D&D General What it means for a race to end up in the PHB, its has huge significance

[Horwath]

To complicated

not really.

and takes up too much space for the PHB,

It literally takes one page of space

and would need to be expandable to accommodate anything that might be added later.

that could be a problem, yes.

but this is to not include very special racial features for balance sake.

The new system is simple and flexible.

too simple and really not flexible at all. it's either 1 or 2. that is not flexible.

If players and DMs want to work together to house rule something they can do that too. The core rules are just a baseline.

that is always the best starting position.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What consequence?

Half elves still exist. They are right there in the rules. The only thing is, now, MECHANICALLY, they choose one or other for their mechanics package. This has zero impact within the game. It's not like a half elf with a human mechanics package is any different in the game world than a half elf who chooses the elf package. They are both still 100% half elves.

I really don't understand the issue here.

I guess I expect more from the baseline rules. If I'm rewriting the mechanics because it suits my interests better, that's very different from the game-makers telling me "what's the problem, just keep seeing them as half-elves, it doesn't matter that they work exactly the same as [human/elf]." The former is my active choice to leave behind a distinction that matters in search of something better. The latter is the creators forcing me to give up something I usually like, because it's...inconvenient for them, I guess? It doesn't sit well with me.

Now, maybe if things had always been that way, so there would never be a feeling of loss, I wouldn't mind it. But the history of a thing matters, even if maybe I could have accepted the proposed change if it were a fresh choice without that history.

Frankly, if 5.5e doesn't include half-elves...I'll probably just ask DMs if they'll let me use the 5e half-elf rules with whatever tweaks are required to keep things on par (which, per the "backwards compatible" claim, shouldn't be difficult or result in excessive power.)

Edit: Further, the way 5e has implemented the whole "dragonmarked house" thing is subraces within a given race. They'll have to actually rewrite that if "half-elf" actually means "you use human rules" or "you use elf rules," because now that means dragonmarks have to be race-agnostic subraces--they need to work with both the baseline human traits and the baseline elven traits. Or there need to be different versions, one for each. Or they have to rework the entire Dragonmark rules to replace them with something else that won't intersect with race at all anymore.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If a player gives me a strong argument for why that isn't stereotypical then I will relent. It's not that hard to convince me though.

I actually played Drow characters before Drizz’t* was published, thanks to a Dragon Magazine article. I’ve played at least 5, the first being a Dr/Rgr/MU. Only one was based on a literary character…Morley Dotes from a Glen Cook novel**.

I’m also the ONLY person I know who has admitted to playing a Drow.

So I can honestly ask: what’s the stereotype?



* and, FWIW, I’ve never read a word of any D&D novels, including those featuring him.

** At the DM’s request.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

not really.

You have only covered a tiny fraction of the potential options.

It literally takes one page of space

A page is a lot more than one line. The more space is devoted to something the more common it is assumed to be.

that could be a problem, yes.

There are currently something over 30 official WotC races. So that gives you over 900 "half" options. And that is before your get into "quarter" options.

but this is to not include very special racial features for balance sake.

So your players can't choose what they like.

too simple and really not flexible at all. it's either 1 or 2. that is not flexible.

It lets the player play what they want. That's all the flexibility you need.

If a player is interested in the mechanics rather than the theme, they are limited to the core options. Rightly so. The last thing you want is min-maxers cherry picking racial features.

 

[Horwath]

You have only covered a tiny fraction of the potential options.

still far superior to tassha's options of:
skill or darkvision

A page is a lot more than one line. The more space is devoted to something the more common it is assumed to be.

it's still one page worth of text.

There are currently something over 30 official WotC races. So that gives you over 900 "half" options. And that is before your get into "quarter" options.

yes that is true

So your players can't choose what they like.

about 90% of what races give is here in some capacity.

It lets the player play what they want. That's all the flexibility you need.

so they make up their own racial features?

