D&D 5E Everyone Should Play Custom Lineage by Default

[pming]

Hiya!

But... they are all player characters... aren't they meant to stick out and be exceptional?

Nope.

That they chose to be adventurers and through their exceptional whatever, managed to actually survive and keep truckin' while other more mundane specimens failed or quick after a minor expedition?

Again, nope.

Maybe we are playing vastly different games of D&D. Every party I have run for were all super in some way, but they almost always felt uniquie to one another. And powerful compared to Ran Doe the farmer.

In 1e, for example, PC's had these things called "Classes" that the VAST majority of NPC's didn't have, were incapable of having, and would never have no matter how much they 'tried to train or what they did'. In 1e at least, the very fact that a PC was a 1st level WhateverClass instantly made them better than the majority of people in the world. Remember, in 1e your typical NPC has about 2 or 3 hp. Period.
..
However, PC's were not "exceptional" in that they magical super powers like they do in 5e, at least not for a while. A 1e Fighter fights better than others, but that's it. No mutilple attacks or, really, anything other than the best Attack Roll, highest HD in the PHB, and any weapon/armour/shield is available to them. This contrasts SIGNIFICANTLY with those 'commoners', who would be running around with 3hp, MAYBE able to wear leather armour properly and use a shield, and MAYBE be skilled enough to use a sword or bow. If they weren't part of the militia (many were, however), then they were running into battle with 2hp and AC 10, they were attacking with that mace or club at -2 to -5.
..
So...yeah...the "power level expectation" has changed is all. Everything's been 'turned up to 11' in 3e or later editions, with PC' "needing" to get some kind of special PC cookie to make the Player feel special. Nothing wrong with it...but it is definitely not the same "vibe" you get from playing earlier editions. Oh, and for the record, I like 1e and 5e; prefer 1e, but I quite enjoy 5e, overall (but I almost never use any optional books and most optional rules like Feats and Multiclassing, so there is that...)

That is not to say I agree with the premise. I have yet to really look over these options. Just that this statement really stuck out as an odd thing to say about D&D PCs.

When coming at it from a "modern RPG'er" expectation, yes, I can see that. I am not a "modern RPG'er" in terms of expectation of play. To me, PC's are POTENTIAL heroes...not guaranteed to be, and not starting off as...at least not in the modern sense of the word "hero" (with all the flashy whizz-bang special abilities and whatnot). To my Old School, Old Dog, Old DM ears, I hear "PC's are supposed to be special" and think "Ahhh...younin's...", with a sly wink and wistful smile as I think back to my youth, full of hopeful exuberance.
..
In short...a 1st level PC is 'superior' to commoners in three significant ways; First, they have a Class. Second, they can gain experience/levels in that Class. Third, they start off 'tougher' than a commoner, but not any more special other than what their 1st level class gives them (which, in 1e, isn't usually much!). A farmer will have maybe 4hp if he's a tough old guy. The 1st level Fighter will have maybe two or even three times that. The farmer will suck at fighting, the fighter will only be slightly better at level 1. But, the Fighter will keep getting more HP's and MUCH better at fighting. The farmer won't.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[MoonSong]

Before going on, I just need to comment on how odd it felt to like a post by pming.... just to see how no matter how different and diverse we are on our approaches and ideas, eventually we'll agree on something.

But... they are all player characters... aren't they meant to stick out and be exceptional? That they chose to be adventurers and through their exceptional whatever, managed to actually survive and keep truckin' while other more mundane specimens failed or quick after a minor expedition?

Not really, I hold that while some PCs are exceptional, not everybody has to be exceptional to be a PC.

Apologies if I'm misrepresenting your viewpoints guys, but I'm generally confused which direction the criticism of custom lineages is coming from. 6ENow!, you seem to be stating that PCs can be expressed through role-playing, lineage options are unnecessary, and therefore lineage options are bad. Remathilis, you seem to be stating that PCs need to be expressed through mechanics, that lineage options undermine this (or that this specific set of lineage options do), and therefore lineage options are bad. Did you guys reach the same conclusion--lineage options are bad--but start from opposite premises? Not to be antagonistic, its just that this topic very easily turns muddled with several very different points of view ending up conflated by virtue of arguing for the same position.

Not weird at all. I hold that PCs must be expressed through both roleplaying and mechanics. And I think the racial options in Tasha are defective at best. I could see myself allowing them on the occasion, but not as a common occurrence and definitely not as the default.

So, I'm arguing that having custom lineages be the default would work well. But I do not think they are well-balanced; they are power creep. Custom lineage is the same as a variant human--which was already considered very strong--except with an option to have darkvision, and the potential to sart with an 18 primary ability score using the standard array.

And I hold the opposite view, the less we normalize powergaming, the better. I just got kicked off of a game because the DM couldn't grasp the idea that someone would choose suboptimal combinations of race/class and choose a suboptimal weapon and actually mean it. If we truly normalize powergaming, then many of us won't get to play anymore. Powergaming is fine and dandy, but not as the default.

