lolthites as a general rule, but some are. So are some non-drow elves, and even some dwarves and humans."

In fact, the second one makes the drow who is pulling a Drizzit pretty much impossible. There's no assumption he is a vile Lolthite for him to overcome as long as he doesn't go around shouting, "By the way, I'm from Lolthland of the Underdark, but don't worry, I'm not a vile Lolthite like literally everybody I grew up with." That makes for a fundamentally different character.

"Your lizardfolk doesn't have to be a wholly amoral alien savage," is vastly different from, "Lizardfolk aren't typically amoral alien savages." In fact, the latter change means that, if you WANTED to play an amoral alien savage who is trying to use cold lizard logic to work in a society of morally-driven civilized beings, you're now playing a brain-damaged, mentally ill lizardfolk, and could as easily play the same character as an elf, gnome, halfling, dragonborn, or human. Having it be a biological THING of your race made Lizardfolk potentially interesting to explore with that specific thing.

Having a rule in place that says, "PCs are exceptional, so your Lizardfolk can be different," is one thing. But even then, "PCs are exceptional, so your 'Lizardfolk' can actually be a human that everyone calls a 'lizardfolk'," undermines the fantasy more than enhances it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

See, there's a difference between, "your drow doesn't have to be a vile Lolthite," and "Drow aren't vile Lolthites as a general rule, but some are. So are some non-drow elves, and even some dwarves and humans."

In fact, the second one makes the drow who is pulling a Drizzit pretty much impossible. There's no assumption he is a vile Lolthite for him to overcome as long as he doesn't go around shouting, "By the way, I'm from Lolthland of the Underdark, but don't worry, I'm not a vile Lolthite like literally everybody I grew up with." That makes for a fundamentally different character.

"Your lizardfolk doesn't have to be a wholly amoral alien savage," is vastly different from, "Lizardfolk aren't typically amoral alien savages." In fact, the latter change means that, if you WANTED to play an amoral alien savage who is trying to use cold lizard logic to work in a society of morally-driven civilized beings, you're now playing a brain-damaged, mentally ill lizardfolk, and could as easily play the same character as an elf, gnome, halfling, dragonborn, or human. Having it be a biological THING of your race made Lizardfolk potentially interesting to explore with that specific thing.

Having a rule in place that says, "PCs are exceptional, so your Lizardfolk can be different," is one thing. But even then, "PCs are exceptional, so your 'Lizardfolk' can actually be a human that everyone calls a 'lizardfolk'," undermines the fantasy more than enhances it.

Agree. There's no playing against type (a very common desire) if there is no type to play against and everything's just a bundle of mechanical traits without any core rationale.

[x3n0n]

I didn't "switch" anything, I've been operating off the dictionary definition the entire time (see the link I posted.)

How about we refuse to use the word "baseline". When we mean "minimum", we say minimum. When we mean something else like "typical" or "average" or "reference point that doesn't have to be the minimum", we say something like that.

If you invariably mean "minimum" when you say "baseline", then:

As for "mechanical reasons" Human balance is definitely something I think they can continue to refine in 5.5e. As it stands, standard human is largely seen as a trap, while variant human might be too strong. But the design goal of them being the baseline for playable races is perfectly valid.

How does this make sense? The design goal should be for them to be the minimum among all the races?
If you mean human should be balanced upward somehow in 5.5e, then suddenly they cease being the appropriate minimum, and we start the cycle over.
What am I missing??

[Thrudd]

obviously the average human makes sense as the baseline playable character- it's the thing everyone automatically understands and can imagine, even if they know nothing about any sort of fantasy. Anything playable outside the baseline should have roughly equal advantages and disadvantages relative to the "average" character. If there is a starting character package that is flatly more effective than another, there will be little reason for anyone to ever choose the lesser, outside of aesthetics or intentional nerfing. It's fine to have some flatly less effective options for people that want more of a mechanical challenge, but these should be identified as such in the text, so newer players don't choose something based on aesthetics/RP decisions, and then are disappointed when they have a tougher time than the other characters.

There's no objective reason that humans couldn't be the flatly less effective option for people that want more of a challenge, but that sets the tone of the settings and the expected demographics for your average group away from classic fantasy literature (which, honestly, hasn't really been much of an inspiration for D&D settings for decades, now).

[Psyren]

How about we refuse to use the word "baseline".

Nah. The dictionary definition lines up perfectly with my use of the word, so I'll keep on doing that, thanks.

The correct definition supported the way I am using it more than you did, so I felt no need to add on to it. Its a starting point for the basis of comparisons.

Minimum is not only literally in the definition, it's even placed before "starting point." Moreover, I don't actually see minimum and starting point as that different, it feels like you're splitting hairs. When you count something, do you typically start from 0, or from -5?

Also, point 2 in particular is wildly incorrect. There are drow both with monster stat blocks and as a playable race, as with many other races. Orcs, kobolds, (hob)goblins, etc.. Monsters and PC races both.

The monster statblocks are not intended to be playable, of course they're different than the PC versions.