If a player is interested in the mechanics rather than the theme, they are limited to the core options. Rightly so. The last thing you want is min-maxers cherry picking racial features.

min-maxers gonna min-max, nothing will change that, that is why options what I did are pretty vanilla.
you can only go so far with 6 build points.

with generic species, they might just commit some time into making a lore about the custom species.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I actually played Drow characters before Drizz’t* was published, thanks to a Dragon Magazine article. I’ve played at least 5, the first being a Dr/Rgr/MU. Only one was based on a literary character…Morley Dotes from a Glen Cook novel**.

I’m also the ONLY person I know who has admitted to playing a Drow.

So I can honestly ask: what’s the stereotype?



* and, FWIW, I’ve never read a word of any D&D novels, including those featuring him.

** At the DM’s request.

I played one in BG3, but I don't think that really counts. I had a player play one in my Icewind Dale campaign, they were a cleric of Eilistraee. Didn't have any issues. A few commoners expressing mistrust.

 

[Horwath]

I actually played Drow characters before Drizz’t* was published, thanks to a Dragon Magazine article. I’ve played at least 5, the first being a Dr/Rgr/MU. Only one was based on a literary character…Morley Dotes from a Glen Cook novel**.

I’m also the ONLY person I know who has admitted to playing a Drow.

So I can honestly ask: what’s the stereotype?



* and, FWIW, I’ve never read a word of any D&D novels, including those featuring him.

** At the DM’s request.

I played a drow rogue(4E) and drow sorcerer(3.5)

but in one campaign, Out of the abyss, friend made a drow ranged with favored enemy drow and favored terrain Underdark.

we smirked at the metagame, but since those ranger features are horrible unless used 100% of the time, we let it slide.


But then he said that he has take TWF style and 2 scimitars and we started throwing dice at him.

 

[Hussar]

Usually when I see a Dragonborn it is someone very new to the game and they will change characters pretty quickly because it isn't nearly as cool as it sounded.

Huh. And you say that players in your experience usually switch off Dragonborn when it’s a race you typically ban.

Imagine that.

 

[Hussar]

I guess I expect more from the baseline rules. If I'm rewriting the mechanics because it suits my interests better, that's very different from the game-makers telling me "what's the problem, just keep seeing them as half-elves, it doesn't matter that they work exactly the same as [human/elf]." The former is my active choice to leave behind a distinction that matters in search of something better. The latter is the creators forcing me to give up something I usually like, because it's...inconvenient for them, I guess? It doesn't sit well with me.

Now, maybe if things had always been that way, so there would never be a feeling of loss, I wouldn't mind it. But the history of a thing matters, even if maybe I could have accepted the proposed change if it were a fresh choice without that history.

Frankly, if 5.5e doesn't include half-elves...I'll probably just ask DMs if they'll let me use the 5e half-elf rules with whatever tweaks are required to keep things on par (which, per the "backwards compatible" claim, shouldn't be difficult or result in excessive power.)

Edit: Further, the way 5e has implemented the whole "dragonmarked house" thing is subraces within a given race. They'll have to actually rewrite that if "half-elf" actually means "you use human rules" or "you use elf rules," because now that means dragonmarks have to be race-agnostic subraces--they need to work with both the baseline human traits and the baseline elven traits. Or there need to be different versions, one for each. Or they have to rework the entire Dragonmark rules to replace them with something else that won't intersect with race at all anymore.

Honestly that’s an Eberron problem so I doubt not care. Sorry but I don’t.

There is like one skill difference between elf and half elf. They should never have existed as a separate thing in the first place. Not mechanically anyway. It just makes so little difference.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Going to be a real issue if/when they revisit Eberron in earnest, if they keep to this approach...

Yeah no clue how they handle this with Eberron.

A: They retcon khoravar and jhorgun'taal into full elves/orcs.
B: They create separate species for khoravar and jhorgun'taal, and treat them as completely their own thing.
or
C: They declare Eberron is problematic, and state that they won't be covering it again. Artificer is also never updated for 5.5e, and is eventually moved to legacy content and not allowed in official play.