D&D (2024) Half Race Appreciation Society: Half Elf most popular race choice in BG3

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

Hard disagree. It will get min/maxed immediately. It is not remotely a simple task.

Any system they create will be min-maxed regardless of what that system turns out to be, up to and including no system at all. People min-maxed '14 race/species with fixed ASI, they min-max post-Tasha race/species with floating ASI, they min-max species as they currently exist in the '24 Playtest, and they will inevitably min-max species in the final '24 rules no matter what form those rules happen to take.

Power-gamers will keep twisting their character concepts into pretzels to eke out every scrap of mechanical advantage they can whether a robust mixed ancestry framework is put in place or not, so not having one doesn't somehow solve min-maxing, it just forces those who want a mechanical expression for mixed ancestry characters to either go elsewhere or stop playing mixed ancestry characters.

But sure: Suffer not the power-gamer to live, et al.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

From a mechanics point of view, having all of one parent's or taking a couple mechanics from each is merely putting lipstick on a pig-- it's a plate of suck regardless of which way you do it. So getting upset about which plate of suck WotC hands you to me seems like a massive waste of time and energy.

I don't think you "Oh u aren't allowed 2 care, becuz both suck lolz" logic works at all here.

The "take all mechanics from a single race" one is obviously wildly more offensive and creepy.

The other way is clunkier, but largely inoffensive.

The fact that you're worrying about min-maxing though tells me you're not really thinking about this very well, though. People will min-max whatever systems there are, and if there's no mixed system, they'll just min-max off the species/races that there are. Indeed, it's quite likely any mixed system will be inferior to just picking Elf or Orc or something for most classes (the Orc we saw was pretty great, as I recall).

Plus, let's be real - D&D races aren't even slightly balanced. It's not like classes. If the most powerful 5E classes/subclass are 10/10, the weakest pairing as 7/10 (maaaaaaaaaybe 6.5 of 10 for absolute double-stinkers, like Four Elements Monk - but those will probably get fixed).

Races though, talking about abilities granted, if the very best are 10/10, then worst are like 1/10. There's an absolutely wild gamut. No good baseline for what a species should give you at minimum, and they can't even change that properly for 2024, because MotM continues that grand tradition of "there is very little parity between these". I'm sure the worst PHB races will get improved a little (like Dragonborn moved to the dragon book version), but I'm also sure that, best case, races will range from 4/10 to 10/10, which is still awful.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Hard disagree. It will get min/maxed immediately. It is not remotely a simple task.

Really? With the exception perhaps of the Variant Human... WotC can purposefully single out two species features from every species that are not in any way going to be overpowered regardless of how they get paired.

If we use the 5E14 rules, we could say:

Dwarf: Darkvision, Stonecunning
Elf: Fey Ancestry, Trance
Halfling: Lucky, Brave
Gnome: Darkvision, Gnome Cunning
Dragonborn: Breath Weapon, Damage Resistance
Tiefling: Darkvision, Hellish Resistance

There is not a single combination of four traits there that I would call overpowered by any stretch. Yes, WotC would have to do a little adjustment to the species traits here and there to make sure there were two okay traits available for the Multi-Speciesing. But that's a pretty simple thing too-- especially if sub-species ends up removed and those traits get incorporated into the base species features (don't know if that's happening or not.)

Yes, in this quick and easy chart I made above there will be someone complaining that those with Darkvision only end up with 3 traits rather than 4... but I'm fairly confident making smart choices in which two species features are the ones that go into creating Mixed Species options can take those potentialities into account, and is not the big task you seem to think it is. (But even if it is bigger than I'm making it out to be... I also think it's still worth doing.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't think you "Oh u aren't allowed 2 care, becuz both suck lolz" logic works at all here.

The "take all mechanics from a single race" one is obviously wildly more offensive and creepy.

The other way is clunkier, but largely inoffensive.

The fact that you're worrying about min-maxing though tells me you're not really thinking about this very well, though. People will min-max whatever systems there are, and if there's no mixed system, they'll just min-max off the species/races that there are. Indeed, it's quite likely any mixed system will be inferior to just picking Elf or Orc or something for most classes (the Orc we saw was pretty great, as I recall).

Plus, let's be real - D&D races aren't even slightly balanced. It's not like classes. If the most powerful 5E classes/subclass are 10/10, the weakest pairing as 7/10 (maaaaaaaaaybe 6.5 of 10 for absolute double-stinkers, like Four Elements Monk - but those will probably get fixed).

Races though, talking about abilities granted, if the very best are 10/10, then worst are like 1/10. There's an absolutely wild gamut. No good baseline for what a species should give you at minimum, and they can't even change that properly for 2024, because MotM continues that grand tradition of "there is very little parity between these". I'm sure the worst PHB races will get improved a little (like Dragonborn moved to the dragon book version), but I'm also sure that, best case, races will range from 4/10 to 10/10, which is still awful.

It's not "logic" for some argument, it was my opinion. I even said it in the first line-- "I believe". But I also acknowledged other people feel differently, which is why my final paragraph was all about how to give those players what they want, even if I personally don't think they are necessary.

