D&D (2024) D&D species article

[Scott Christian]

I can already see they are not necessarily aligning the PHB with the Greyhawk setting. Dragonborne? I mean, I know players like them, myself included, but they don't belong there. Culturally different/significant humans would be better.

 

[Remathilis]

I can already see they are not necessarily aligning the PHB with the Greyhawk setting. Dragonborne? I mean, I know players like them, myself included, but they don't belong there. Culturally different/significant humans would be better.

Greyhawk is a kitchen sink setting and there has never been a prohibition on anything that is in Core D&D, including dragonborn. Even so, Greyhawk is the EXAMPLE of how to make a setting in the DMG, not the default setting (which is the D&D Multiverse).

 

[Parmandur]

The reason why the Fairy is small isn’t to “leave things open for a tiny fey later.” It’s for the same reason why none of the big races (Minotaurs, Centaurs, Goliaths, Firbolg) are Large even if it would make sense for them to be/their monster equivalents are Large. It’s because 5e is not balanced to support any species that aren’t Small or Medium and WotC thinks it’s too hard to balance too be worth it.

WotC in general has been pretty hesitant to innovate on the 2014 system. They did this with playable creature types for a long time. It took 4 years to get a non-humanoid playable option (Ravnica’s Centaurs are Fey), and 4 more years after that to get one that wasn’t a Fey (Autognomes, Plasmoids, and Thri-Kreen in Spelljammer). And we still don’t have playable options for most of the creature types.

I highly doubt that there will be any Tiny or Large playable races in the foreseeable future of 5e, if they ever come. It’s not because WotC wants to leave the option of them open for future species, but because WotC has been extremely cautious about introducing new playable options that the system wasn’t designed to support.

The barrier for Tiny or Large PCs is less "balance" and more that it could create weird situations at the table ("sorry, Bob, your character cannot participate here because he can't fit in the castle" or a Pixie constantly short circuiting obstacles).

It is very doable in 5E, as Karl David Brown has shown in his reverse engineering work ( Race Design for D&D 5th Edition Creating New PC Species - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild ).

 

[mellored]

I can already see they are not necessarily aligning the PHB with the Greyhawk setting. Dragonborne? I mean, I know players like them, myself included, but they don't belong there. Culturally different/significant humans would be better.

They are using Greyhawk as the home campaign starter set. With instructions on how to add to it.
I wouldn't be surprised if they use adding extra races as an example of how to modify it.

They are not keeping it pristine.

 

[Jaiken]

That actually will be supported by the rules, just like half-elves and half-orcs will be - you take the ruleset from one parent. That might not be how you want to see it, but it is still supported in the rules.

I see. What I mean is a full combination of the races without anything taken from the parent race.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And yet... D&D 5e is a wonderful game where every day millions of people enjoy going on fantastical adventures.

I get your frustration, but I'm trying to say it's not that bad.

So...too many people accept the way things are for a contrary opinion to matter?

 

[Minigiant]

So...too many people accept the way things are for a contrary opinion to matter?

More that WOTC is banking on the fact that 50% of the 5e community is new to D&D and under 45 that they can outlast mechanical criticism that isn't overtly dramatic.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The core problem with this argument is spells are not even remotely a simple system. They're by far the MOST complex thing in 5e, for like three or four different reasons (traditionalism, which is not at all the same thing as actually being traditional; spells being forced to cover every possible niche, no matter how inappropriate/distant from the ways spells work; and actual traditional elements, like saving throws, slot scaling, spell components, etc.)

Having a single system is only actually valuable if that single system isn't ridiculously complex. It's like having a single, universal power plug converter--it has to have 17 different sockets and plug types because every country does things a little differently, making the converter actually really complicated to use, despite being a one-stop-shop.

You can't just say, "One system is better than a quarter million!" Okay. Sure. There weren't a quarter million before, so the hyperbole does you rather a disservice. And it's not like we don't have additional content anyway, like Superiority Dice and their many (allegedly) "supernatural" cousins like Psi Dice.

Maybe it is the case that having one, universal system really is better. Or maybe it's the case that having two complementary systems, that can each be individually simpler because they're tailored for their specific niche, would in fact actually be simpler than one universal system. Imagine trying to make one single universal language by just shoehorning the vocabulary of every world language into, say, Mandarin or English. It'd be nearly incomprehensible and INCREDIBLY difficult to learn, despite being "one system" that "everyone" could speak.

"Less is more" is only true if you do, in fact, DO MORE with less. I have yet to see good evidence that using spells for at least 90% of all supernatural effects, and progressively swallowing up ever more non-spellcasting features into the spellcasting system, does in fact do more. At which point, all you have is "less is less." Which isn't exactly a compelling argument.

I don't really like the spells for species too. But it is not lazy design. It is a design choice.
That is my gripe with people throwing around buzzwords.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So...too many people accept the way things are for a contrary opinion to matter?

More people seem to LIKE things as they are. So a contrary opinion does indeed not matter AS A DESIGN GOAL.

That does not invalidate the other opinion. But probably there are different games that are more to that players liking.
You have found your game in LevelUP. Others like Vampire. Others like PbtA. Others like 4e or Pathfinder 1 or 2.

Not every game should take every taste into account. Isn't it better if different games are designed to the liking of their core audience?

 

[Minigiant]

I don't really like the spells for species too. But it is not lazy design. It is a design choice.
That is my gripe with people throwing around buzzwords.

It's not lazy design.

It's a deliberate decision to only have spells and feats the only subsystems that are core.

Well and weapon mastery.