If I select custom lineage (Halfling) and am Small, was born to halfling parents, and raised in halfling society, but aren't particularly lucky and instead am a great Cook (Gourmand feat) and crafty (+2 Int instead of the standard Dex bonus), I'm a halfling.

Ok, you'd be a halfling for the story and the game, but still wouldn't count as one to get Second chance or any of the other feats that require you to be a halfling. At least in my table.

 

[Flamestrike]

Wait wait wait. Now you're saying a player's choice to use custom lineage inherently alters the DMs campaign setting choices for races in that world?

With relation to that specific individual for sure. You're only playing a custom lineage if the DM lets you (i.e. the DM has implemented that campaign setting choice, by agreeing that Custom Lineages exist in his campaign world).

If the DM is on board with custom lineages existing in his game world, how am I 'altering' anything?

 

[Flamestrike]

Ok, you'd be a halfling for the story and the game, but still wouldn't count as one to get Second chance or any of the other feats that require you to be a halfling. At least in my table.

It appears as if RAW (at present) you're right. The feats in question require membership of a race from the PHB.

Which means (RAW) that Eberron Mark of Shadow Elves cant take Elven accuracy either. Or indeed any other race that is not from the PHB specifically (variant tieflings, Ghostwise halflings etc).

I find the real world implications of your comment pretty disturbing though. You're saying a person with a particular heritage, who is descended from such, who is raised as such, is accepted as such, and considers himself such, is not (objectively) a member of that ethnicity or race.

In my games, the 'Custom lineage' Halfling, would be a Halfling, just like a Custom lineage Elf, would be an Elf.

 

[Mistwell]

With relation to that specific individual for sure. You're only playing a custom lineage if the DM lets you (i.e. the DM has implemented that campaign setting choice, by agreeing that Custom Lineages exist in his campaign world).

If the DM is on board with custom lineages existing in his game world, how am I 'altering' anything?

Because you insist the rule is that you ARE that race just because you describe the situation as being from that race.

The rule isn't that. That's our dispute. You're similar to that race, but still different from it. You don't qualify for that races racial feats, which require you to BE that race from the Player's Handbook, and not a racial option from Tashas.

 

[DND_Reborn]

6ENow!, you seem to be stating that PCs can be expressed through role-playing, lineage options are unnecessary, and therefore lineage options are bad.

Yes, there is a lot to digest in this thread and many points of view, so I have no problem explaining my position:

PCs can be expressed through role-playing. For me this isn't just about race, but also all the numerous subclasses, etc. that I feel are bloat to a game that should be lean, allowing the player's imagination do be more engaged and work with the DM. 5E is all about rulings and not so much rules, so in that light why do I need a subclass to say my PC is a swashbuckler when I can just choose to role-play him that way and have him do things I think a swashbuckler should do?

In the same way, if I want to play a smart dwarf, I can simply put my highest score in INT and now I am a smart dwarf. Pretty simple. I can still be strong and hearty (say a mountain dwarf) and still be smart. I don't need to be able to move the racial ASIs around. I am old-school, so I like the idea Elves are dexterous, Half-Orcs are strong, etc. If you want to deviate in a way, you can put your lowest score wherever your +2 is. So, my dwarf might have an STR 10 (8+2), DEX 10, CON 14 (12+2), INT 15, WIS 13, CHA 14. Sure, I have a +2 for my wizard stuff instead of a +3, but for me that is hardly the end of the world and I don't need custom-freeform rules to make me "happy" with my PC.

Anyway, the other issue I take with Custom Lineage is darkvision for everyone! Hoo-rah! Too many races already have darkvision and being too common makes it less special and makes darkness less impactful in the game. Darkness is supposed to be scary for PCs, who are wandering around in a little zone of light and have no idea of what horrors lurk in the darkness ahead.

So, who is going to take a single skill over darkvision??? I am sure there are some, but IMO most people will choose darkvision without hesitation.

All these adjustments to race are poor design IMO, but from WotC I am hardly surprised at this point.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If I select custom lineage (Halfling) and am Small, was born to halfling parents, and raised in halfling society, but aren't particularly lucky and instead am a great Cook (Gourmand feat) and crafty (+2 Int instead of the standard Dex bonus), I'm a halfling custom race.

There, I fixed it for you.

I agree completely with @Mistwell so I'll you argue more with them.

 

[MoonSong]

I find the real world implications of your comment pretty disturbing though. You're saying a person with a particular heritage, who is descended from such, who is raised as such, is accepted as such, and considers himself such, is not (objectively) a member of that ethnicity or race.

I think there is a real world example just not the kind of example I would give. So instead I counter with this. Real world people don't have extradimensional entities dictating every aspect of their being by picking and choosing from a set of extradimensional books for their enjoyment that can determine everything about them in an objective way?

 

[Azzy]

I'm in general agreement with your larger points in the thread but, just to clarify what seems like a misunderstanding between you and some of the other posters. Having limitations is good for creativity. Yes, as you mentioned, there is lovely poetry written in free verse. But poetry, as a medium, benefits from having lots of rules. Forcing someone to write a 5/7/5 haiku instead of any old sentence with roughly 17 syllables is going to help them produce a more beautiful work.

