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

[Aldarc]

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.

This is pretty much the Stormwind Fallacy. Some things never change.

 

[Ixal]

This is pretty much the Stormwind Fallacy. Some things never change.

You now have several people in this thread who were unwilling or could not even imagine to play a race/class combination which do not have optimized abilities. And when your character creation process is taking a class first and then choosing to take whatever race has a matching bonus, no matter which race that is, that is not role playing.

 

[Aldarc]

You now have several people in this thread who were unwilling or could not even imagine to play a race/class combination which do not have optimized abilities. And when your character creation process is taking a class first and then choosing to take whatever race has a matching bonus, no matter which race that is, that is not role playing.

Hard disagree and even harder pass on your not so subtle gatekeeping. You're obviously not roleplaying when you are creating a character regardless of whether you are optimizing that character or not. All you are doing is simply creating a character you would like to roleplay and who would interact with the game world. Roleplaying happens through play.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

Yeah, I'm calling BS. Optimization is not incompatible with or even contrary to roleplaying. Stormwind Fallacy, as @Aldarc said.

Optimizing is just a different playstyle from your own. That doesn't mean it's bad, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be supported, and it definitely doesn't mean that the people who optimize are incapable of roleplaying (especially because there's a ton of different types of roleplaying).

When I get the chance to play (I'm a reluctant Forever DM), I play optimized characters. I just cannot have fun if I'm playing a 4-Elements Monk, Purple Dragon Knight, Undying Warlock, or Air/Earth Genasi. I don't exactly know why, and I definitely don't choose to be this way, but I just can't have fun if I'm not optimizing. I think it has to be with my analytical mind.

However, I definitely roleplay. My last character that I got to actually play was a Changeling Hexblade Warlock. It was mechanically effective, as well as the most that I've ever roleplayed as a character, due to the Changeling having different personalities, doing a lot of infiltrating, and their connection to their patron (Karsus's Vestige).

Optimized character, in-depth roleplay. The optimization actually helped with the roleplay in some circumstances, too (as being a Changeling Hexblade Warlock, my character could change both their physical appearance and weapon's type, which allowed them to roleplay and interact with others socially even better than it would if it wasn't optimized/synergized this way).

So, yeah, "optimizing goes against the very idea of roleplaying" is total BS, gatekeeping, and just absolutely close-minded. You don't have to like my playstyle, but at the very least you can stop attacking it and asking for it to stop being supported/catered to.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

All 4 Orc have the same positive racial adjustment.

The point is that cultural elements were hardcoded in the base race even though all 4 types make sense in any of the 4 settings

Basically PC Orcs are different from NPC Orcs and setting common tropes should not greatly affect the roleplay and gameplay values of the PC versions of a race.

You should be able to play Guldan the PC Orc Warlock and not take a massive gameplay hit for playing an interesting character because the game assumes all nonhexblade warlocks had CHA 16 at level 1.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I dont believe its stupid?

I dont believe a missing +1 renders your character concept as foolish.

And so you think other people should be told that their feeling that they are making the wrong choice, by taking an obviously weaker and less effective option, is wrong? That they shouldn't feel that way? Are you going to begin telling them that feeling that way means that they don't actually care about story, but are instead obsessed with the mechanical effectiveness?

Because... that is literally what happens every single time this discussion happens. Those of us who look for a cool story, then realize that story is less mechanically effective get told constantly that we must only care about mechanics instead of story, because we feel bad and are torn about having to make that decision to weaken ourselves for our concept. The fact that we DON'T WANT our story to be weaker that a different story is used to as a weapon to accuse us of not wanting ANY story. Because clearly, our accusers always say, if we actually cared about story, we wouldn't care AT ALL about mechanics.

And so we feel that our choice is a bad choice we shouldn't make. And then we are told that feeling that way makes us bad, because we shouldn't care at all. Meanwhile the people who actually don't care just always play the superior choice. Because they don't care about the story.

Because that 1 I do play, should be part of the species it comes from, with the same general racial modifier?

Why? The racial modifier doesn't make you have the best score unless you are playing a race/class combo that relies on that score. A Goliath wizard will be weaker than a human barbarian. Always. You want him to be stronger than average? You rolled no lower than a 12 on everything, he is stronger than average, so why should he have a 14 strength?

Not "why could it be potentially useful" I'm not asking that. I'm asking "why should he have a racial modifier"? If you want to highlight that he is big and strong... being able to lift the same as the barbarian who has the higher strength score and being tall accomplishes that goal. So, why do we NEED a general racial modifier? Especially since, with humans getting +1 in everything, the largest modifers are actually only +2.5% over the average. To give an example using money, that would be like someone talking about a "massive price hike" when something that costs $3.20 is sold for $3.28

I've heard the population simulation argument. I get that was some original attempt at verisimilitude, but as the DM I can just casually make all Goliaths strength 22 and not bat an eye. I don't need to see +2 strength to shift a bell curve to make the population stronger... I just make the population stronger. The issue people seem to have though is that removing that +2 means they can't say that their goliath is statistically more likely to be slightly stronger than a human... But I don't see the need for that. The characters at the table are statistical outliers anyways, so what value is there in saying "My statistical outlier is slightly further along the arbitrary graph than your statistical outlier"?

