It seems while they used the term "race" in the playtest packet, in the survey they just used the generic "character option." They may just be seeing how many people bring that complaint to them independently in the survey. They seemed about ready to drop the term a year and a half or so ago, but backtracked since then.Yeah, I assume that part is in like Flynn. I told them I liked that change, but they should lose the word "Race" and not have Dwarves be genetically smiths.
I see no reason to believe that it is based on what they have said or put out there: it is structured like UA has been ever since the build untoward Xanathar's. Just a difference in degree, not process. The content is similar, the survey apparatus is the same.This playtest is different, though, isn't it, being that it is for the new core books?
Yes, I did say that as well.And preferably dragonborn to not come out of the egg speaking Draconic.
I really hope they do.It seems while they used the term "race" in the playtest packet, in the survey they just used the generic "character option." They may just be seeing how many people bring that complaint to them independently in the survey. They seemed about ready to drop the term a year and a half or so ago, but backtracked since then.
I suppose it is possible that surveys of future packets will include questions regarding how it interacts with things from earlier packets, but it still seems extremely inefficient. I already have multiple players declining to adjust characters because there is no class information to see how thinsg interact. What do they think people are going to be able to test?I see no reason to believe that it is based on what they have said or put out there: it is structured like UA has been ever since the build untoward Xanathar's. Just a difference in degree, not process. The content is similar, the survey apparatus is the same.
While personally I think that the term race as used in D&D is actually probably fine with what D&D ancestries represent, if they are going to end up taking tons of criticism, explaining, defending and possibly changing it in future printings based on feedback, it is far easier to take the heat and change the term now.I really hope they do.
Additionally, a lot of people didn't use it because it so metagamey and breaks the simulation. It was fine if you were playing a slightly narrativist tinged D&D using the personality and flaw system to grant inspiration. The changes to now having it generate off racial features and die rolls ruins inspiration for narrativist play as well since they will probably be receiving far more inspiration to use and to share (which is now given freely between players with no inside the fiction narration to accompany it).I’m going to fill this out after I’ve had my coffee and can get to a proper keyboard, but man oh man do I hope they don’t stay the course with forcing inspiration into the game in an unavoidable way. I know a lot of people never used it because it was easy to forget, but for my part I never used it because it’s just so disconnected from the fiction/feels game-y.
I wonder if that is what they meant when they said things were already popular house rulesHalf the changes are already house rules Matt Mercer uses.