I'm sick of the dnd community

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have rarely encountered a table brave enough to use standard array, most use point by or use a modified array with higher numbers.

That an the rules as I recall allow for infinite rerolls anyway, so most houserules of kind are mostly a time saving measures.

Whenever I play with brand-new people, I generally push for standard array. If not standard array, we do some form of rolling. I happen to dislike point-buy for...mostly idiosyncratic personal reasons.

But then again, I've had lots of groups where people chose to play sub-optimal characters (especially related to racial choices) and were just fine. Except for the one dude who thought that a
1) halfling (and not even one with STR/WIS bonuses)
2) cleric 1, Barbarian 4
3) who never cast spells
4) or used Reckless Attack
5) and tried to attack with a greataxe (and refused offers of switching out to a versatile weapon that wasn't heavy for free)
6) and didn't actually put significant ability scores into STR (IIRC it was 12)
was a good idea and refused to be dissuaded. Pro tip--it is possible (although difficult) to fall below the system expectations. That's one way. Individual pieces can work, but the totality? No.

[Pex]

Where "PCs are exceptional" should be more considered is in the raw numbers: if a PC has a +18 to stealth in 5e - doable at surprisingly low level if you work for it - that is the PC being exceptional, not a sign that you need to give passive perceptions of 28 to everything. That PC should be almost impossible for enemies to discover when he's hiding. Because he is exceptional.

I agree unfortunately too many DMs can't accept that. There must be a risk of failure at all times. PCs aren't allowed to be just that good to autosucceed. There is fun in challenge, but there is also fun in reaching a point where some Thing is not challenging anymore, and the player gets to enjoy the fruits of labor of achieving it. The player isn't autosucceeding over everything. He's autosucceeding in this one particular thing and that is what's Cool for the player. DMs need to learn to let the player be that good.

[Dr.Samurai]

So the big issue comes in when you assume that the median encounter is CR = level + X (X >= 0). That is the distortion that makes all the theorycraft people do diverge strongly from the system expectations.

Makes sense.

I agree with basically all of this. Sure, you might notice a difference. But it's not gamebreaking.

To clarify, I wasn't suggesting that it was game-breaking.

Rather, my preference is for a less swingy game. I want to be really good when things are stacked in my favor, but still good when they're stacked against me. I don't want to pray to the RNG that I roll at least above an 11 or something so that I can land my attack, which may have riders attached to it, etc.

I much prefer a more consistent experience. So if it is true that Bounded Accuracy allows you to play through with a +2 attack modifier, but that means that your chances to hit are generally 50/50, I don't think I'd like that playstyle. My position assumes it isn't game-breaking, I just wouldn't like it.

[Boci]

I agree unfortunately too many DMs can't accept that. There must be a risk of failure at all times. PCs aren't allowed to be just that good to autosucceed. There is fun in challenge, but there is also fun in reaching a point where some Thing is not challenging anymore, and the player gets to enjoy the fruits of labor of achieving it. The player isn't autosucceeding over everything. He's autosucceeding in this one particular thing and that is what's Cool for the player. DMs need to learn to let the player be that good.

I remember when I player of mine rolled a 2 on a not critical but potentially important diplomacy roll (this was back in 3.5), and was surprised when I said it passed. To their credit they had invested a non-trivial amount of resources to boost the check, and never tried to cheese the skill, only using it when appropriate. If I had wanted to make them not succeed on a 2 I would have needed to ban some of the bonuses they acquired, but they were totally expecting me to say it failed anyway. Oh and the reason they were still rolling despite the high modifier is because the game used crit fumbles for attacks and skills. Hey don't look at me, they asked for that houserule. Among many, many others.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To clarify, I wasn't suggesting that it was game-breaking.

Rather, my preference is for a less swingy game. I want to be really good when things are stacked in my favor, but still good when they're stacked against me. I don't want to pray to the RNG that I roll at least above an 11 or something so that I can land my attack, which may have riders attached to it, etc.

I much prefer a more consistent experience. So if it is true that Bounded Accuracy allows you to play through with a +2 attack modifier, but that means that your chances to hit are generally 50/50, I don't think I'd like that playstyle. My position assumes it isn't game-breaking, I just wouldn't like it.

