I'm sick of the dnd community

[Jophiel]

It doesn't. You just have to have a county not defined primarily by the race that primarily inhabits it. And if too many races it what makes DMs finally realize this, than I want 3 more books full of playable races by the end of this year.

Can't imagine that'll get you the result you want. A core part of world/campaign building to me is deciding which races will inhabit it, not thinking "Man, now I gotta find a place for these ten other guys they just added".

[Dork_Forge]

It's not a nitpick at all. A significant amount of fluff was removed, sure, but (a) I agree with their reasons and (b) a significant amount of crunch differences remain. The latter at least is just a fact.

A fact that no one, that I can see, is arguing with you, or stating at all.

Now they don't have to. And as Boci correctly stated, it makes things like overland movement and chase scenes much easier to adjudicate.

If your players truly found meaning in Small races being 1 square slower, that's completely fine, it should be easy for your table to reinstate.

There's nothing to adjudicate. The travel rules don't use speed in that way at all, walk speed is reserved for short, energetic bursts of movement, not long-distance travel.

Though, I can see why it would have to be adjudicated, as it seems in your and Boci's cases it has been DM fiat, rather than the actual rules.


As for chases, it doesn't really change that much and I don't find removing something interesting: how are the slower members going to get away? To be better for the game. We won't agree, but 'easier to adjudicate' is not the be all of rules.

I'm not going to engage with the 'your table can change it back' thing you do, it's okay people don't like it, it's okay that you do, and it's okay that everyone voices their opinions here.

[Boci]

As for dragonborn they came from Abir when their nation was teleported there, so yes they do have a nation. Not every species needs a nation populated primarily by that species but realistically they had to come from somewhere and that somewhere probably still has a lot of them. And you need some reason why they’re there. Not going to go too much into it but a world with intelligent species as different as mammal and reptile will have to have a lot of world building on how those two interact. Zootopia is a good example of this where animals need different climates and have different dietary needs, mostly because one group of the population use to eat the other. Does a DM or writer need to explain why the heck Yuan Ti and Gith are in Dragonlance? Does every new setting need to factor in the social impact of elves living hundreds of years or where all the Fey came from?

No they don't. Its always cool to have fantasy give a more detailed look at the social and world building implications of some of the races, but its not needed to have a good time. A DM can have a list of common races for their world, and if a player wants to play something else they can say "Sure, you can play them. We're far away enough from their homeland, or perhaps they don't have one and are just incredibly rare all world over*, so don't expect to run into any".

And yes, a race that is incredibly rare world wide with no centralized population probably is a dying race (unless they can reproduce asexually/produce fullblooded offspring with other races), but most players I feel won't mind overlooking that detail.

Can't imagine that'll get you the result you want. A core part of world/campaign building to me is deciding which races will inhabit it, not thinking "Man, now I gotta find a place for these ten other guys they just added".

I was being flippant, but to be serious, what if a player wants to play a race you didn't assign to your world? Do you tell them no, or allow it and reason that whilst present in your world they aren't there in any major numbers?

Though, I can see why it would have to be adjudicated, as it seems in your and Boci's cases it has been DM fiat, rather than the actual rules.

For overland speed sure, but its not DM fiat to note that the party with a dwarf in it can't match the speed of a fleeing enemy with 30ft, which is not a rare speed for creatures to have. So if your DM is in the habit of having monsters retreat, having a dwarf can cause some awkward decisions when that happens. I'm not talking about the party being chased here, rather the opposite.

I notable haven't said whether I'm for or against removing 25 speed as a thing for playable races, I was just noting an effect it can have.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I was being flippant, but to be serious, what if a player wants to play a race you didn't assign to your world? Do you tell them no, or allow it and reason that whilst present in your world they aren't there in any major numbers?

Personally, if it's a race I've decided doesn't exist (eg lopporits....oops, wrong franchise)? They get a "no, doesn't exist". And even a lot of the ones that do exist (canonically) aren't playable or aren't playable in that area. Because they only exist on the other side of the world, and there's no contact.

