D&D (2024) D&D species article

[Minigiant]

Eladrin are originally in 2e a kind of Angel, the Chaotic Good opposite of a Lawful Evil Devil.

But 4e disrupted this by forming the Feywild that is unaligned and can be any alignment. I prefer the Feywild by far. But the relationship between Eladrin and Chaotic Good Arborea has been awkward since then.

If the Tiefling lacked the Aasimar, it is possible to make the Elf the counterpart with some adjustments. It would mean something like LG, TG, CG Elves. I dont think this is worth doing, but was kinda happening when the Aasimar were absent.

I have a homebrew setting I started in 4e where there are 4 Outer Planes (Heavens, Arbor, Hells, Abyss) and 4 Echo Planes (Feywild, Shadowfell, Dragonvault, Gianttop)

In there, Elf took the Neutral Fey route and Eladrin were pushed back to the CG Celestial route.

Tiefling were left linked to Devils and a new race was linked to Demons.

 

[CreamCloud0]

if i were doing species, most of these are conceptual pairs vaguely, but like was said, you can pretty much make any pairings you want if you even vaguely try.
humans - dragonborn (exploration - tradition)
orcs - elves (emotion - logic)
dwarves - genasi (material craft - magical)
halfling - goliath (small - big)
tiefling - aasimar (infernal - celestial)
beastfolk/shifter - warforged (nature - technology)

 

[Maxperson]

I think genasi are n the Planewalkers Handbook for 3e.

They are also in the 3e Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting.

 

[Maxperson]

LOL, that's not how math works. "10%" is not the same thing at all times.

The difference between needing 19/20 and 17/20 to hit means you're doing TWICE as much damage over time with 17. It's NOT only 10% more damage, and this difference is extremely noticeable for a player. Saying "2 extra hits every 4-5 combats" (a misnomer to begin with) is not accurate representation.

Similar for things like haste in a real-time game. If someone has "weapon delay decreased by 50%" (2 sec weapon delay --> 1 second) they are doing 100% more damage, not 50% more. If you have a "25% decrease" you're doing 33% more damage. A 67% gap, not just a 25% gap when going from "50%" to "25%".

Yes. I know you(general you) can twist numbers to make them sound impressive. 33% sounds impressive until you realize you've only gone from 2 to 3 points of damage. That 1 extra damage is nearly worthless, but hey, 33% sounds good so we need it!!!

It boils down to 10% being 2 extra hits on average in every 20 swings. 2 extra hits every 4-5 fights. At low level(and most campaigns never even reach 10th level) you aren't fighting a bunch(or even any) of stuff with 23+ AC, which is what you would have to be fighting to need that 19 to hit. You have +2 for your 14 and +2 for proficiency at 1st level. How many monsters in 5e even have 23+ at all? Below are all the 20+ AC monsters in the MM.

CR 21 Solar 21 AC
CR 17 Death Knight 20 AC
CR 18 Demilich 20 AC
CR 21 Ancient Black Dragon 22 AC
CR 23 Ancient Blue Dragon 22 AC
CR 22 Ancient Green Dragon 21 AC
CR 24 Ancient Red Dragon 22 AC
CR 20 Ancient White Dragon 20 AC
CR 20 Ancient Brass Dragon 20 AC
CR 22 Ancient Bronze Dragon 22 AC
CR 21 Ancient Copper Dragon 21 AC
CR 24 Ancient Gold Dragon 22 AC
CR 23 Ancient Silver Dragon 22 AC
CR 17 Dragon Turtle 20 AC
CR 23 Empyrean 22 AC
CR 16 Iron Golem 20 AC
CR 4 Helmed Horror 20 AC
CR 6 Hobgoblin Warlord 20 AC
CR 5 Roper 20 AC
CR 30 Tarrasque AC 25(finally found one at 23+)

That's the entire list of 20+ ACs in the MM. Only one is at 23+ and if you are fighting the Tarrasque at low level, no amount of strength is going to help you. Of the seven monsters that come close with a 22 AC, 6 are ancient dragons, 3 of which are good and you probably aren't fighting them. None of them will be fought at low level.

There are only 3 creatures in the MM with a 20 AC that you might fight at low level and none with an AC higher than 20.

It's almost disingenuous to be bringing up needing a 19 to hit. And yes I know there are ways to boost AC with spells and magic items, but it will still be very very rare to be swinging at ACs of 23 at low level.