Sure. Liking hitting more/missing less is natural. And I do try to put my biggest modifier into my primary stat and boost it regularly (including capping it out). But as far as game design and system expectations are concerned, it's a small effect. Washed out totally by things like
* cover
* advantage
* disadvantage
* Magic Resistance (etc)
* magic weapons/armor
* etc

That is, in principle there's this nice effect you can see. But in practice, the noise is so high anyway (the roll-to-roll variance in success probability, here, so effectively second-order noise) that it ends up getting washed out. But as humans, we tend to remember the failures way more than the successes and feel worse about them. "If only I'd had another +1..."

[Amechra]

I mean, all Dwarves are identical because they're all actually all clones of the same 30-something civil engineer. The machine keeps pumping them out, and no-one knows how to turn it off.

More seriously, elves are actually a really weird example to pick, because they literally need half the sleep that everyone else does. An elf has four extra hours every day for extra work or leisure — that's the kind of thing that would have a massive impact on a society. Like, in a world where humans worked 40-hour weeks, an elf that worked 68 hours a week would have the same amount of free time.

[Boci]

More seriously, elves are actually a really weird example to pick, because they literally need half the sleep that everyone else does. An elf has four extra hours every day for extra work or leisure — that's the kind of thing that would have a massive impact on a society. Like, in a world where humans worked 40-hour weeks, an elf that worked 68 hours a week would have the same amount of free time.

But that's the point, that's a societal thing. A player character is a specific individual, who is sharing the spotlight with 3 others, give or take. So yes, what in world building would have massive implications, for roleplaying a PC becomes in most cases, "I can have a hobby ready / journalist whilst we're busy adventuring," because there just isn't the time, or will, to flesh it out any more.

[Pex]

I remember when I player of mine rolled a 2 on a not critical but potentially important diplomacy roll (this was back in 3.5), and was surprised when I said it passed. To their credit they had invested a non-trivial amount of resources to boost the check, and never tried to cheese the skill, only using it when appropriate. If I had wanted to make them not succeed on a 2 I would have needed to ban some of the bonuses they acquired, but they were totally expecting me to say it failed anyway. Oh and the reason they were still rolling despite the high modifier is because the game used crit fumbles for attacks and skills. Hey don't look at me, they asked for that houserule. Among many, many others.

I get that in 5E as a DM and fellow player in other games. Player only hits AC 13 and thinks he misses but is surprised he hits. Gets an 11 on a skill check, surprised he succeeds. Even happens with players who have played for years. They don't understand not every skill DC is 20. Not every AC is 21. It's not always about their previous DMs. They see a low number and think it fails by default.

Having more experience as a DM I'm still having a 16 in my prime at 1st level after racial modifier, but I'm not as bothered I have to get over it when others have a 15 as I used to be. However, I will be concerned if they never increase it by 8th level. ASI, half-feat, whichever, but improve it. If they multiclass before 4th level, fine, but that means their first ASI when it happens should improve it. The bad guys are improving their respective prime and proficiency. Once 9th level happens math will matter a lot if they don't keep up. I'm more comfortable having an 18 by then, but if they don't have at least 16 they will be less effective than they think they would be.

[OldTrees1]

Rather, my preference is for a less swingy game. I want to be really good when things are stacked in my favor, but still good when they're stacked against me. I don't want to pray to the RNG that I roll at least above an 11 or something so that I can land my attack, which may have riders attached to it, etc.

I much prefer a more consistent experience. So if it is true that Bounded Accuracy allows you to play through with a +2 attack modifier, but that means that your chances to hit are generally 50/50, I don't think I'd like that playstyle. My position assumes it isn't game-breaking, I just wouldn't like it.

Remember this "fundamental math" link? Here is the table when corrected to 5E's actual assumptions.

Spoiler: Table in spoiler

Show

Party Level	Typical CR	Ability Mod	Proficiency	Total	AC	Hit %
1	0.5	2	2	4	13	60%
2	1	2	2	4	13	60%
3	1	2	2	4	13	60%
4	2	2	2	4	13	60%
5	2	2	3	5	13	65%
6	3	2	3	5	13	65%
7	3	2	3	5	13	65%
8	4	2	3	5	14	60%
9	4	2	4	6	14	65%
10	5	2	4	6	15	60%
11	5	2	4	6	15	60%
12	6	2	4	6	15	60%
13	6	2	5	7	15	65%
14	7	2	5	7	15	65%
15	7	2	5	7	15	65%
16	8	2	5	7	16	60%
17	8	2	6	8	16	65%
18	9	2	6	8	16	65%
19	9	2	6	8	16	65%
20	10	2	6	8	17	60%

As you gain levels the range of CRs you face increases. Typical CR captures the fact that the average CR you face will grow much slower than your level.