See, there's a difference between, "your drow doesn't have to be a vile Lolthite," and "Drow aren't vile Lolthites as a general rule, but some are. So are some non-drow elves, and even some dwarves and humans."

In fact, the second one makes the drow who is pulling a Drizzit pretty much impossible. There's no assumption he is a vile Lolthite for him to overcome as long as he doesn't go around shouting, "By the way, I'm from Lolthland of the Underdark, but don't worry, I'm not a vile Lolthite like literally everybody I grew up with." That makes for a fundamentally different character.

"Your lizardfolk doesn't have to be a wholly amoral alien savage," is vastly different from, "Lizardfolk aren't typically amoral alien savages." In fact, the latter change means that, if you WANTED to play an amoral alien savage who is trying to use cold lizard logic to work in a society of morally-driven civilized beings, you're now playing a brain-damaged, mentally ill lizardfolk, and could as easily play the same character as an elf, gnome, halfling, dragonborn, or human. Having it be a biological THING of your race made Lizardfolk potentially interesting to explore with that specific thing.

Having a rule in place that says, "PCs are exceptional, so your Lizardfolk can be different," is one thing. But even then, "PCs are exceptional, so your 'Lizardfolk' can actually be a human that everyone calls a 'lizardfolk'," undermines the fantasy more than enhances it.

1) I don't see any impossibility here. The Drow you come across as antagonists don't have to be anywhere near the majority of Drow in the multiverse. As adventurers, the encounters you have are already out of the ordinary for most settings.

2) In no way is a lizardfolk "a human that everyone calls a lizardfolk." I don't even know where that's coming from. Their racial traits are completely different.

[x3n0n]

Nah. The dictionary definition lines up perfectly with my use of the word, so I'll keep on doing that, thanks.

Ok, then I'll just repost the rest of my post.

If you invariably mean "minimum" when you say "baseline", then:

As for "mechanical reasons" Human balance is definitely something I think they can continue to refine in 5.5e. As it stands, standard human is largely seen as a trap, while variant human might be too strong. But the design goal of them being the baseline for playable races is perfectly valid.

If "baseline" means "minimum", then how does this make sense? The design goal should be for them to be the minimum among all the races?
If you mean human should be balanced upward somehow in 5.5e, then suddenly they cease being the appropriate minimum, and we start the cycle over.
What am I missing??

[Christew]

Again, you seem to keep missing the point entirely; it has nothing to do with "2014 design", that's just your own strawman.

Nah. WotC had a player race balancing equation in 2014. They have since made changes to that equation. You may not like those changes, but it is hardly a strawman in this context.

So humans are the worst playable race, by definition (everyone is better at something than humans and no one is worse than humans at anything). Got it.

Things can seem a bit absurd when you reduce them to the point of absurdity.

WotC's current approach to race design no longer includes the use of negative traits (sunlight sensitivity, negative stat modifiers, slow move speed, etc). All races (including humans) have positive traits -- there is no definitional quality that the traits of other races have to be inherently better than human traits. Was the one square speed advantage over dwarves, gnomes, and halflings the only thing keeping humans from being the worst race in your eyes?

I mean, PHB races suffer against power creep in the same way that PHB classes do. At this point I'd argue that Custom Lineage is the modern baseline. New races basically just give you a broader list of positive traits to draw from than those included in the feat list.

[Keltest]

Nah. WotC had a player race balancing equation in 2014. They have since made changes to that equation. You may not like those changes, but it is hardly a strawman in this context.

Things can seem a bit absurd when you reduce them to the point of absurdity.

WotC's current approach to race design no longer includes the use of negative traits (sunlight sensitivity, negative stat modifiers, slow move speed, etc). All races (including humans) have positive traits -- there is no definitional quality that the traits of other races have to be inherently better than human traits. Was the one square speed advantage over dwarves, gnomes, and halflings the only thing keeping humans from being the worst race in your eyes?

I mean, PHB races suffer against power creep in the same way that PHB classes do. At this point I'd argue that Custom Lineage is the modern baseline. New races basically just give you a broader list of positive traits to draw from than those included in the feat list.

were not reducing anything, its literally what he's saying. and he's insisting on this definition.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Things can seem a bit absurd when you reduce them to the point of absurdity.

WotC's current approach to race design no longer includes the use of negative traits (sunlight sensitivity, negative stat modifiers, slow move speed, etc). All races (including humans) have positive traits -- there is no definitional quality that the traits of other races have to be inherently better than human traits. Was the one square speed advantage over dwarves, gnomes, and halflings the only thing keeping humans from being the worst race in your eyes?

I mean, PHB races suffer against power creep in the same way that PHB classes do. At this point I'd argue that Custom Lineage is the modern baseline. New races basically just give you a broader list of positive traits to draw from than those included in the feat list.

But I'm talking about Psyren's definition of humans as the minimum. That no one else can fall below humans on anything meaningful. But are allowed to be above minimum values. And that's what's borked (and not a system design assumption at all).