Races, for me, are so firmly entangled in the world that they're not entirely (or even mostly) a player-facing thing. Adding even a rare race means
1) figuring out where they came from (ie origin), because this matters a lot for my consistency
2) figuring out where they came from (ie where they exist)
3) figuring out how they play a role in societies
4) figuring out how others react to them everywhere the party might go
5) figuring out why they haven't been around before
6) etc.

So to me, the whole Custom Race thing and the "let's make tons of races that were setting specific into generic races for every setting" thing is exactly backwards. Races should be dominantly setting specific. No, there don't need to be Warforged in Arthas. Or elephant people in Forgotten Realms. Or kender.

[Jophiel]

I was being flippant, but to be serious, what if a player wants to play a race you didn't assign to your world? Do you tell them no, or allow it and reason that whilst present in your world they aren't there in any major numbers?

Honestly, it doesn't come up. The people I play with are all of the mind that, while the game world gets inhabited and thus "built" by everyone, the foundation is laid by the DM. So no one ever insists on playing a race that doesn't exist there and I don't go into anyone else's game insisting on playing a race they don't have inhabiting that world. It's one of the pre-session zero things: Here's the game I'll (me or whoever) be running, do you want to play in this game?

I suppose if it ever DID come up, it would depend a lot on the race and their motivation. If someone was interested in Hobgoblin traits and was okay with playing a human with Saving Face and Martial Training then cool. If someone insists on playing a Tabaxi because they just have to be a cat-girl and no amount of climbing or speed bursts will appease them, then I'm not sure how it'd shake out. But that doesn't happen so no big deal.

[Dork_Forge]

For overland speed sure, but its not DM fiat to note that the party with a dwarf in it can't match the speed of a fleeing enemy with 30ft, which is not a rare speed for creatures to have. So if your DM is in the habit of having monsters retreat, having a dwarf can cause some awkward decisions when that happens. I'm not talking about the party being chased here, rather the opposite.

I notable haven't said whether I'm for or against removing 25 speed as a thing for playable races, I was just noting an effect it can have.

Well no, but that's the interesting part. How is that Dwarf keeping up? What are they doing if not keeping up?

[Jervis]

No they don't. Its always cool to have fantasy give a more detailed look at the social and world building implications of some of the races, but its not needed to have a good time. A DM can have a list of common races for their world, and if a player wants to play something else they can say "Sure, you can play them. We're far away enough from their homeland, or perhaps they don't have one and are just incredibly rare all world over*, so don't expect to run into any".

And yes, a race that is incredibly rare world wide with no centralized population probably is a dying race (unless they can reproduce asexually/produce fullblooded offspring with other races), but most players I feel won't mind overlooking that detail.

You see that’s one other problem I have. I don’t want players playing an obscure thing with no in setting lore attached that no one has every heard of just because it lets their cleric cast shield. I like options and optimization, I don’t like options and optimization devoiced from any buy in to the setting where you pick an obscure race who’s only lore is tied to something that doesn’t freaking exist here. I’ve made changes and concessions before if a player just really wanted to play something, but a player just picked up some random build and not bothering to learn anything about the setting makes me not care about their character. Playing a Gith or Harengon in a setting where they basically don’t exist tells me as a GM that you don’t care about the work I put in making the setting. Yeah in theory you can ban them but most players assume the “optional” content in new books is allowed by default. Take this from a GM who went to the trouble of making a setting in 3.5 that could justifiably included everything as well as making a massive amount of new homebrew and options that players proceeded to ignore and make characters that had absolutely nothing to do with anything made in the setting. Granted that goes beyond race choices and more into just general builds that didn’t have anything to do with the setting proper but you see my point.

[Jophiel]

Well no, but that's the interesting part. How is that Dwarf keeping up? What are they doing if not keeping up?

When just "walking", I don't move 30' in six seconds. I certainly could if I wanted to but that's not my strolling speed. I just measured myself and it's actually closer to 20-25' in six seconds. So I'd assume a dwarf is just pumpin' the legs a little bit harder and making some delightful RP comments about how it's a pain to travel with such long legged folks without it having a mechanical impact on the journey.

