Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I shouldn't need to waste my 1st level feat on something that should be free as a part of the race I choose.add 1st level feats:
Elf blooded
Orc blooded
Dwarf blooded
Human blooded
I shouldn't need to waste my 1st level feat on something that should be free as a part of the race I choose.add 1st level feats:
Elf blooded
Orc blooded
Dwarf blooded
Human blooded
it's not a waste you get those abilities on top of your raceI shouldn't need to waste my 1st level feat on something that should be free as a part of the race I choose.
My race is half-elf. Not elf. Not human. I should not be forced to take a feat to be a half-elf. If I can't take half-elf with half-elf specific abilities AND a 1st level feat, no other race should be able to, either. You want to be a Tortle with Tortle racial abilities? Take Tortle Blooded!it's not a waste you get those abilities on top of your race
I would imagine that there will be some sort of custom built background option somewhere that will allow you to pick and choose.I mean, I don't think the Feat thing would work because you can't actually choose the L1 Feat in 2024, despite them saying you could previously, can you? You have to take whatever the Background gives you, right?
The difference is that these races are ancient descendants of dragons, fiends, and giants. Half-races are far more direct. The better example would be to replace half-elf with a race that is long descended from the fey.I'd say keep them. If its the name that's troublesome, give them a new one just like Goliath (Half-Giant), Dragonborn (Half-Dragon) and Tiefling (Half-Devil).
But I also think Drow should keep their sunlight sensitivity, so there's that.
Hiding in the DMG, I'd imagine.I would imagine that there will be some sort of custom built background option somewhere that will allow you to pick and choose.
I'm pretty sure it's going to be there so they DMs can veto backgrounds that don't fit with their world.Hiding in the DMG, I'd imagine.
Could you expand upon this, I don't really understand but it's likely just an issue on my part here that's completely misinterpreting what you're attempting to say here. How does the simple existence of mixed heritage equate to requiring a racism angle? Because from my view, I don't think the answer to people incorrectly attributing problems of racism to the mere existence of mixed heritage is to wholesale remove it.