So, how would a consistent ~62.5% chance to hit with a 14-15 primary score sound to you?

You can have a higher score. You can increase your score. However bounded accuracy was designed so the gamedevs could assume you did not increase your score.


Here it is from a designer's mouth (courtesy of ProsecutorGodot's quote):

Bounded accuracy actually doesn't assume any increases to the players ability modifiers, scheduled or otherwise.

Here's an excerpt from a quote by Rodney Thompson, one of the designers of 5e.

The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game that the player’s attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster’s hit points
...
This extends beyond simple attacks and damage. We also make the same assumptions about character ability modifiers and skill bonuses.

[Dr.Samurai]

@Oldtrees: Thank you, that is exactly what I was going to do!

Although I've managed to injure myself at work and get put in a sling since my last post lol.

I like 62% over 50% for sure. Time to see what can be done with point buy under different assumptions.

[OldTrees1]

@Oldtrees: Thank you, that is exactly what I was going to do!

Glad to be of help.

Although I've managed to injure myself at work and get put in a sling since my last post lol.

Ouch. May your recovery be rapid.

[False God]

I agree unfortunately too many DMs can't accept that. There must be a risk of failure at all times. PCs aren't allowed to be just that good to autosucceed. There is fun in challenge, but there is also fun in reaching a point where some Thing is not challenging anymore, and the player gets to enjoy the fruits of labor of achieving it. The player isn't autosucceeding over everything. He's autosucceeding in this one particular thing and that is what's Cool for the player. DMs need to learn to let the player be that good.

This is, again to circle back to the OP, part of why I've moved away from D&D.

At some point, you'll always succeed. And there's nothing wrong with that IMO. But there seems to be a low tolerance for it among the D&D community, both among players and DMs. DMs that insist there should always be a roll, even when you're 10 points over the DC by default, and players who demand that they should always be given a chance, even when it is impossible for them to succeed. There seems to be a high fixation on the extremes of success and failure. That Nat 20 that saved the day, that Nat 1 that ruined everything.

Although the game is clearly designed for niche-protection and niche-building, there seems to be a strong demand that everyone be able to participate in everything all the time. Which to me is weird, because it feels like the game is clearly saying "Everyone should have their own special area."

But many more story-centric systems (and their players) don't have any issue with me "giving away" the answer to the player with ridiculous stats or telling a player their character is just unable to participate (for whatever reason) in this one given task/event. That seems to make sense to these folks. Really strong guys don't have to make checks to bust down doors, busting down doors is their specialty. Really smart guys don't have to make checks if they've read that book, because reading books is what they do. And those elements of characters are supported by role-play (which I've mentioned elsewhere D&D has a very low requirement for).

[Cheesegear]

See, what sparked all this discussion that derailed the thread was that some people think that "creating a non stereotypical character concept" is enough to create a good character and "roleplay well".

No. This is what derailed the topic:

Me; The fact that people think a 16 in a primary stat is mandatory to play a class, stifles creativity, and as such there is no reason, ever, to play a Tiefling Druid. That is, power-gaming trumps creativity to a lot of people, and that's upsetting to me. That is, playing a Tiefling Druid is the opposite of power-gaming, and opens up several creative things you can do with your character.

Response; What's mechanically creative about playing a character that sucks? Couldn't you play a Human or Hill Dwarf, get that bonus to WIS, and then do whatever you were going to do, anyway?

Me; ...No, Dwarves and Tieflings are not the same. But I wasn't talking about playing a character that sucks...We're going to have to define what we mean when we talk about 'creativity', and we're really gonna have to define what 'mechanically creative' even means...Because that's not what I'm talking about. But if that's the conversation we're going to have, I need to know exactly what's being talked about (since the OP is very vague).

Creating a non-stereotypical character concept is an opportunity to roleplay well, and be creative. Sure. I'll use your words. I can agree with that.
However, to a power-gamer, playing a non-stereotypical character concept is anathema, and as such Half-Orc Bards can't exist. Half-Orc Wizards can't exist.
Why not? What is the reason you can't play a Half-Orc Wizard? Is it because they don't have 16 Int at Level 1? If that's why you wont play a Half-Orc Wizard, you've proven my point.