For an even more real life example, my wife is considerably shorter than me with a shorter stride. Left to my own devices, I'll easily outwalk her but we can spend a day together out and about without me leaving her 5' further behind every six seconds or feeling like our travel speed is crippled. If we're ever getting chased by an owlbear though, she's outta luck

[Boci]

If someone insists on playing a Tabaxi because they just have to be a cat-girl and no amount of climbing or speed bursts will appease them, then I'm not sure how it'd shake out. But that doesn't happen so no big deal.

To give a concrete example here, pictures sometimes inspire characters for me, so what about her:

https://i0.wp.com/that70sgame.com/wp...37%2C300&ssl=1

Clearly she's a tabaxi, or some cat related race, I can't play her without it. If you say no, that's fine, I won't come back with another tabaxi, because it was the image that inspired the character, but that is the one i feel most inspired to play now, and it needs to be a tabaxi.

Well no, but that's the interesting part. How is that Dwarf keeping up? What are they doing if not keeping up?

Forcing the party to choose between splitting up and letting the fleeing monster get away?

You see that’s one other problem I have. I don’t want players playing an obscure thing with no in setting lore attached.

I'm personally fine with it as a DM. My gaming world is never done, so making up some lore for a rare/exotic race is fun and keeps me on my toes. It could even make my gaming world better, and if it doesn't? Then I won't add it to my notes after the game. Quite a few bits of my game have grown from fitting in a player's character race. I have a war in the north I really like that all started because a player of mine wanted to try out a homebrewed ice elf.

When just "walking", I don't move 30' in six seconds. I certainly could if I wanted to but that's not my strolling speed. I just measured myself and it's actually closer to 20-25' in six seconds. So I'd assume a dwarf is just pumpin' the legs a little bit harder and making some delightful RP comments about how it's a pain to travel with such long legged folks without it having a mechanical impact on the journey.

We're talking about a chase here, not walking.

[Khrysaes]

So to me, the whole Custom Race thing and the "let's make tons of races that were setting specific into generic races for every setting" thing is exactly backwards. Races should be dominantly setting specific. No, there don't need to be Warforged in Arthas. Or elephant people in Forgotten Realms. Or kender.

I agree that each and every race doesnt need to be present in some setting.

There is at least precendent to some crossover
Namely Spelljammer as Krynn, Oerth, and Toril are close together in terms of spelljamming scale. Effectively neighboring solar systems.

Athas was technically also there, butnigh impossible to travel to or from.

The bigger issue i have with setting specific races crossing over are… planar i guess. For example Eberron is on the prime material plane, but its planar structure is so different that a crossover to forgotten realms makes no sense. Kalashtar, quori, daelkyr, and warforged are also tied very strongly to Eberron and little with anything present in any other setting.

I could see changelings and shifters existing in forgotten realms, at least but not strictly as non true breeding races since FR has both lycans and dopplegangers.

[Jophiel]

To give a concrete example here, pictures sometimes inspire characters for me, so what about her:
[...]
We're talking about a chase here, not walking.

Whoops, my mistake on the chase. I was still in the mindset of just overland travel.

If there's no cat-people in my campaign world, no one will be playing a cat person. But, like I said, everyone knows that going in so no one asks to play a cat-person.

If someone only wanted to play a cat-person (not saying YOU would but someone-someone) then I'm probably not running a game they'll want to play in and that's cool. I personally have a dozen character concepts rolling around in my head at any given time and don't bother getting attached to an idea until I find out what the campaign world is like. Making a character who fits into the world is part of the enjoyment for me.

[Boci]

Whoops, my mistake on the chase. I was still in the mindset of just overland travel.

If there's no cat-people in my campaign world, no one will be playing a cat person. But, like I said, everyone knows that going in so no one asks to play a cat-person.

If someone only wanted to play a cat-person (not saying YOU would but someone-someone) then I'm probably not running a game they'll want to play in and that's cool. I personally have a dozen character concepts rolling around in my head at any given time and don't bother getting attached to an idea until I find out what the campaign world is like. Making a character who fits into the world is part of the enjoyment for me.