And I disagree heartily that the disparity of best to worse races are 10/10 down to 1/10. Not even close. Maybe the Variant Human with the free feat and free skill (if that's what ends up happening) could have a case made depending on the range of feats they could take... but just look at the chart I put up my post right above-- two traits from each species that if you combines four together would not in any way shape or form be considered overpowered or min-maxed unless the player is so far into the balancing weeds. And In terms of actual raw power differential... your statement should really be more like classes are separated from the best of 100/100 to the worst of 70/100... while species are as you said of 10/10 to 1/10.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's not "logic" for some argument, it was my opinion. I even said it in the first line-- "I believe". But I also acknowledged other people feel differently, which is why my final paragraph was all about how to give those players what they want, even if I personally don't think they are necessary.

And I disagree heartily that the disparity of best to worse races are 10/10 down to 1/10. Not even close. Maybe the Variant Human with the free feat and free skill (if that's what ends up happening) could have a case made depending on the range of feats they could take... but just look at the chart I put up my post right above-- two traits from each species that if you combines four together would not in any way shape or form be considered overpowered or min-maxed unless the player is so far into the balancing weeds. And In terms of actual raw power differential... your statement should really be more like classes are separated from the best of 100/100 to the worst of 70/100... while species are as you said of 10/10 to 1/10.

I'm really confused. I've tried re-reading this twice now, and maybe it's my ADHD, but you say you disagree, then your last line appears to agree with me 100%?!

The two traits approach you describe could work. I just think worrying about race min-maxing is silly when terrible and amazing races both exist and will continue to exist in 2024.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm really confused. I've tried re-reading this twice now, and maybe it's my ADHD, but you say you disagree, then your last line appears to agree with me 100%?!

The two traits approach you describe could work. I just think worrying about race min-maxing is silly when terrible and amazing races both exist and will continue to exist in 2024.

My apologies, I probably didn't explain myself well.

You made the case that the separation between most powerful to least powerful classes were 10/10 to 7/10, so a difference of 3 points, but that most powerful to least powerful species were 10/10 to 1/10, a difference of 9 points. Thus the implication being that the separation between best and worst for species was the bigger deal. But I was trying to get across that I thought you were using the wrong difference of scale.

Because 20 levels of classes hold so much more power all told... I felt the class difference should be written as 100/100 to 70/100, a 30-point difference in power-- compared to species still at 10/10 to 1/10, a 10-point difference. And thus even if the best-to-worse classes are closer together in and of themselves... when compared to the power that species traits give, that disparity I feel blows species separation out of the water.

In my opinion it doesn't matter how far apart species traits are, because they get completely overwhelmed and subsumed by class abilities after like Level 3, so any disparity at that point is negligible. I also feel mix-maxing species traits is silly because any of their powers are so weak compared to what a player gets from classes... but because some players do care, WotC should just make sure to devise a system that won't allow a complete mixing-and-matching (and this possibly allow for groupings that those players would say was overpowered.)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I thought you were using the wrong difference of scale.

OH I SEE.

I mean yeah it's a different scale for sure, I was just talking relatively to each other, rather than "in the grand scheme of things".

I don't think it's quite right to see classes as "20 levels of power", more like 10 maybe, because so few people play much past that (or even to it).

Still absolutely most racial abilities get swamped by class ones, magic items, spells, etc. etc.

It's weird that this is more true in 5E than say, 2E, I think.

 

[DEFCON 1]

OH I SEE.

I mean yeah it's a different scale for sure, I was just talking relatively to each other, rather than "in the grand scheme of things".

I don't think it's quite right to see classes as "20 levels of power", more like 10 maybe, because so few people play much past that (or even to it).

Still absolutely most racial abilities get swamped by class ones, magic items, spells, etc. etc.

It's weird that this is more true in 5E than say, 2E, I think.

And that's precisely why I find the arguments about players needing mechanical species traits to be available from both parents in order to adequately portray their characters to generate just a shrug in me. I think when we look at the totality of a character, species traits might as well not even exist as far as the usefulness their mechanics are.

But that's just my opinion on the subject, which is why I think WotC should create a system for those that feel it is important.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And that's precisely why I find the arguments about players needing mechanical species traits to be available from both parents in order to adequately portray their characters to generate just a shrug in me. I think when we look at the totality of a character, species traits might as well not even exist as far as the usefulness their mechanics are.

If we really look hard at the mechanics and their benefits, sure, but it's something that really speaks to players and that they - perhaps irrationally - really care about. I've seen this through 34 years of D&D. Lots of races may very little mechanical difference, but boy do players care about them, even when they don't actually matter. Even species which are mechanically bad but stylish do better than ones which are mechanically great but uncool to most (sorry dwarves, you've got a small but loyal following!).

But that's just my opinion on the subject, which is why I think WotC should create a system for those that feel it is important.

And that's the main thing - so long as people feel like they're being represented, they're not likely to micro-examine the system.

But it's worth discussing because the previous WotC proposal, which in the poll on the other thread, still has 67% of people here believing will stay (?!?!?), and quite aside from being something that only an American (and probably only a white American of at least 40 years of age) could even come up with a as "good idea" absolutely was not giving people that "represented/seen" vibe, and it was additionally pissing a lot of people who are just RPers and into a specific deal.

 

[Horwath]

If the curent idea of halfraces goes that you pick mechanics of only one parent race and looks and lore of whatever, I would say that Astral elf will be one of the most popular parent races as those features work with any character you can think of.