...Then Tasha's comes along, says Race any Humanoid Species is just a cool hat you can wear sometimes, and that's the end of it.

I have Darkvision, a Feat, 16 Int, and I look like a Half-Orc. I am a Half-Orc, even though there's actually a real mechanic in the game that says I'm not.

Or you have someone say something...Wrong; My Tiefling was adopted by Dwarves, so therefore is a Dwarf. My non-stereotypical character is actually very stereotypical; I'm just red and have a tail...But that shouldn't ever come up because I'm actually a Dwarf, don't you know, so there's no problem.

[Boci]

Or you have someone say something...Wrong; My Tiefling was adopted by Dwarves, so therefore is a Dwarf. My non-stereotypical character is actually very stereotypical; I'm just red and have a tail...But that shouldn't ever come up because I'm actually a Dwarf, don't you know, so there's no problem.

But how should it "come up" that your character is red and has a tail? Because it sounds an awful lot like you're saying its a great opportunity to have your character face discrimination and casual racism. Which can be realistic and fun, but not every group and player wants to do that. Other answers I've gotten on this are "Growing up they would bumped their head a lot and may have found it hard to find products to maintain the horns". These are interesting foot notes, but nothing substantial, and even groups that RP may not delve into that detail.

So assuming the player or group makes the valid choice to not include racism or discrimination in the game, how would the tiefling's red skin and tail "come up" in ways that give meaningful opportunities to roleplay rather than just be clever footnotes in their backstory that potentially never come up during an actual session?

[Cheesegear]

But how should it "come up" that your character is red and has a tail?

However you make it.

It you don't make it come up; If your characters' species and background does not impact how your character roleplays, then once again, I really, really, really need you to define 'being creative' because I don't think we're on the same page.

[Boci]

However you make it.

It you don't make it come up; If your characters' species and background does not impact how your character roleplays, then once again, I really, really, really need you to define 'being creative' because I don't think we're on the same page.

Yeah, I believe characters are fully realised individuals, and as such sometimes their race will play a minimal role in their character, as other factors of their personality are more relevant. There's also the practical consideration of D&D being a group game played with others, often with a plot about getting riches or saving the world. So what could make for compelling characterisation in a novel might not be feasible to explore in your D&D game.

None of this I believe is antithetical to "being creative". To me part of being creative is knowing when to lean into an aspect of your character, and when you focus somewhere else instead.

[Rynjin]

However you make it.

It you don't make it come up; If your characters' species and background does not impact how your character roleplays, then once again, I really, really, really need you to define 'being creative' because I don't think we're on the same page.

Eh. Not every character needs to be Tanis or Drizzt where their race comes up every 5 minutes.

[Lord Raziere]

Yeah, I believe characters are fully realised individuals, and as such sometimes their race will play a minimal role in their character, as other factors of their personality are more relevant. There's also the practical consideration of D&D being a group game played with others, often with a plot about getting riches or saving the world. So what could make for compelling characterisation in a novel might not be feasible to explore in your D&D game.

None of this I believe is antithetical to "being creative". To me part of being creative is knowing when to lean into an aspect of your character, and when you focus somewhere else instead.

Indeed.

Not every story/game/whatever focuses on the same things. Artemis Fowl makes Mulch Diggums being a dwarf incredibly important because of the strange things he can do with his biology to commit crime that is useful for both the LEPrecon and Artemis himself. but this is a bit modern and scientific for non-urban fantasy.

Lord of the Rings makes being a dwarf or elf or hobbit or human is not actually all that important in the grand scheme of things, because nothing Gimli, Legolas does really matters except in a marginal "they were there and helped" kind of sense and could've been replaced by two badass humans, while being a hobbit isn't actually that important either-anyone humble and not desiring of power enough could've gotten the ring that far, because biology really has nothing to do with that, culture might have a hand in helping though, how big of one? eh, not as big you might think, as every culture has its share of good people and jerks. if Bilbo gave the Ring to one of his more jerkish and petty cousins I doubt that would've ended well, but there might've been a humble human farmer capable of resisting it for just as long, we'll never really know.

