D&D 5E Yes to factionalism. No to racism.

[Scribe]

A bit late to the thread, so this might have already been addressed, but... people complain about "bland" races, but some of the most unique and alien races are kenku and lizardfolk, and so many people hate what makes them alien because it makes them "hard to play."

Inversely this is also why those are popular races. They are actually alien, and its baked right into their description/write up.

This is how races should be done.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Upthread, I brought up lumpers vs. splitters.

I tend to be on the lumper side of things, fyi.

For what its worth, I think 5e was wise to do more lumping and less grid-filling. We don't need 15 different types of Elves in the PHB.

I do think that if a player wanted to distinguish their elf character's culture, that it might be helpful to SPLIT certain lineage features away from the lineage itself and make them cultural features that are by default considered interchangeable with others in a pool of cultural features.

As it is right now, most of the features of a lineage is swappable per the custom lineage rules in Tasha's. But this lends itself to very diluted lineages that are harder to identify with.

An issue that cropped up with ASIs were using them to balance against other powerful features. So initially, Kobolds and Orcs were given negative lineage ASIs to balance against their powerful features, while Drow and Duergar were given lineage-weakenesses to light to balance their powerful features. While the weakness to bright light has remained for various Underdark peoples, the negative ability modifiers are gone because they locked in the idea that Orcs are dumb. Mountain Dwarves and half-elves are particularly difficult to work around because they get more 1st-level lineage ASIs than everyone else (net 4 versus net 3). But they also tell narrative stories that really distinguish Mountain Dwarves and Half-elves from other peoples.

Heck, Humans are distinguished almost entirely by their 1st-level ASI +1 to everything. That tells you everything you need to know about Humans as a people - they're flexible and can adapt to different walks of life (the variant human tells a different but related story - Humans can specialise in almost anything they put their mind to, even if its at the cost of their flexibility).

I'm a bit loathe to lose these AS bumps ever since. Owlin feel like they should have a +Dex feature or a +Wis or +Int feature. I can see why people would argue different boosts for different takes on Owlin, or Dhampir, etc, just as they did for all the previous peoples. I'm not sure how to tell the story of "Half elves are super charismatic and also dabblers but not as dabbly as Humans" without the Ability Scores. But that's because I'm a lazy game mechanics designer, it not being my job and all.

Assuming WotC don't backpedal on lineage Ability Score modifiers, I would like to see them removed from all core peoples in the PHB but give those lineages equally defining features that distinguish them from their peers. I want to be able to have some default character options sparking inspiration with any lineage I see. Currently, when I read about Leonin and how they have +Str and +Con, as opposed to the Tabaxi's +Dex and +Cha, it immediately tells me that Leonin are Fighters while Tabaxi are Rogues. Leonin are Paladins while Tabaxi are Bards. Etc. I think it's okay to lose the Ability Modifiers because your Leonin Rogue should be effective and a viable option. But I think there really should be some default assumptions that give new players a place to start with their character's lineage so they're not left wondering, "what do I do with this?"

And not just one option. Githzerai by narrative imply that they should make great Monks, but without that +Dex bump, Wood Elves make far better monks than Zerths ever will (even if the Zerths still get the +Wisdom that Monks need to effectively use their Ki powers). So, instead, we've stripped away the Ability Score Modifiers from the lineages. The Githzerai entry should still say, "they make great Monks of any tradition, Aberrant Mind Sorcerers, and Knowledge Domain Clerics" or something along those lines. Meanwhile, the Githyanki entry could say, "they make great Psi Warrior Fighters, Fiend Patron Warlocks, and Oath of Conquest Paladins" or something along those lines.

This sort of baseline suggestion, without any mechanical locking-in would give new players an entry into the lineage's traditional class biases without enforcing them because of CharOp or creating unhealthy stereotypes for a given lineage by making us think the only thing a Tabaxi is good for is thieving and drug dealing (gorrammit, Skyrim, Khajiiti can be Dragonborn too! They're not all "our sugar is yours, friend").

Wouldn't it be a lie though? How can you say that githzerai are good monks, or tabaxi good rogues, without any mechanical back up for that idea? You have to either let the mechanics back the lore, or take the now-false lore out. Those mechanics don't need to be ASI, but you need something.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But that requires a rulebook which is supposed to be mostly setting-agnostic to stop being so. D&D has always worked well - and 5e is even more successful by far - with this open approach.

I don't see how it does.

You'd make it about as setting-agnostic as 4E or 5E.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Inversely this is also why those are popular races. They are actually alien, and its baked right into their description/write up.

This is how races should be done.

I mean, shouldn't there be both? Because both apply to different kinds of players. I suspect the "alien" kind appeal to primarily a minority, but so does any given race. I think the reason the particular ones like Kenku are popular is yes, because they're alien, but also it's centered on them because there are very few alien races. If there were loads of "alien"-style races, each individual one would be less popular. It's a kind of a niche like "edgy" race or "big guy" race, or whatever.

I think the main issue is that there are no "alien" races in the PHB, but that'd be supremely easy to fix.

 

[Scribe]

I mean, shouldn't there be both? Because both apply to different kinds of players. I suspect the "alien" kind appeal to primarily a minority, but so does any given race. I think the reason the particular ones like Kenku are popular is yes, because they're alien, but also it's centered on them because there are very few alien races. If there were loads of "alien"-style races, each individual one would be less popular. It's a kind of a niche like "edgy" race or "big guy" race, or whatever.

I think the main issue is that there are no "alien" races in the PHB, but that'd be supremely easy to fix.

