Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9244231" data-attributes="member: 6790260">No, there are definitely people out there who think dragonborn should never have been published at all, and that it was a black mark against 5e to include them in it.I have interacted with multiple such people on both this and other forums. They were particularly tedious during the D&amp;D Next playtest, because some of them even openly spoke of boycotting 5e if it included dragonborn. I'm fairly sure none of them actually made good on that claim.Why--to say nothing of how--should a player get a &quot;curated list of races&quot;? There is some allowance for a DM to have creative license since D&amp;D holds the DM up as an auteur. What could possibly justify such a thing? Are there really people so petty as to pitch a fit simply because they find out someone else plays a dragonborn at a table they've joined?During one of the earlier playtests, they officially deleted all half-race characters. A half-elf is now mechanically either human or elf, IIRC, with lifespan changes and (purely cosmetic) physical characteristics inherited from the other parent. Half-elf and half-orc in particular were specifically called out as being eliminated as playable options (albeit &quot;still available in 2014 books&quot;). Though apparently after the &quot;controversy&quot; (since, y'know, it amounts to biracial/polyracial erasure), they <a href="https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-dragons-half-elf-one-dnd-inherently-racist-plans/" target="_blank">made an announcement</a> that they were going to adjust their approach. AFAIK, no further statements have been made and we haven't seen any further playtest documents, so &quot;half-race options are inherently racist and we're eliminating them&quot; is the last thing we actually have concrete evidence for.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9244231, member: 6790260"] No, there are [I]definitely[/I] people out there who think dragonborn should never have been published at all, and that it was a black mark against 5e to include them in it. I have interacted with multiple such people on both this and other forums. They were particularly tedious during the D&D Next playtest, because some of them even openly spoke of boycotting 5e if it included dragonborn. I'm fairly sure none of them actually made good on that claim. Why--to say nothing of [I]how[/I]--should a [I]player[/I] get a "curated list of races"? There is some allowance for a DM to have creative license since D&D holds the DM up as an auteur. What could possibly justify such a thing? Are there really people so petty as to pitch a fit simply because they find out someone else plays a dragonborn at a table they've joined? During one of the earlier playtests, they officially deleted all half-race characters. A half-elf is now mechanically either human or elf, IIRC, with lifespan changes and (purely cosmetic) physical characteristics inherited from the other parent. Half-elf and half-orc in particular were specifically called out as being eliminated as playable options (albeit "still available in 2014 books"). Though apparently after the "controversy" (since, y'know, it amounts to biracial/polyracial erasure), they [URL='https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-dragons-half-elf-one-dnd-inherently-racist-plans/']made an announcement[/URL] that they were going to adjust their approach. AFAIK, no further statements have been made and we haven't seen any further playtest documents, so "half-race options are inherently racist and we're eliminating them" is the last thing we actually have concrete evidence for. [/QUOTE]

Verification