That's interesting. I don't think I've ever seen a DM who strictly controlled just races like that. I've seen DMs who has strict list of what what material they will approve for races, archetypes and spells/magical items, but never just races. Do you also have a list of which archetypes do and don't exist in your world, or is it primarily races? In 3.5 it would also be classes, but I'm assuming banning classes is pretty rare in 5e.

[Psyren]

By the reasoning you've used, however, every single one of the grains of sand can be removed.

This is a strawman; I have never once, at any point, argued for removing all differences between races.

At what point do you start saying, "woah, woah, we still need some sand, here, or it's not a beach?" And how do you defend keeping THAT grain vs. the ones you've already said, "Eh, good riddance," to, based on the logic you've used to justify getting rid of them?

There is no universal line, but gameplay is a good place to start. What is the mechanical impact of Height? Weight? Lifespan? Are races with floating ASIs materially imbalanced compared to the ones with fixed? What benefit is there to a DM and to a party for having to reduce everyone's speed down to that of the slowest members during a noncombat scene, or else risk splitting the party? Or to need to calculate how far a creature with an odd-numbered speed can get if they're at half speed.

As for dragonborn they came from Abir when their nation was teleported there, so yes they do have a nation. Not every species needs a nation populated primarily by that species but realistically they had to come from somewhere and that somewhere probably still has a lot of them. And you need some reason why they’re there. Not going to go too much into it but a world with intelligent species as different as mammal and reptile will have to have a lot of world building on how those two interact. Zootopia is a good example of this where animals need different climates and have different dietary needs, mostly because one group of the population use to eat the other. Does a DM or writer need to explain why the heck Yuan Ti and Gith are in Dragonlance? Does every new setting need to factor in the social impact of elves living hundreds of years or where all the Fey came from?

Zootopia has neither magic nor explicit divinities that ensure these disparate parts keep functioning. D&D settings do.

The problem with removing the cultural aspect from races is that you both remove a lot of interesting lore and remove those features from existence. Like I was saying before to give a race weapon profs now they need to give them the power to telepathically contact their ancestors. And some of the new fluff is really, really bad. Most Kobold players will tell you that the cowardly pack tactics play-style was, both lorewise and mechanically, the reason they played them. And my boys the hobgoblins got murdered. There’s also the problem where they removed culture related abilities from races without anywhere else or put them. Backgrounds in current 5e just aren’t robust enough for it.

If you want cultural cowardice, savagery, apathy and other such negative qualities across the board for the playable races in your, game you're free to do so. They no longer want such in theirs.

As for move speed, your exact argument could apply to characters with more than 30 ft move speed. Suddenly everyone else is slowing the monk down and that’s making everyone feel bad and making chase scenes hard to run. We have a Tabaxi and monk in the party so the human fighter is dead weight in overland travel.

Having 30 be the default baseline for everyone makes sense though. Because it's standard, there's no calculations needed by the DM, they can simply reference PHB Chapter 8 or DMG Chapter 5 and be done. More importantly, there's a big difference in feeling between a fast player "slowing themselves down" to everyone's normal speed, or a slow player forcing everyone else down to theirs.

As for the fix it yourself point. That’s now how that works. Something being fixable doesn’t make that thing not a valid complaint. You don’t buy a car, see that it doesn’t work, and suddenly stop complaining when the dealer gives you a car repair handbook.

But if you insist on after-market parts that the company has not only discontinued, but given you clear justification for discontinuing, then handing you that handbook is a rational response.

[Jophiel]

Do you also have a list of which archetypes do and don't exist in your world, or is it primarily races?

The only real class change I usually make is changing Draconic sorcery to Elemental which is largely a fluff change based around me not liking how vanilla and over-saturated dragons are in the game to the point where they don't feel mythical or special. Couple tweaks to ancestry damage types, replace "Draconic" with "Elemental" for charisma checks and speaking, etc. No one's made it far enough to worry about flying or fear & awe yet.

Twilight/Peace cleric aren't options for mechanical reasons but everyone in my circle agrees those are overtuned anyway.