Well, I certainly dont think we need 30+ races in the game, unless they are demonstrably different anyway, but I'm in that 'no funny hats' camp.

 

[Micah Sweet]

1. And WotC should learn from their "competitors," for sure.

2. Agreed, though I think the problem is more than a just "some lineages are offensive." That's the most direct and offensive issue that needed course correcting. They've already been able to course correct on that with errata and new books that detail those lineages differently. But the reason those lineages are problematic is a root underpinning problem with the genre of fiction and the gameplay that D&D props up and stands on, and thus WotC needs to figure out how to both be a leader in the industry in terms of anti-racism (which requires big structural change to the game) while also appealing to the masses by not complexifying the game and maintaining a sense of WHAT IT IS versus losing its identity by trying to be different and unique.

I adore 4e to death and would take it any day over 3.5e but they seriously burned long-term fans by changing things those fans didn't want changed. WotC seems to be doing their changes now based on big data surveys and playtests, as opposed to bulldozing through what a few designers wanted, so I THINK their changes will continue to improve the game. But it's definitely a needle that needs to be threaded carefully.

Well, I personally believe that WotC is not capable of doing both the things you mention. They cant make big structural changes to the game to fix the root issue we're discussing while also keep things simple for easy buy-in and have the whole thing remain recognizably D&D. I have zero faith that feat is on their list. Fortunately, there's enough 3rd party stuff out there to satisfy any taste.

 

[Marandahir]

But then, if I'm not mistaking you, it's a completely different problem, one that has to do with the crunchiness of the system in terms of lineages and the possibilities here. There are some systems where balance is less of an issue which leave tons of options open, because combos are not so much of a problem, but the crunchiness approach which left tons of options was tried with 3e and failed due to the combos explosions.

But then maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what the real issue is for you.

I don't think they're completely different problems, though you're speaking to another possibility: D&D might not be a game that can adequately address these lineage issues by the very measure that it needs to be accessible to all sorts of players.

I'd like to believe that it's a needle that can be thread but that is a grave concern: how do you complexify and broaden the cultural subjectivity of the game's fiction and metafiction while simultaneously simplifying the game's mechanics?

The broadening audience of D&D wants all of these goals met: (1) more space to "be me" in the game and not feel rejected or pushed away by offensive text and subtext; and (2) a simple enough game that I can just play with my friends without spending hours building the game; and (3) not have to worry about whether I said something offensive or stereotypical or not and thereby upset someone who isn't at the table.

The game needs to be enthusiastically inclusive, simple to pick up and go, but have the dials readily available to modify things I don't want to use without getting accused "You're MinMaxing because you're not using the default assumption!" The game needs to encourage DMs to create a plethora of different fantasy cultures without forcing them to do so. It needs to give you all the tools to inspire without forcing them down your throat, essentially, and without making the book so big that you won't read it and instead will go play Pathfinder 3 or something.

 

[Marandahir]

Wouldn't it be a lie though? How can you say that githzerai are good monks, or tabaxi good rogues, without any mechanical back up for that idea? You have to either let the mechanics back the lore, or take the now-false lore out. Those mechanics don't need to be ASI, but you need something.

Sure. Maybe the "make good Monks" is a bad way to phrase it. Instead, you could say, "Githzerai culture lends them toward monastic traditions of any kind. There are many psionicists amongst them as well, and the Aberrant Mind Sorcerer (TCE) is a great option to play a Zerth Mystic."

You don't need to enforce it with a class feature that makes them better at being Monks or Psionicists, just give the player some ideas of where some baseline options are so they have some jumping off point.

Note that I don't think, Gith should be anywhere NEAR the 2024 PHB, but I thought it was a useful analogy for this discussion since their bumps in MToF are to Int and Wis, not to Dex, despite being Monks first and foremost.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think they're completely different problems, though you're speaking to another possibility: D&D might not be a game that can adequately address these lineage issues by the very measure that it needs to be accessible to all sorts of players.

I'd like to believe that it's a needle that can be thread but that is a grave concern: how do you complexify and broaden the cultural subjectivity of the game's fiction and metafiction while simultaneously simplifying the game's mechanics?

The broadening audience of D&D wants all of these goals met: (1) more space to "be me" in the game and not feel rejected or pushed away by offensive text and subtext; and (2) a simple enough game that I can just play with my friends without spending hours building the game; and (3) not have to worry about whether I said something offensive or stereotypical or not and thereby upset someone who isn't at the table.

The game needs to be enthusiastically inclusive, simple to pick up and go, but have the dials readily available to modify things I don't want to use without getting accused "You're MinMaxing because you're not using the default assumption!" The game needs to encourage DMs to create a plethora of different fantasy cultures without forcing them to do so. It needs to give you all the tools to inspire without forcing them down your throat, essentially, and without making the book so big that you won't read it and instead will go play Pathfinder 3 or something.

Exactly. THAT game would be a fantasy within a fantasy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. Maybe the "make good Monks" is a bad way to phrase it. Instead, you could say, "Githzerai culture lends them toward monastic traditions of any kind. There are many psionicists amongst them as well, and the Aberrant Mind Sorcerer (TCE) is a great option to play a Zerth Mystic."

That you could do, but I still think it would ring hollow without any mechanical backing. Maybe if you split heritage and culture, and had the culture lean into these things, it would work. Better expand back ground too, and maybe put the ASIs in there. Now all we need is some cool inspiration options and we're set. We could call that last part, "destiny".

I really think we have something here.