you can attempt to make races important without the sciencey biology changes, but those tend to fall into the trap of waxing poetic about romantic notions of that races virtuous and noble nature, or how only "they" could've done this, without really much substance much like how some stories fall into the trap of waxing poetic about how humanity is special in some vague romantic way when there is really no reason to draw the connection or talk about it because whether that race is like that really has nothing to do with the situation at all. and it just feels weird to say "you are special because you were born an X and were raised to have X virtues like all X's and you demonstrated how your a paragon of being an X, as an example to all X's to live up to" as if any Y's can't also take inspiration from your example or learn to do the things you did, or any Z's couldn't have been there and did just as well in a different way.

now the other direction is to change the race biology in a more magical and mystical way. like say, the Parshendi from Stormlight Archive: their biology is important because its basically magic where they change to different forms for different roles in society, much of everything they say is in song and rhythm to communicate emotion and such, its implied they can communicate telepathically, and all these reasons combine to make people suspicious of the Parshendi and thus one good one fighting on their side, their slaveform has been used for slave labor and thus when they get out of dull form they have little idea of how to form a society making them susceptible to people who want to use them as weapons, a whole bunch of things that make the Parshendi-human conflict believable even if there weren't gods interfering in the matter.

the problem is, I'm not sure if something much like the Parshendi would be all the relevant to a DnD party. you can drop any race from any fantasy setting into DnD and it'd work, but they'd all face the same problem: most likely all the other players are playing something different, so the race thing will probably never be a shared identity. a Parshendi would see their other party members as rhythm-less, and would probably already be in a form built for fighting if they are adventuring, so its questionable how much they'd need armor but they'd still need a weapon. they'd just be that weird person who speaks rhythmically even though they're not a bard and has armor for skin. the strangeness that makes them interesting only works in the context of other Parshendi, their culture.

so if even something as interesting and well-written as the Parshendi would have problems being portrayed as their race being important in a DnD party, perhaps the problem is that if you want someone's culture and background to be important, maybe don't play a campaign where you join four random people outside the context of that culture and background, who are also outside the context of their culture and backgrounds. you want being this or that race/culture to be important? make it the race/culture everyone plays and put them all in the context of being that one race and dealing with that cultures problems, because outside the context of the culture, the background and such really doesn't matter that much.

[Cheesegear]

Yeah, I believe characters are fully realised individuals, and as such sometimes their race will play a minimal role in their character

Okay. But I feel as though you've picked out the part of my argument that you can argue against, whilst ignoring my actual point. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Tiefling Druids don't get played.
Half-Orc Wizards don't get played.
Mountain Dwarf Bards don't get played.

The reason isn't because those characters don't have stories to tell. The counter to my argument is not:

'Dwarves are better mechanically so just play a Dwarf because roleplaying is a non-factor, so why would you even want to play a Tiefling?'

If that is your counter, then we are not on the same page and never will be, because that counter is actually proving my point, not disproving it.

[Boci]

Okay. But I feel as though you've picked out the part of my argument that you can argue against, whilst ignoring my actual point. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Tiefling Druids don't get played.
Half-Orc Wizards don't get played.
Mountain Dwarf Bards don't get played.

They do in my groups/social circles. Not as often more classic combinations, but my first ever character was a high-elf / bard, and I've played a drow / druid, and when I DMed one of my friends went with a half-orc / caster of some sort, might have also been a druid (admittedly this might have been after I houseruled half-orcs get +2 to strength and +1 floating to mimic half-elves, but the player wouldn't have known that was a houserule before so this still counts). They also played a non-varient tiefling fighter in another game they're in.

However, not all of these characters were made inherently interesting by the non-standard choice of race and class. Somewhere, my drow / druid was, but the high-elf bard wasn't really. Its not that I didn't roleplay him, but the bard aspect of his character and my friendship with the party's cleric definitely contributed more.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They do in my groups/social circles. Not as often more classic combinations, but my first ever character was a high-elf / bard, and I've played a drow / druid, and when I DMed one of my friends went with a half-orc / caster of some sort, might have also been a druid (admittedly this might have been after I houseruled half-orcs get +2 to strength and +1 floating to mimic half-elves, but the player wouldn't have known that was a houserule before so this still counts). They also played a non-varient tiefling fighter in another game they're in.