For what it's worth, I have had almost the opposite experience as yours: The only times I see any and every race available are in AL games and once with a novice DM who I think was just unwilling to tell anyone "no" due to a lack of confidence (he was convinced to make several unwise concessions, probably assuming "Well, this guy has played longer than me so he'd know...")

[OldTrees1]

This is a strawman; I have never once, at any point, argued for removing all differences between races.

Segev's point was the argumentation you used was also applicable to everything you didn't use it on.

You made an argument to remove feature XYZ for reason ABC, but reason ABC is also applicable to each difference between species. You only applied it to some of the sand, but it applies to all of the sand.

This is a form of reductio ad absurdum. Segev noticed your argument's form applied to everything and is pointing that out as a way of pointing out the argument being an insufficient argument to remove any feature.

[Amechra]

That's interesting. I don't think I've ever seen a DM who strictly controlled just races like that. I've seen DMs who has strict list of what what material they will approve for races, archetypes and spells/magical items, but never just races. Do you also have a list of which archetypes do and don't exist in your world, or is it primarily races? In 3.5 it would also be classes, but I'm assuming banning classes is pretty rare in 5e.

I ran a game where:

1. Artificers, Paladins, and Wizards weren't a thing.
2. Clerics were heavily encouraged to have the Arcana, Grave, Knowledge, or Life domains.
3. The only races initially available were Humans (which included Half-Orcs and Water Genasi), Worms (reflavored/tweaked Gnomes/Dwarves/Goliaths, with your race also determining your age and sex, because sequential hermaphrodites), and Lizards (hypercapitalist Lizardfolk). After a while, the players "unlocked" Swingers (nocturnal gibbon-people).

Part of the issue was that the setting was a pretty terrible fit for D&D — if I was going to run it in the future, I'd probably make my own GLOG hack or whatever.

[Boci]

I ran a game where:

1. Artificers, Paladins, and Wizards weren't a thing.
2. Clerics were heavily encouraged to have the Arcana, Grave, Knowledge, or Life domains.
3. The only races initially available were Humans (which included Half-Orcs and Water Genasi), Worms (reflavored/tweaked Gnomes/Dwarves/Goliaths, with your race also determining your age and sex, because sequential hermaphrodites), and Lizards (hypercapitalist Lizardfolk). After a while, the players "unlocked" Swingers (nocturnal gibbon-people).

Part of the issue was that the setting was a pretty terrible fit for D&D — if I was going to run it in the future, I'd probably make my own GLOG hack or whatever.

Yeah this gels with my experience, that a DM will sculpt what is permitted to achieve a specific vision, which typically goes beyond just what race's are allowed. Or they're just have a list of which books are and aren't available.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah this gels with my experience, that a DM will sculpt what is permitted to achieve a specific vision, which typically goes beyond just what race's are allowed. Or they're just have a list of which books are and aren't available.

My games are fairly kitchen sink...except that none of the races are quite what you'd expect, mostly thematically and historically. For instance, elves and dwarves don't really mind each other. But high elves (gwerin) and wood elves (ihmisi) are not only different races (not species, because that doesn't really work at all for any race here) but really don't like each other going way back.

[Psyren]

You made an argument to remove feature XYZ for reason ABC, but reason ABC is also applicable to each difference between species. You only applied it to some of the sand, but it applies to all of the sand.

Except it doesn't, for the reasons I elaborated on directly underneath the part you quoted. For example, WotC declaring that they don't need the "weight" grain of sand to be prescribed/minutely differentiated for their races anymore does not lead in any way to them eliminating the mechanical differences that actually matter. It does not follow.

[Pex]

What on earth is enforcing a 25ft move speed for one race adding to the game? Clearly it has nothing to do with their size, because other Small races have 30ft. It's just arbitrary and pointless.

The significance of having only 25 ft movement was a factor to represent them as being a different race. It's a racial feature that distinguishes them from other races.

[Psyren]

The significance of having only 25 ft movement was a factor to represent them as being a different race. It's a racial feature that distinguishes them from other races.

Good news, there are still plenty of those, better ones even. Problem solved.

[Pex]

If your players truly found meaning in Small races being 1 square slower, that's completely fine, it should be easy for your table to reinstate.

