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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

But it's wrong to take information and form an opinion on other people's thoughts, because you can't read minds. If you want to know what people are thinking, just ask them, instead of saying/thinking, "I don't like this change, and so I think that people who like it only like it because it's new".

If you want to know why we like this change, just ask us (or read one of the many posts by people like me that like this change). I don't like this because it's new, I like it because I sincerely like and prefer the change.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

There's no difference when you start. Both 16 and 17 are a +3. A lot of optimizers prefer staring with two +3s (two their two main Ability Scores) over being able to benefit from half-feats if/when you eventually get high enough level. It depends on the character and campaign for me. So, "Optimizers will only be satisfied with a 17 in their main ability score because of half-feats" is just plain wrong.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But it's wrong to take information and form an opinion on other people's thoughts, because you can't read minds. If you want to know what people are thinking, just ask them, instead of saying/thinking, "I don't like this change, and so I think that people who like it only like it because it's new".

If you want to know why we like this change, just ask us (or read one of the many posts by people like me that like this change). I don't like this because it's new, I like it because I sincerely like and prefer the change.

I honestly believe that you (and others) do like this change. But if you did tend to think that new things were better, most folks would be reluctant to admit it. And that makes asking more or less useless because you cant trust the results.

 

[Scribe]

I honestly believe that you (and others) do like this change. But if you did tend to think that new things were better, most folks would be reluctant to admit it. And that makes asking more or less useless because you cant trust the results.

People can authentically like the change, I can see the reasoning, and thats fine.

It doesnt mean Tasha's couldnt have coexisted.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

People can authentically like the change, I can see the reasoning, and thats fine.

It doesnt mean Tasha's couldnt have coexisted.

And on this I agree with you. I don't like racial ASIs (at least, not how 5e tackled them, you've seen my own homebrew system for them), but I could always use Tasha's. I don't want Racial ASIs for the different lineages, because they're just so diverse in theme and mechanics that you could justify a bonus to any of the Ability Scores for any of the lineages, but I would be fine with Harengon and Fairies getting bonuses to different Ability Scores, as I can always use TCoE's variant rule for my games' characters.

So, yes, I do apologize that WotC made this change. I didn't ask for it, but we have it. I was fine with TCoE's Customize your Origin option (and think that most of the people who dislike racial ASIs would agree with me here), but for some reason WotC decided to make a huge change in the middle of the edition by getting rid of all Racial ASIs for every new race.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I honestly believe that you (and others) do like this change. But if you did tend to think that new things were better, most folks would be reluctant to admit it. And that makes asking more or less useless because you cant trust the results.

So, your new argument is now "I don't trust you and think that you're lying about your reasons for liking the change"?

Okay then. That's BS. You can stop with the unwarranted accusations of people who like this change being dishonest. It's not cool and is no way to have a discussion. It would be kindly appreciated if you could stop with that kind of paranoid "my ability to read your mind is real because I don't think you'd be honest if I asked you why you liked this change" treatment of this issue.

If you don't trust the other side of a discussion to be honest . . . what are you even doing in this discussion?

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, your new argument is now "I don't trust you and think that you're lying about your reasons for liking the change"?

Okay then. That's BS. You can stop with the unwarranted accusations of people who like this change being dishonest. It's not cool and is no way to have a discussion. It would be kindly appreciated if you could stop with that kind of paranoid "my ability to read your mind is real because I don't think you'd be honest if I asked you why you liked this change" treatment of this issue.

If you don't trust the other side of a discussion to be honest . . . what are you even doing in this discussion?

I just said I did believe you. Many people do like this change. I just think there's a general undercurrent of new for Newt's sake out there, and I dont like it. I could be wrong. And if someone did believe that way, they're unlikely to just admit it.
For the record, i agree with you and Scribe. I'm fine with Tasha's existing, and I just think it should have remained optional.

 

[Aldarc]

I dont know how to explain why this group is being appeased without going into areas we aren't supposed to discuss. Suffice to say, the social zeitgeist has shifted in the last few years, and some people are demanding WotC shift with it.

That's pretty telltale of an unworthwhile argument to make.

But once I can choose any race without that invisible Intelligence penalty, the variety of character ideas really just bloomed! I felt like I could play a lot more different, interesting characters, not just ones that had a bonus to Intelligence.

This is why I think ASIs should be granted by character class... It makes a lot more sense that my wizard would gain a higher intelligence through training than their race.

Highly agree. I could even see Background adding a bonus as well, but I think that Class is the obvious choice. You gain +1-2 Strength or Dexterity because you trained as a Fighter. You gain a +1-2 Intelligence because you trained as a Wizard. It also places a greater emphasis on your starting class as well.

I just said I did believe you. Many people do like this change. I just think there's a general undercurrent of new for Newt's sake out there, and I dont like it. I could be wrong. And if someone did believe that way, they're unlikely to just admit it.
For the record, i agree with you and Scribe. I'm fine with Tasha's existing, and I just think it should have remained optional.

I don't think that novelty for the sake of novelty is the pressing drive or undercurrent of the game. IMHO, I think it's confidence and opportunism built on the back of a successful product line and a fanbase that is mostly sympathetic to the changes that WotC (internally) wants to make.

 

[Minigiant]

5e has 4 versions of Orc for 4 different settings that really could just be one race with floating racial proficiencies with static racial traits.

 

[Ixal]

5e has 4 versions of Orc for 4 different settings that really could just be one race with floating racial proficiencies with static racial traits.

Better yes, it could be one race of Orc with a single set of ASI.

Many players seems to have been conditioned to always optimize which goes against the very idea of role playing and thus should in my opinion not be catered to.