 

[Chaosmancer]

No. Planetouched were not a race. They are a category.

So, what's the difference?

No. Giant is a type, not a race. There are 6 varieties(races) of giant, as well as trolls and ogres. MM pages 6-7

Well, this is wrong in a few ways, isn't it?

Firstly, what's the difference between a Cloud Giant and a Storm Giant that makes them two different races, while allowing a High Elf and a Sea elf to be subraces of the same race? If I go looking through the MM and other books, I'll see Drow listed as "humanoid (elf)", Shadar-Kai listed as "Humanoid (elf)", Eladrin as "Fey (Elf)". How is this different than seeing Cloud Giants, Storm Giants and Fire Giants listed as "Giant"? "Type" in this case doesn't seem to actually mean anything different.

Additionally, while I know this isn't scientific evidence, if you look to ogres, ettins and trolls they are considered Giant-Kin, just like Firbolgs and Goliaths. This is because of the origin myths involving Othea the mother of the Giants having an affair with Vaprak and other gods to create them. They are all part of the Ordning (in the lower castes since they are not Anam's children) which is the ranking for Giants.

All giants therefore seem to be one race, with multiple subraces. Because they all stem from the same divine source. Same as the Elves all stem from the same divine source.

Yep. Same with dragons.

Wrong. Under Types in the MM

"Dragons are large reptilian creatures of ancient origin and tremendous power. True dragons, including the good metallic dragons and the evil chromatic dragons, are highly intelligent and have innate magic. Also in this category are creatures distantly related to true dragons,
but less powerful, less intelligent, and less magical, such as wyverns and pseudodragons." So there are several races of true dragons in that category and some others as well.

So, what makes a Wyvern, which is a dragon though less powerful and smaller than others of its kind, different from comparing, let's say Mountain Dwarves and Gully Dwarves? Why aren't they a subrace, when we have had subraces that are VASTLY different from each other.

Yeah mean other than the facts? No. All I have is the fact that they are all types and not races, although planetouched is no longer even a type in 5e.

And what is the difference between a type and a race? Both of the "types" you listed are deeply connected to each, and I can't figure out why we can say that Cloud Giants and Storm Giants, who descended from two brothers aren't subraces of Giant. And since Ogres and Trolls and Ettins mythologically share that same origin... why would they not be subraces too?

 

[Ixal]

Hard disagree and even harder pass on your not so subtle gatekeeping. You're obviously not roleplaying when you are creating a character regardless of whether you are optimizing that character or not. All you are doing is simply creating a character you would like to roleplay and who would interact with the game world. Roleplaying happens through play.

You are obviously not role playing when you build your character according to combat statistics only ("I won't play anything that doesn't give me a 16!"). What role is that supposed to be besides "optimal archer build #32"?

All 4 Orc have the same positive racial adjustment.

The point is that cultural elements were hardcoded in the base race even though all 4 types make sense in any of the 4 settings

Basically PC Orcs are different from NPC Orcs and setting common tropes should not greatly affect the roleplay and gameplay values of the PC versions of a race.

You should be able to play Guldan the PC Orc Warlock and not take a massive gameplay hit for playing an interesting character because the game assumes all nonhexblade warlocks had CHA 16 at level 1.

It doesn't become true by you repeating it over and over again. A 16 is not required and you are perfectly able to play a CHA 15 Hexblade.
Its funny how we in this thread now had both the argument that ASI are too insignificant and too important.

Playing a orc hexblade because you think its an interesting character -> role playing
Not playing a orc hexblade you think is an interesting character because its not optimized -> not role playing

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

You are obviously not role playing when you build your character according to combat statistics only ("I won't play anything that doesn't give me a 16!"). What role is that supposed to be besides "optimal archer build #32"?

That wasn't their point. Their point was that absolutely no "roleplaying" goes into the process of designing a character, whether they're optimized or not. Roleplaying happens exclusively after the campaign starts, not during the character creation process.

 

[Aldarc]

You are obviously not role playing when you build your character according to combat statistics only ("I won't play anything that doesn't give me a 16!"). What role is that supposed to be besides "optimal archer build #32"?

You say "obviously" while also missing the point by a country mile. So I will be blunt and repetitive for clarity.

You are not roleplaying when you build your character at all. This truism isn't somehow exclusive to optimizers. It doesn't matter if one is optimizing their character or not. I'm not roleplaying when I'm creating a non-optimized character. I'm not roleplaying when I'm creating an optimized character.

Roleplaying is giving life to the character through imparting a personality and a place in the world to the pile of statistics. If one doesn't optimize, roleplaying equally entails giving life to the character through imparting a personality and a place in the world to the pile of statistics.

I am only roleplaying my optimized character through play. I am only roleplaying my non-optimized character through play.

Got it yet?