By that logic, if you didn't like races having only 25 ft movement they could have not done anything then you choose for your table to have them all be 30 ft movement. That's the O-word. Don't like it then change it doesn't solve the issue of the problem existing. It's not a defense of whatever the status quo is. You like the change. Others don't. Them having to change it back doesn't solve the problem of not liking the changes.

[Jervis]

Zootopia has neither magic nor explicit divinities that ensure these disparate parts keep functioning. D&D settings do.



If you want cultural cowardice, savagery, apathy and other such negative qualities across the board for the playable races in your, game you're free to do so. They no longer want such in theirs.



Having 30 be the default baseline for everyone makes sense though. Because it's standard, there's no calculations needed by the DM, they can simply reference PHB Chapter 8 or DMG Chapter 5 and be done. More importantly, there's a big difference in feeling between a fast player "slowing themselves down" to everyone's normal speed, or a slow player forcing everyone else down to theirs.



But if you insist on after-market parts that the company has not only discontinued, but given you clear justification for discontinuing, then handing you that handbook is a rational response.

You assume that every species was the creation of magic or divine interference. In a lot of cases that’s just not how it works. There are plenty of creatures that came about by accident or wizards playing god and a few defects or eccentricities are more than reasonable. Even if it is the case that a god made them nothing says that said god cares that their chosen people can move at a ideal speed in a different environment, there’s nothing that assumes that every intelligent species has to be able to live in the same conditions. Example on some editions aquatic species not having a land speed at all meaning you need to deal with that if you want to play them. Yeah I think some species should have problems coming from vastly different anatomy, and i don’t mean stat penalties and the like. Just as a example if you play a mermaid then don’t expect to have 30 foot land speed due to a very apparent lack of feet, there are ways to fix that, find one or deal with it. That’s the sort of interesting world building that makes multiple species interesting, fleshing out how everyone interacts.

As for your other points. You seem to be under the impression that complaining about a change means that I think WotC is barging into my library and burning my old copies of their good books. I’m not under that impression ok. I can run any game I want. But if someone thinks a change is bad and that change will exist in future products then that person expressing their opinion is valid. This is how those options are probably going to be presented in future adventures even when those changes make absolutely no sense in setting. Most people that play those characters do it specifically for the lore attached in my (subjective) experience.

How would you feel if battlemaster fighter was reprinted with only prof mod per day superiority dice that recovered on a LR? Bards only had prof mod inspirations per day, wizards had prof mod spells of each spell level per day, monks only get 2-6 Ki per day? All of that is reasonable extrapolation from current changes to the system and so far we aren’t seeing base class remakes in UA. Seeing how new new subclass design is valuing some of those features I don’t even think it’s unlikely, I mean think about it twilight cleric sounds a lot less powerful at mid levels now doesn’t it? I’d imagine you and many others would complain, and justifiably so. That said they at no longer want those old features in their games and you can easily support the old version in your games right? That’s what I mean. Saying “just do it your way” doesn’t mean that a complaint is no longer valid.

[Pex]

It doesn't. You just have to have a county not defined primarily by the race that primarily inhabits it. And if too many races it what makes DMs finally realize this, than I want 3 more books full of playable races by the end of this year.

Have they added a dragonborn nation to FR since they became a core race? I didn't notice they did, but perhaps they have, I'm not the most well versed in FR lore, but I somehow doubt they did. And if not dragonborn, then some race printed since won't have its own nation there.

They did in 4E when dragonborn officially became a playable race then pseudo-retconned when 5E came out and pretended most of 4E effects on the world didn't happen to bring everything back to the way it was. 4E lore technically happened officially, but with everything put back in its place it can be ignored and no one would notice or care or it's apocryphal.

[Jervis]

They did in 4E when dragonborn officially became a playable race then pseudo-retconned when 5E came out and pretended most of 4E effects on the world didn't happen to bring everything back to the way it was. 4E lore technically happened officially, but with everything put back in its place it can be ignored and no one would notice or care or it's apocryphal.

I know they’re doing something now with Vecna and the black pillars that can retcon reality. I know it’s not going to happen but rewriting history in universe to remove 4E from existence and add more 3.x mechanics into the setting would make me very happy.

