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

[Scribe]

Except, as Faolyn has noted - the worldbuilding is still there - the goliath has a stack of traits that are unique to them. They have simply chosen to remove fixed ASIs for PCs as a part of that.

And, as BookTenTiger has noted, this may be less about appeasing anyone, as it is folks within WotC now being given external events they can point to that support changes they want to make anyway. If I already want a chocolate cake, I am not "appeasing" the others at the table by making chocolate cake they also want.

Well, Wizards isnt about to just stop selling rules as well.

What we have now is the bare minimum of what can define a race, unless they give a grab bag and say 'make your own'.

At which point I 100% walk lol.

 

[Maxperson]

Warforged have a floating +1 to any ASI, and CON benefits everybody. That character (if using Point Buy or Standard Array) could have easily started out with a 16 in their main ability, just like any other race that got a bonus to Charisma.

I fail to see how this is an argument against "I want to play my race-class combo without a penalty from racial ASIs!", because that is an effective combo.

People building for optimization pick a race with a +2. That's how.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

I love worldbuilding, both when I do it and when I pay WotC to do it. Fizban's Treasury of Dragons is an excellent example of this. New Dragon Lore, new world building for the whole of the D&D Multiverse, new info about the worlds of D&D and the place of Dragons in them.

However, what I do not need worldbuilding in is the racial stats for the races. I want to know the mechanics of those races, brief explanations on their affinities, and then specifications for their places in the different worlds of the game. One of my major criticisms about the base of D&D 5e is that it does too much assumption for which world your campaign is taking place in. I don't want worldbuilding in racial mechanics, because races are almost always present in more than one world.

This is an upgrade for me. They've stopped assuming settings in the mechanics of the races. That's what I want. I want the setting books to explain the place of the different races in that setting, but I don't want the base racial stats to be specific to a certain world.

 

[Azzy]

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.

And if we were to appeal to tradition, too, we could also point out (again) that neither OD&D, Holmes Basic, B/X, BECMI (and its iterations) had ASIs at all and those were all also very successful.

 

[Scribe]

I want the setting books to explain the place of the different races in that setting, but I don't want the base racial stats to be specific to a certain world.

As part of the PHB, I'm fine with this.

Thing is, they wont provide it for any setting going forward.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

People building for optimization pick a race with a +2. That's how.

I'm an optimizer. Before TCoE, I was perfectly fine with picking a race that just had a +1 to my class's main Ability Score that, so long as the other racial ASI was in a stat that my character wanted. I just want to start with a 16, not a 17.

Do you know many optimizers? Because you seem to be doing a lot of assumptions about them and what they want. There's no mathematical difference in the game between a 16 or 17. The Warforged Bard was still mechanically effective, just as mechanically effective as any other race that gets a +2 to Charisma would be (excluding Half-Elves, because they're mechanically OP).

So, no, "people building for optimization pick a race with a +2" is obviously wrong. Otherwise, Fallen Aasimar Paladins, Wood Elf Druids, and Hobgoblin Wizards wouldn't be as common a combo as they were, pre-Tasha's.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

As part of the PHB, I'm fine with this.

Thing is, they wont provide it for any setting going forward.

Says you, based off of no evidence or statements by WotC. Eberron, Wildemount, Theros, the SCAG, and Ravnica all had explanations of the roles of the different races in those settings. Ravenloft only didn't because it's such a unique setting that it wouldn't really make sense for the book to explain which races exist in it and their places, as the Mists are open to every world in the D&D Multiverse and every race can be found within it.

Based off of the standard for 5e Setting Books, this statement of yours appears to be false.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In other words, "No, I haven't seen anyone say that, but I think that I can read the minds of D&D players all across the world, so I based my argument off of that".

I'm perceiving a trend. I might be wrong, but that's my opinion. You can disagree with me, but it is possible to take information and make a hypothesis.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm an optimizer. Before TCoE, I was perfectly fine with picking a race that just had a +1 to my class's main Ability Score that, so long as the other racial ASI was in a stat that my character wanted. I just want to start with a 16, not a 17.

Do you know many optimizers? Because you seem to be doing a lot of assumptions about them and what they want. There's no mathematical difference in the game between a 16 or 17. The Warforged Bard was still mechanically effective, just as mechanically effective as any other race that gets a +2 to Charisma would be (excluding Half-Elves, because they're mechanically OP).

No difference between a 16 and a 17? Other than being able to hit 18 with a half feat or 18 with half an ASI and other going to an odd stat number. 17 is better than 16 to start with.

 

[Scribe]

Says you, based off of no evidence or statements by WotC. Eberron, Wildemount, Theros, the SCAG, and Ravnica all had explanations of the roles of the different races in those settings. Ravenloft only didn't because it's such a unique setting that it wouldn't really make sense for the book to explain which races exist in it and their places, as the Mists are open to every world in the D&D Multiverse and every race can be found within it.

Based off of the standard for 5e Setting Books, this statement of yours appears to be false.

If I'm wrong, I'll paypal you $10.

EDIT: Screenshot and quote it. Actually $25 Canadian if I'm wrong.