However, not all of these characters were made inherently interesting by the non-standard choice of race and class. Somewhere, my drow / druid was, but the high-elf bard wasn't really. Its not that I didn't roleplay him, but the bard aspect of his character and my friendship with the party's cleric definitely contributed more.

Very much agree. I've seen
* a number of tiefling druids
* dwarven <X>, where <X> is just about anything
* I have a tabaxi wizard in my current group
* etc.

It's only when you are pushing the difficulty frontier (usually a case where combat is all that matters and you lean hard into one BIG encounter per rest and/or optimize or die) that the difference between starting with a +2, +3, or +4 matters. And that's usually only because it frees up ASIs for feats.

I don't really do fantasy racism. But I do have people be more visible because of unusual (for the area) race choices. The tiefling in my group? He's a target for one of the significant adversary groups (a devil cult) because the way you get tieflings is by having kids under devil influence. In this case, his mom was picked for a "ritual" to try to breed half-devils (in the obvious way). His dad saved her, but the ritual was half-complete and the devil influence was still strong. Hence...human mom & dad, tiefling kid. Some areas, being a genasi means you get treated as a "elements-blessed" child and are expected to fill a religious role. In one play area, "elf" isn't a valid choice. Because elves are super rare in that area (although that's changing) due to having retreated en masse a couple thousand years or so ago. And there's lingering racial legends of the "evil elves". Not hostile, just notable. The party wizard (a tabaxi) is, well, very notable because tabaxi are rare there and even more rarely wizards (who are disliked for setting reasons). Which is fun when he's trying to fly under the radar so his mom doesn't know where he is. Etc.

[Psyren]

...Then Tasha's comes along, says Race any Humanoid Species is just a cool hat you can wear sometimes, and that's the end of it.

This conclusion requires ignoring literally every racial trait that isn't the ASI. It just doesn't make sense. The races are more diverse, varied and competitive than they've ever been, save the two that get a bonus feat.

I agree unfortunately too many DMs can't accept that. There must be a risk of failure at all times. PCs aren't allowed to be just that good to autosucceed. There is fun in challenge, but there is also fun in reaching a point where some Thing is not challenging anymore, and the player gets to enjoy the fruits of labor of achieving it. The player isn't autosucceeding over everything. He's autosucceeding in this one particular thing and that is what's Cool for the player. DMs need to learn to let the player be that good.

I agree, but this kind of bad DMing is not really D&D's fault. I wouldn't say no to better guidance at crafting ability check challenges however.

[Dork_Forge]

This conclusion requires ignoring literally every racial trait that isn't the ASI. It just doesn't make sense. The races are more diverse, varied and competitive than they've ever been, save the two that get a bonus feat.

If you look at Tasha's as a turning point, rather than the only change, this isn't really true. New races that come out are largely stripped of their flavour, with most being the same height, weight and living as long as a human.

There was also the standardisation of 30 ft movement speeds, 1d6 natural weapons, and everyone getting flexible ASIs.

The races lost a large amount of things that separated them previously, to the point where their features are the only things left, and even those were made similar to some degree as shown above.

You don't have to like this, you don't have to take this as 'all races are exactly the same now' but it's hard to argue that they didn't become a lot more similar in many ways.

[Boci]

If you look at Tasha's as a turning point, rather than the only change, this isn't really true. New races that come out are largely stripped of their flavour, with most being the same height, weight and living as long as a human.

There was also the standardisation of 30 ft movement speeds, 1d6 natural weapons, and everyone getting flexible ASIs.

The races lost a large amount of things that separated them previously, to the point where their features are the only things left, and even those were made similar to some degree as shown above.

You don't have to like this, you don't have to take this as 'all races are exactly the same now' but it's hard to argue that they didn't become a lot more similar in many ways.

I haven't kept up with new races, what ones with this formula of 30ft movement, 1d6 nat attack and flexible ASIs? I know strixhaven introduced owlmen, I could see them having 1d6 talons.

[x3n0n]

I haven't kept up with new races, what ones with this formula of 30ft movement, 1d6 nat attack and flexible ASIs? I know strixhaven introduced owlmen, I could see them having 1d6 talons.

All of the MotM remakes of earlier (mostly Volo's and MToF) races.

