D&D 5E Wow! No more subraces. The Players Handbook races reformat to the new race format going forward.

[Minigiant]

Is that before or after the Tasha's update?

Before
That's why the Tasha update was created.

Because the game assumed you had a 16 in you class primary at level 1, was powergaming or the DM was gonna be favorable to you.
For example, playing a monk without a DEX or Wis race was a disaster waiting to happen. If you did, you were a party liability or cheesing somewhere else.

Tasha Update was created to so players didn't need to match race with class nor powergame.

 

[Umbran]

Goliath, and that is what racial ASI provides, a mechanical way to reflect the averages of different species.

Now, we get to ask - why do we need to reflect the averages mechanically, when we are not going to see a statistically relevant number of PCs of any particular race coming through a given campaign?

The GM is unlikely to be generating NPCs with random numbers - they'll be assigned as needed or taken from stat blocks, both of which will support whatever view the GM wants anyway. The mechanical imposition of that average is not necessary.

 

[Scribe]

Now, we get to ask - why do we need to reflect the averages mechanically, when we are not going to see a statistically relevant number of PCs of any particular race coming through a given campaign?

The GM is unlikely to be generating NPCs with random numbers - they'll be assigned as needed or taken from stat blocks, both of which will support whatever view the GM wants anyway. The mechanical imposition of that average is not necessary.

It's not a need, any more than a floating 2/1 is a need.

5e was plenty successful without Tasha's.
D&D has been plenty success for over 40 years with racial ASI.

Certainly neither option is a need.

I would argue it's a world building consideration, a short hand, and something which at a surface level is easily understood.

But no, not a need.

 

[Umbran]

It's not a need, any more than a floating 2/1 is a need.

So, I warned above about not nitpicking semantics. That's not a way to come to understanding.

But, fine, it is not a need. Technically, the entire game is not food, water, air, clothing, shelter, or medical care - so nothing in the game is a need.

That does not tell me why the game should continue to have racial ASIs.

5e was plenty successful without Tasha's.
D&D has been plenty success for over 40 years with racial ASI.

Appeal to tradition is an informal logical fallacy. That it existed in the past, and the game succeeded, doesn't tell us much. Specifically, that past does not itself establish that racial ASI's were particularly important in achieving that success.

I would argue it's a world building consideration, a short hand, and something which at a surface level is easily understood.

Flavor text "Goliaths are generally very strong" is easily understood as well.

In addition, world-building is usually mostly the GM's job. Enforcing a mechanic on players as short hand for what the GM ought to consider, seems at best poor targeting.

 

[Scribe]

In addition, world-building is usually mostly the GM's job.

This absolutely is the conclusion which I believe we have arrived at, where Wizards is no longer willing to expose themselves to criticism which can be offloaded to the DM.

Now, personally I have always enjoyed the puzzle of Race, Stats, Classes (prestige classes!) and feats.

Removal of racial modifiers as part of that puzzle is a strict downgrade in not only my own enjoyment, but yes also the world building I would assume I was paying Wizards to provide.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, I warned above about not nitpicking semantics. That's not a way to come to understanding.

But, fine, it is not a need. Technically, the entire game is not food, water, air, clothing, shelter, or medical care - so nothing in the game is a need.

That does not tell me why the game should continue to have racial ASIs.



Appeal to tradition is an informal logical fallacy. That it existed in the past, and the game succeeded, doesn't tell us much. Specifically, that past does not itself establish that racial ASI's were particularly important in achieving that success.



Flavor text "Goliaths are generally very strong" is easily understood as well.

In addition, world-building is usually mostly the GM's job. Enforcing a mechanic on players as short hand for what the GM ought to consider, seems at best poor targeting.

The fact that things have changed recently doesnt tell us that it's better, only that loud people are demanding the game change. Now to be fair, it doesnt tell us that it's worse either. I just refuse to accept "new stuff is always better" as an axiom.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This absolutely is the conclusion which I believe we have arrived at, where Wizards is no longer willing to expose themselves to criticism which can be offloaded to the DM.

Now, personally I have always enjoyed the puzzle of Race, Stats, Classes (prestige classes!) and feats.

Removal of racial modifiers as part of that puzzle is a strict downgrade in not only my own enjoyment, but yes also the world building I would assume I was paying Wizards to provide.

This is why I'm no longer under any illusions that WotC's material is inherently any better than another publisher's. They're just part of the pack now, albeit with some legal clout.

 

[BookTenTiger]

The fact that things have changed recently doesnt tell us that it's better, only that loud people are demanding the game change. Now to be fair, it doesnt tell us that it's worse either. I just refuse to accept "new stuff is always better" as an axiom.

WotC is making tons of money right now. I doubt they feel like they need to make rash reactions to appease "loud" people, since based on sales they are already appeasing a lot of people.

 

[Micah Sweet]

WotC is making tons of money right now. I doubt they feel like they need to make rash reactions to appease "loud" people, since based on sales they are already appeasing a lot of people.

I doubted it too, but here we are.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I doubted it too, but here we are.

What if instead of "appease" you use the term "agree with?"

WotC agrees with these critiques and has made changes due to it.