[Psyren]

By that logic, if you didn't like races having only 25 ft movement they could have not done anything then you choose for your table to have them all be 30 ft movement. That's the O-word. Don't like it then change it doesn't solve the issue of the problem existing. It's not a defense of whatever the status quo is. You like the change. Others don't. Them having to change it back doesn't solve the problem of not liking the changes.

Other people not liking the changes isn't a problem for me.

How would you feel if battlemaster fighter was reprinted with only prof mod per day superiority dice that recovered on a LR? Bards only had prof mod inspirations per day, wizards had prof mod spells of each spell level per day, monks only get 2-6 Ki per day? All of that is reasonable extrapolation from current changes to the system and so far we aren’t seeing base class remakes in UA. Seeing how new new subclass design is valuing some of those features I don’t even think it’s unlikely, I mean think about it twilight cleric sounds a lot less powerful at mid levels now doesn’t it? I’d imagine you and many others would complain, and justifiably so. That said they at no longer want those old features in their games and you can easily support the old version in your games right? That’s what I mean. Saying “just do it your way” doesn’t mean that a complaint is no longer valid.

I don't think your definition of "reasonable extrapolation" and mine remotely align.

[Segev]

This is a strawman; I have never once, at any point, argued for removing all differences between races.

You have also failed to demonstrate that the logic you use to justify removing each difference you've been okay with would, in any way, fail to apply to any other difference that were brought up for removal. Why shouldn't all races have darkvision? It removes an annoying thing for the DM and players to keep track of in terms of who has it or not. Alternatively, why should any race have it? Same reasoning. The logic you use dictates that all races should have the same status re: having darkvision - all have it, or all don't. Why should there be some with it and some without, using the logic you've used to justify making all movement speeds the same?

Or, pick your own racial trait that some races have and others don't: why would your reasoning - that getting rid of things that make it harder to track something because it's different between PCs is something positive - not apply to removing that difference?

What differences should not be removed based on your logic?

[Psyren]

What differences should not be removed based on your logic?

Repeating myself again:

There is no universal line, but gameplay is a good place to start. What is the mechanical impact of Height? Weight? Lifespan? Are races with floating ASIs materially imbalanced compared to the ones with fixed? What benefit is there to a DM and to a party for having to reduce everyone's speed down to that of the slowest members during a noncombat scene, or else risk splitting the party? Or to need to calculate how far a creature with an odd-numbered speed can get if they're at half speed.

[Segev]

Repeating myself again:

Okay, forgive me, here, but please explain how this is an inaccurate interpretation of what you repeated yourself as saying:

Non-mechanical differences should be ignored, because they don't make any difference, and thus all races having the same height distribution, weight distribution, etc. is fine. We don't need any differences there, because they make no mechanical difference.

Mechanical differences should be removed because we don't want the DM to have to make any decisions based on those differences, like basing party movement speed on the slowest member.

Distilling this out: all racial differences should be discarded.


I am POSITIVE that is not what you intend me to take away from that, but I am having trouble figuring out what you DO intend me to take away from it. Can you please explain where I am misunderstanding you?

[Cheesegear]

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.

As usual, Tasha's is problematic because there are two things in the book that have nearly identical naming conventions, where they both amount to the same thing. But in this case, I was referring to Custom Lineage, and not, Customising Your Origin.

Custom Lineage allows you to be anything you want, and does, in fact, ignore racial traits. You can be an "Elf" that doesn't Trance. You can be a "Half-Orc" that doesn't have Relentless Endurance. You can be a "Human" with Darkvision. Who gives a **** about racial traits when you can have a floating ASI and a Feat (and Darkvision), and then just say you're whatever you want to be.

Custom Lineage is the one that removes Humans from D&D, and says that there aren't meaningful differences between Species. Tieflings and Dwarves are exactly the same, because with Tasha's, you can just make it that way. Goblins and Humans. Same thing, really. Tasha's says so.

Customising Your Origin, has a similar, but different problem (Everyone is Mountain Dwarves!)...But that is not the problem I was referring to.