D&D 5E Witchlight publishes the new official format for player character races.

[Scribe]

Still unclear what you mean.

I find removal of Alignment, ASI, size definition, to be undesirable, in regards to PC Creation.

I want nothing to do with a 'free form' system.

It's not that I don't understand what they are doing, it's that I do not want them to do so.

 

[Yaarel]

@Weiley31

Being Large is a central archetype of mythology and fantasy. D&D has a need for it. Because of 5e mechanics, there seems no reason not to.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

remind me I have debated making a thread on how to make races both interesting and diverse at the same time so I might be able to fix it.

That thread already exists:

D&D General - No More "Humans in Funny Hats": Racial Mechanics Should Determine Racial Cultures

Sorry if the title is a bit unclear, but I think that it gets the basic premise of the thread across. Okay, the topic of this thread relates to many recent discussions that have occurred on this site's forums and similar spaces, and even some ongoing ones (particularly the more recent racial...

www.enworld.org

 

[Weiley31]

@Weiley31

Being Large is a central archetype of mythology and fantasy. D&D has a need for it. Because of 5e mechanics, there seems no reason not to.

Agreed. And yes that also means WoTC has to be not afraid of an extra 5 feet increase in regards to a Larger size. As I've mentioned before, they seem to be okay with allowing stronger options for pcs via Fey typing, and Monsterous Races (such as Goblins, Yuan-Ti Pureblood, and Satyrs.) so just allowing an extra 1D6/1D10 once a turn won't kill anything. the Rune Knight is okay with it and was thumbs up by WoTC themselves. And technically Double Scimitars allow you to pretty much do 2D6+1D4, which is technically three dice of damage.

Yes there are some advantages, but as pointed out with some possibility, there are also some drawbacks.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

And Large characters would have to worry about the one square/hex increase in regards to Opportunity attacks. Also small creatures, ala the Halfling, being able to invade the same square they occupy and stuff. Meaning that small characters would have a greater threat range of punishing larger pcs with Opportunity attacks.

Yep. Large creatures have both more opportunity to deal opportunity attacks (threatening 10 spaces instead of the 8 that a Medium creature does) and more chances to take them (10 creatures available vs the typical 8). That sort of balances out the whole "but Large Characters would threaten more spaces!" issue that people like to complain about.

 

[Yaarel]

I find removal of Alignment, ASI, size definition, to be undesirable, in regards to PC Creation.

I want nothing to do with a 'free form' system.

It's not that I don't understand what they are doing, it's that I do not want them to do so.

Yet your own characters will still have an alignment, ASIs, and size.

I dont understand what the problem is.

If you think a dwarf should be tough, stout, and Lawful Good, you have it.

As the DM, via the monster statblocks, you can even define the dwarf this way for a particular setting or campaign.

I am not getting what you find objectionable.

 

[Weiley31]

Yep. Large creatures have both more opportunity to deal opportunity attacks (threatening 10 spaces instead of the 8 that a Medium creature does) and more chances to take them (10 creatures available vs the typical 8). That sort of balances out the whole "but Large Characters would threaten more spaces!" issue that people like to complain about.

I also like the house rule variant, in the one link I posted earlier, that Large pcs have to spend extra uses of movement if they moved into difficult terrain.

The Ranger's gotta save the Half Giant Barbarian.....again. LOL.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I find removal of Alignment, ASI, size definition, to be undesirable, in regards to PC Creation.

I want nothing to do with a 'free form' system.

It's not that I don't understand what they are doing, it's that I do not want them to do so.

I can understand not wanting Alignment removed, but it's been added back for the Monsters. Do you not think that's enough? I personally prefer absolutely no alignment suggestions for base racial mechanics, because those will differ largely between world. I could have a world that has vicious, human-eating Fairies that are almost always Chaotic Evil and Harengon that are True Neutral because they don't like getting involved in anything that could get them killed. That would be different in any other world, and thus is why I don't like alignment in racial mechanics. Suggest it for specific settings, don't put it in the Racial Stats.

I can understand the ASI thing. You've explained your position on that before, so I won't press it, even though I don't think that's reason enough to not buy a book, in my opinion. (If it still did exist, I would give Fairies a +2 to Charisma and a +1 to Dexterity, while Harengon would get a +2 to Dexterity and a +1 to Wisdom.)

What do you mean by "removal of . . . size definition", because that's been a thing since Volo's Guide to Monsters made Firbolg and Goliaths be Medium. If you mean by Fairies not being Tiny all the time, I can understand that, I just disagree that it's anything new or that big of a deal. However, your opinion is valid and I'm not going to tell you to buy the book if you don't want to buy it. I'm just trying to understand why, and say that boycotting a whole book because of a minute detail like races not having racial ASIs is a bit . . . petty in my opinion. You know that I would prefer a different system, too (with race, background, and class all influencing your starting ASIs), but I'm not refusing to buy any books because of that issue.

You do you, though.

 

[Scribe]

I am not getting what you find objectionable.

Then you are not reading what I am saying, or the several threads which spiral into thousands (literal) of posts on the subject.

To officially remove these things that form part of the definition of what these PC options are, is a net loss, to me.

Didn't like it in the Ravenloft UA, don't like it in Tasha's, don't like it in Candlekeep, don't like it in the Fairy, Rabbit, Owl UA, and don't like it here.

It's very straightforward. I don't like the change from how 5e was designed, and maintained, throughout the years up to MToF.

 

[Yaarel]

I want nothing to do with a 'free form' system.

I want an optional freeform race, among other pregenerated races.

But there is no freeform yet.

Because the custom lineage in Tashas requires the character to be Humanoid, and can only choose a feat that one "qualifies" for, the custom lineage and the variant human are almost identical.

The variant human is assumed to look like a human, and the custom lineage doesnt need to, but mechanically they are identical. The difference between one +2 and three +1s is somewhat negligible.

In Witchlight, the fairy and the harengon use a similar design space to format them, but the designers pregenerated their traits.

An actual freeform option with reasonable choices to choose from doesnt exist yet.