(That is, if it had a sub-30 speed, it has a 30 speed. If it had a natural weapon that could be used for unarmed strikes, it now deals 1d6. If it had a recharges-on-short-rest ability, it recharges prof-bonus times per long rest. If it healed/damaged based on character level, it now does so based on one of various formulas related to prof-bonus. All races grant your choice of +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 initial ability score modifiers spread as you choose.)

Similar for the other recent races like the ones from the Ravenloft book.

[Dork_Forge]

I haven't kept up with new races, what ones with this formula of 30ft movement, 1d6 nat attack and flexible ASIs? I know strixhaven introduced owlmen, I could see them having 1d6 talons.

Monsters of the Multiverse updated a lot of races to bring them in line with that design ethos. Centaurs now have 1d6 hooves, Duergar and Deep Gnomes have 30ft movement etc.

[Psyren]

If you look at Tasha's as a turning point, rather than the only change, this isn't really true. New races that come out are largely stripped of their flavour, with most being the same height, weight and living as long as a human.

There was also the standardisation of 30 ft movement speeds, 1d6 natural weapons, and everyone getting flexible ASIs.

I don't view a single one of these old paradigms as worth keeping. Different move speeds are just one more annoyance for new players and DMs to track that doesn't do anything for balance, especially at high tiers when everyone has a speed boost or new movement mode of some kind anyway. Height, weight and lifespan are ribbons in the vast majority of games. Racial natural weapons becoming unarmed strikes streamlined the rules in a very good way. And I'm definitely not going down the Fixed ASI rabbit hole yet again, this thread is already heading towards that particular s-bend.

You don't have to like this, you don't have to take this as 'all races are exactly the same now' but it's hard to argue that they didn't become a lot more similar in many ways.

It's hard to argue they're not still very different than one another. If Shadar-Kai and Bugbears had the exact same height, weight, lifespan, speed, ASIs, and unarmed strikes they would still be vastly different in play, and you know it.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't view a single one of these old paradigms as worth keeping. Different move speeds are just one more annoyance for new players and DMs to track that doesn't do anything for balance, especially at high tiers when everyone has a speed boost or new movement mode of some kind anyway. Height, weight and lifespan are ribbons in the vast majority of games. Racial natural weapons becoming unarmed strikes streamlined the rules in a very good way. And I'm definitely not going down the Fixed ASI rabbit hole yet again, this thread is already heading towards that particular s-bend.

Players don't automatically have speed boosts and new modes of movement at higher levels, my two long term games are up to levels 10 and 14 currently and this isn't true for either of them. Actually, there's been no movement change to either that wasn't applicable at much lower levels.

The natural weapons thing wasn't about them being unarmed strikes, it was about the damage die homogenising.

It's also not the point that height, weight, lifespan info is ribbons, that was a large part of the flavour of those races that is now gone.

It's hard to argue they're not still very different than one another. If Shadar-Kai and Bugbears had the exact same height, weight, lifespan, speed, ASIs, and unarmed strikes they would still be vastly different in play, and you know it.

Why are you choosing to ignore/disregard the actual claim that they got a lot more similar? Can you actually engage with that instead of sidestepping it?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Height, weight and lifespan are ribbons in the vast majority of games.

Is mechanical power the only thing that matters? Height, weight, and lifespan are critically important to worldbuilding. And if you way that PCs are exceptional in that...then you're saying that the real race of all PCs is "PC". Because a 6'11" halfling or a 2'5" goliath aren't halflings or goliaths.

Personally, mechanics of races matter only when they reflect some fundamental truth about the race in the setting. So eliding all of the things that could be different means you might as well just have one race with a buffet of features to pick from. Which is sucky for coherent worlds.

[Segev]

I don't view a single one of these old paradigms as worth keeping. Different move speeds are just one more annoyance for new players and DMs to track that doesn't do anything for balance....

This argument can be used for literally all racial and class features. That isn't to say it isn't a consideration, but it doesn't back up "it's not worth keeping" as well as you seem to believe it does. You can fail to view any number of things as "not worth keeping," but you need more than "I don't care about them, personally," and "they're just one more annoyance for new players and DMs to track" to back it up as anything other than your personal taste and preference, because, again, ALL rules are "just one more annoyance...to track."

It'd make things a lot simpler if everybody played a Dwarf Champion Fighter. That wouldn't make the game better, though, nor justify throwing out everything else. Even if you (generic you) happen to think dwarf champion fighters are the only paradigm worth keeping.