No, not really. See E.E. Cummings for example (or Sylvia Plath, Walt Whitman, T.S. Elliot, etc.). There's nothing inherently better or more beautiful in using constraints (or vice versa)—it's what you do with it that matters most. Sometimes less is more, sometimes more is more. The art is knowing when.

 

[squibbles]

Man, thanks for both replying in good faith guys!

My point is simple: a custom lineage is a unique being that looks like, but isn't, one of the normal races. It's a special snowflake, a limited edition, a mutant, or similar, but it ain't truly "an elf".

I say this on two fronts: the first is I feel the original races deserve something unique to them. There is a handful of things that check what race you are: feats, magic items, and some now retconned subclasses. I'd like to leave those options for people who select the default package. I'm not completely comfortable with basically allowing vhumans to pick any racial feat they want while ignoring race-defining features like flight or water breathing. And second: I want custom lineages to be for things that the current racial system doesn't yet cover: a fey changeling raised in the feywild, the scion of a demigod, or the seventh son of a seventh son who is somehow not quite like his brothers. I don't like "Imma elf but I get a sweet feat and 18 Dex instead of lame proficiencies and corner case resistances."

I appreciate the sentiment of that last bit. Custom lineage as "I'm an elf, but my elf starts with better stuff than your elf" is not something the game needs. I think defaulting everybody to custom lineage would avoid that. But, from your perspective that's probably beside the point.

Whether the PHB races deserve something unique, I disagree. I don't think there is anything about their setting fluff or their unique mechanics that merits special prominence; there are plenty of elves in fiction that sleep, for example.

I'm just suggesting a different way to think about character creation. I believe it would work well, but I don't mean to be as hyperbolic and totalizing about that as the thread's clickbait title.

Yes, there is a lot to digest in this thread and many points of view, so I have no problem explaining my position:

PCs can be expressed through role-playing. For me this is just about race, but also all the numerous subclasses, etc. that I feel are bloat to a game that should be lean, allowing the player's imagination do be more engaged and work with the DM. 5E is all about rulings and not so much rules, so in that light why do I need a subclass to say my PC is a swashbuckler when I can just choose to role-play him that way and have him do things I think a swashbuckler should do?

In the same way, if I want to play a smart dwarf, I can simply put my highest score in INT and now I am a smart dwarf. Pretty simple. I can still be strong and hearty (say a mountain dwarf) and still be smart. I don't need to be able to move the racial ASIs around. I am old-school, so I like the idea Elves are dexterous, Half-Orcs are strong, etc. If you want to deviate in a way, you can put your lowest score wherever your +2 is. So, my dwarf might have an STR 10 (8+2), DEX 10, CON 14 (12+2), INT 15, WIS 13, CHA 14. Sure, I have a +2 for my wizard stuff instead of a +3, but for me that is hardly the end of the world and I don't need custom-freeform rules to make me "happy" with my PC.

Anyway, the other issue I take with Custom Lineage is darkvision for everyone! Hoo-rah! Too many races already have darkvision and being too common makes it less special and makes darkness less impactful in the game. Darkness is supposed to be scary for PCs, who are wandering around in a little zone of light and have no idea of what horrors lurk in the darkness ahead.

So, who is going to take a single skill over darkvision??? I am sure there are some, but IMO most people will choose darkvision without hesitation.

All these adjustments to race are poor design IMO, but from WotC I am hardly surprised at this point.

I think having a prominent default lineage would make the game leaner. There are lots of features among the published races, that seem like bloated fiddly bits to me as well (example: hobgoblin's saving face: 1/rest they feel ingrained social pressure to not fail as part of their race... ffs). As to dwarves being strong and hearty, nothing about custom lineage prevents it--put that +2 in Strength, pick a feat that boosts Constitution, and chillax with your 15 Intelligence. But I think it's fine for a player to have his/her dwarf be a feeble genius too.

The darkvision thing is definitely a problem with having everyone default to custom lineage. Functionally it would mean that almost all PCs have darkvision. I don't really have an answer for that. It'd be a dealbreaker for dungeoncrawling style games, I admit.

If I had my druthers, custom lineage would have come with some options for creatures with very obviously consequential morphology. The benefits of being 10' tall, winged, aquatic, four-armed, nocturnal, etc. could have been written up with reasonable features and offset by losing some/all the Ability bonuses or the feat option.

I hold the opposite view, the less we normalize powergaming, the better. I just got kicked off of a game because the DM couldn't grasp the idea that someone would choose suboptimal combinations of race/class and choose a suboptimal weapon and actually mean it. If we truly normalize powergaming, then many of us won't get to play anymore. Powergaming is fine and dandy, but not as the default.

I think of powergaming as players leveraging abstruse rules (or the new power-creepy hotness) in cheesy ways to have advantages over other players--since game challenges can easily be made harder with bigger numbers and DM fiat. Setting baseline player power close to the top of what is possible, with options to go below the baseline for thematic reasons or niche specialties is meant to undercut powergaming. See again, "if everyone is super, no one is".