 

[Maxperson]

It's because they are on separate pillars of play.

You are suggesting going from

Attack Mod: (Strength -10)/2
Damage Mod: (Strength -10)/2
Skill Mod: (Strength -10)/2
Carrying Capacity: Strength * 15

To

Attack Mod: (Strength -10)/2
Damage Mod: (Strength -10)
Skill Mod: (Strength -10)/2, roll d10s instead of d20s
Carrying Capacity: if Strength is 1-10, Strength * 10, if Strength is 11-17, Strength * 15,
if Strength is 18-24 Strength * 20
AND Having +X and -X spells

Yeah you know how that's gonna turn out.

"you defined by Strength. so what's my attack bonus again. Wait wait wait my carry capacity changed.Oh is it times 10 or times 15? Yeah it's different amounts depending on strength but I don't remember. I forgot. Let's look in the book. Carry capacity carry capacity page..."

Vs

"Add your 1d6 to damage. Got it"

No matter how often you repeat it, you will still not need to reach a +10 to strength in order to match the increased carrying capacity. +2 is plenty.

 

[Yaarel]

if i were doing species, most of these are conceptual pairs vaguely, but like was said, you can pretty much make any pairings you want if you even vaguely try.
humans - dragonborn (exploration - tradition)
orcs - elves (emotion - logic)
dwarves - genasi (material craft - magical)
halfling - goliath (small - big)
tiefling - aasimar (infernal - celestial)
beastfolk/shifter - warforged (nature - technology)

I might have:

Elf - Human (magic utopia - nonmagic reality)
Orc - Gnome (direct physicality - tricky intellect)
Halfling - Goliath (small - big)
Aasimar - Tiefling (celestial - infernal)
Dwarf - Dragonborn (unpretentious - flashy)

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. But both are so bad, that it does not matter. You won't fight long enough battles that effective hp are relevant.
It is just 10% higher chance to hit.

Yeah. That's what kills me about these discussions. No matter how you want to look at it, you are never more than 10% more likely to hit. And quite frankly, if you are fighting things on even a semi-regular basis that you would need a 19 or higher, or even 17(with that 18 stat) or higher to hit at low levels, you need to get a new DM. Low level PCs don't have enough hit points or a high enough AC to be missing that much.

 

[Belen]

So, you are only looking at two of the abilities out of the seven replaced, 3 expanded, and 9 new abilities? Cool.

Yeah, some people purchased Tasha's. But not everyone. In fact, one of the people who I watched go over the live streams had to borrow a Tasha's book, because they were completely unfamiliar with it. So, it does make some sense to assume an optional book isn't something the majority. WoTC actually has the full numbers of copies of PHB compared to Tasha's sold, so they know precisely what percentage that is. And, again, hard to say they are liars, when the whole argument is based on changing their premise.

And yes, I am aware that people are fixated on the Hunter's mark ability at level 1 and level 20 and ignoring most of the rest of the class. I feel fairly confident people will be proven wrong about the ranger over time. Not that the level 20 feature will ever be good, but that most tables are going to be fine with the ranger from levels 1 to 11 that most games take place in.

Vast majority of those who bought Tasha's were DM's.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. You've explained your house rule to me many times before.

But again, in 5e the default is not as you say above. You are bringing what I think is too much of the real world into the game, but if it works for you, I think it's great.

See, for my part I'm always a fan of bringing more real world into the game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If the Aasimar for the 2024 PHB were redesigned to have a mechanical structure similar to the 2024 Tieflings, would that necessarily be a bad thing?

No, it would not "necessarily" be a bad thing. It would also not "necessarily" be a good thing. It would be a different choice. The thing I'm pushing against is this idea that, supposedly, Tieflings and Aasimar cannot be thematic opposites unless they are mechanical mirrors.

However, having the 2024 Tieflings come in three different kinds-infernal, abyssal and cthonic- is also thematic since now D&D is focusing more specifically on which kind of fiend they're descended from. Some of us would like to see this theme being used for the Aasimar as well.

Sure, it was an option, could have neat. But it is also a fine distinction to have the Tiefling born cursed and immutable, always a monster, while having the Aasimar be born fluid, capable of FALLING to monstrous behavior, and needing to actively work to keep their current presentation.

One isn't a better route than the other. And I actually think this one is more interesting, simply because no one thought about it in all the "I bet we will see three different lineages for the three different celestial realms, just like with tieflings" discussions everyone was having.