D&D (2024) How did I miss this about the Half races/ancestries

[Remathilis]

Which is why I think having the core book include half orcs and half elves works. Those have been tested over time. Other options can just be in optional in supplemental books or ruled in.

How about a compromise: Put them in the DMG as examples of how a DM can combine two different species traits to make new species. Then the DM can use them as examples if they want to make other hybrids for their game.

I would probably still rename them in either case.

 

[Bedrockgames]

How about a compromise: Put them in the DMG as examples of how a DM can combine two different species traits to make new species. Then the DM can use them as examples if they want to make other hybrids for their game.

I would probably still rename them in either case.

Well we aren’t calling the shots LoL. Personally I think keeping them as the official options is in the phb is better (they classic and time tested) but as a compromise something like this could work (though definitely would need a sidebar explaining these two options have been tested in different editions and that GMs making new ones based on them need to consider 1) how the new half race options impact the feel of the campaign and 2) they may need to fiddle with them over time to get the balance right)

 

[Frozen_Heart]

How about a compromise: Put them in the DMG as examples of how a DM can combine two different species traits to make new species. Then the DM can use them as examples if they want to make other hybrids for their game.

I would probably still rename them in either case.

Could have the mixing system from the playtest packet 1 in the PHB. And then the advanced version for the DMG?

 

[Remathilis]

Could have the mixing system from the playtest packet 1 in the PHB. And then the advanced version for the DMG?

Works for me.

 

[Faolyn]

Do they know how to play D&D? Yes.

So... people who don't minmax don't know how to play D&D? Because that sounds less like a game problem and more of a "your table" problem.

My players aren't the stereotypical munchkins, but they know how to build a PC. They know you can get a lot of more mileage out of certain multi-classing (like warlock and sorcerer or paladin) and they knew how to make sure they didn't get redundant abilities (like being a red dragonborn red draconic sorcerer and get fire resistance twice).

Moreover, even if they aren't the kinds that would gravitate towards the best builds, why do we want that to still be an option? There are dozens of optimizers who WILL figure out what combos are best and use just those. It's already a headache to hear about coffeelocks and other "technically possible" rule abuses, I don't want to add yet another avenue for PCs to build Frankenstein PCs to eek out another advantage.

How is any of this different than races that were already specced for a specific class because of their traits and racial ASI? Or people playing armored mountain dwarf wizards by putting the floating +2 into Int?

And honestly, I think it would be pretty darn easy for WotC pick which traits can be moved to a mixed-race individual. All they'd need to do is figure out what each race's "best" traits are and not pick that one. Don't make cunning action or 120-foot darkvision or feline agility into traits that a half-whatever have.

Lastly, the balance of such a system would be precarious. You have to make sure that hybrids aren't better than single species PCs or everyone will simply play hybrids. If you make them too weak and people complain the system punishes hybrids. Have one choice clearly superior to the others and all of a sudden every PC looks at that species and says "how you doin'?"

I really don't think it would be as bad as you think. And even if some people optimize, well, that's on their table to say yes or no to.

 

[Remathilis]

How is any of this different than races that were already specced for a specific class because of their traits and racial ASI? Or people playing armored mountain dwarf wizards by putting the floating +2 into Int?

And honestly, I think it would be pretty darn easy for WotC pick which traits can be moved to a mixed-race individual. All they'd need to do is figure out what each race's "best" traits are and not pick that one. Don't make cunning action or 120-foot darkvision or feline agility into traits that a half-whatever have.

Removing racial ASI removed incentive to only play races where your bonuses align with your class. It made it ok to play a flavourful but mechanically inferior combo (like a shadar-kai shadow sorcerer). That is loads different than picking which two species are going to give you the best advantages and saying "those two had a baby".

As to the second, you walk a fine line between powerful and flavorful. What to you speaks to an aarakroca: flight, talons, or gust or wind? How about a changeling: shape changing or social proficiencies? You could certainly say a changeling/aarakroca gets talons, gust of wind and two skill proficiencies, but does that say "part birdman, part shapeshifter" to you?

 

[Hussar]

That's not the problem that's the feature.

Look at the #7 post in this thread @doctorbadwolf shows that this sense of being part of both cultures, but at the same time not part of either is a real lived experience for lots of people of mixed heritage and something they can identify with, with the way half-races are represented in fantasy. Representation matters, even if it is problematic and based on other people's bigotry.

Plus even if you aren't part of the minority, playing a character like that can help you empathise with their plight.

The desire to sanitize D&D by WotC removing racism and bigotry, and all sorts of problematic content is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Part of why people have found RPGs so appealing is it gives a chance to deal with issues in a safe space through allegory, if you remove all the problems because you think words are harmful even in a safe space among friends, it removes that appeal.

I completely agree.

But shouldn’t that be up to the player and not WotC? Shouldn’t al of these two hinges be dealt with at the table level rather than WotC telling the player that if they want to play a half elf, then there is the “right” way to play?

 

[Bagpuss]

I completely agree.

But shouldn’t that be up to the player and not WotC? Shouldn’t al of these two hinges be dealt with at the table level rather than WotC telling the player that if they want to play a half elf, then there is the “right” way to play?

By changing things from how they have been for years they are effectively indicating that is wrong way to play. As if it was right there would be no need to change it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I completely agree.

But shouldn’t that be up to the player and not WotC? Shouldn’t al of these two hinges be dealt with at the table level rather than WotC telling the player that if they want to play a half elf, then there is the “right” way to play?

If someone wants to play a fighter, or a wizard, WotC definitely tells you the right way to play, at least in the way you're talking about. Of course, I'm sure that's completely different.

 

[Scars Unseen]

But shouldn’t that be up to the player and not WotC? Shouldn’t al of these two hinges be dealt with at the table level rather than WotC telling the player that if they want to play a half elf, then there is the “right” way to play?

What is WotC's job as a game designer if not to design how the game is to be played? Give a quick "alternative rule" sidebar if they wish, but "just describe your character however you want" isn't game design when they had rules that interacted with the game mechanically for decades previous.