log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Everyone Should Play Custom Lineage by Default

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
When I play, I roll in front of me and unless I get a crit or fumble, I just call out my total to whoever is DMing, so unless another player is looking over my shoulder there is no reason for them to know what I rolled, either.

Personally, as DM, as long as I trust the player knows what they are doing, I just want the totals called out. Once an AC or DC is known, then they can just tell me hit/damage/fail/etc.

Again, exactly what my numbers are or what my rolls are aren't anyone's business but mine (and the DM if they ask).
But people can't see your rolls? Maybe we just play in a different physical environment.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

DND_Reborn

Legend
But people can't see your rolls? Maybe we just play in a different physical environment.
We sit far enough apart (4 feet or so) that they really have to be "looking" to see my rolls. Most of the other players roll in dice trays, so I never see their rolls, either. When I DM, I sit behind my laptop so don't see rolls, either. I roll on a small side-table next to where I sit, so no one sees my rolls, then, as well.

If you are all sitting around a small table and rolling in a common tray, then sure people will see your rolls, but that is rarely the case in all my years of gaming--we've always had more "space" in that sense. 🤷‍♂️
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
We sit far enough apart (4 feet or so) that they really have to be "looking" to see my rolls. Most of the other players roll in dice trays, so I never see their rolls, either. When I DM, I sit behind my laptop so don't see rolls, either. I roll on a small side-table next to where I sit, so no one sees my rolls, then, as well.

If you are all sitting around a small table and rolling in a common tray, then sure people will see your rolls, but that is rarely the case in all my years of gaming--we've always had more "space" in that sense. 🤷‍♂️
We just roll in the area in front of us, most of us don’t use trays. And at least in my experience, placing your rolls where people can’t see the die is considered a bit gauche. Amazing how such a trivial difference affects our perception of how the rules work.
 

I've had players deliberately put a 12 in their prime attributes which lead to a TPK.

I don't care if you get yourself killed,I do care if you get others killed.

Mearls also said that was the assumption vs powergamers wanting a 20.

If you build a crap PC you're effectively trolling the rest of the party.
I call hyperbole on this. Setting aside the "jerk player" argument, one PC having a +1 modifier instead of a +2 (or higher) in their prime attribute should not have that dramatic effect on your typical 5e game where you have 4 adventurers. TPKs are the result of the party as a whole not realizing that they are in over their head despite the best efforts of the DM to telegraph the extreme peril. And/or overall bad tactical decisions by multiple members of the party and/or tremendous bad luck with PC/DM rolls.
 

Olrox17

Hero
Nope, it doesn't. Being a cleric is still pretty much different from being a wizard -- it's not like the only difference between them is items they are able to attune to.

Like, y'know, reskinning is a thing. Playing a cleric of Mystra as a wizard is a pretty frequent occurrence, and if you are for some stupid reason so opposed to reskinning, then question whether can cleric-not-quite-cleric attune to cleric-only item is pointless. If you aren't, then this question is pretty pointless too -- there's no single reason to not allow said character to attune to the item.

Careful now. Someone here might actually be strongly opposed to reskinning, and you have no right to call them (or their reasons) stupid.

Personally, I like and allow reskinning, but only on a case by case basis. You gotta work with the DM.
 

Remathilis

Legend
Careful now. Someone here might actually be strongly opposed to reskinning, and you have no right to call them (or their reasons) stupid.

Personally, I like and allow reskinning, but only on a case by case basis. You gotta work with the DM.

I'm opposed to reskinning on principle except in specific situations (that being when there are no rules that exist for that concept) but I am very against using X to represent Y when Y is already a supported concept in the rules. For example, using a "crossbow" to represent a "firearm" (the rules for guns are in DMG) or "wizard" to represent a "cleric" (you want a wizard who is a priest? Take the acolyte background). I prefer the various elements to have tangible (if not concrete) meanings in game, a wizard is a concept in the game world, an elf comes with some certain assumptions, and bow is a bow, not a gun.

So yeah, I'll keep out of reskinning arguments for the remainder of this thread.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I call hyperbole on this. Setting aside the "jerk player" argument, one PC having a +1 modifier instead of a +2 (or higher) in their prime attribute should not have that dramatic effect on your typical 5e game where you have 4 adventurers. TPKs are the result of the party as a whole not realizing that they are in over their head despite the best efforts of the DM to telegraph the extreme peril. And/or overall bad tactical decisions by multiple members of the party and/or tremendous bad luck with PC/DM rolls.

I had 3 players deliberately make crap characters. One was strength based with 12 strength.

All 3 also played like morons and in effect trolled the group. All 3 got kicked out. Two went to another group got kicked out then went to play Pathfinder and got kicked out of that as well.

Hence why I actually started using rules and a session 0. Don't undermine the party, no excessive cowardice/pacifists, D&D is a team based game etc.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
Hence why I actually started using rules and a session 0. Don't undermine the party, no excessive cowardice/pacifists, D&D is a team based game etc.
Sure, that makes complete sense.

But this:
One was strength based with 12 strength.

leading to any sort of a TPK seems a bit of a stretch. shrug If ultimately it came down to one PC and a +1 or more difference in a roll, it is just as much bad luck I would think.
 

I had 3 players deliberately make crap characters. One was strength based with 12 strength.

All 3 also played like morons and in effect trolled the group. All 3 got kicked out. Two went to another group got kicked out then went to play Pathfinder and got kicked out of that as well.

Hence why I actually started using rules and a session 0. Don't undermine the party, no excessive cowardice/pacifists, D&D is a team based game etc.
Ah, jerk players are an entirely different story. That issue truly has nothing to do with game mechanics and everything to do with the social contract. Good for you for booting them and making sure everyone is on the same page for future campaigns.

That said, my point still stands: a 12 prime stat is not going to cause major issues in 5e if the players are playing in good faith.
 

Olrox17

Hero
I'm opposed to reskinning on principle except in specific situations (that being when there are no rules that exist for that concept) but I am very against using X to represent Y when Y is already a supported concept in the rules. For example, using a "crossbow" to represent a "firearm" (the rules for guns are in DMG) or "wizard" to represent a "cleric" (you want a wizard who is a priest? Take the acolyte background). I prefer the various elements to have tangible (if not concrete) meanings in game, a wizard is a concept in the game world, an elf comes with some certain assumptions, and bow is a bow, not a gun.

So yeah, I'll keep out of reskinning arguments for the remainder of this thread.
Agreed, I'll gladly partake in reskinning to make things that do not yet exist in the game possible. Wanna play a kobold rogue and reskin it as a gunslinging cactuar? Cool, let's do it.
Wanna play an elven paladin and reskin it as a orcish druid? I'll hear you out, but I'll probably just ask you to play an orcish druid.
 

Of course not, because they aren't conceptually an elf. They're conceptually a changeling.

If the DM and the player agree that me reskinning one set of mechanics to represent a different fictional concept is OK, then there's no reason not to continue that narrative representation into other rules elements.

If a certain magic item can only be attuned by elves, and the DM and the player have agreed that a different set of mechanics is consistent with an elven identity, then using the elf-only magic item simply serves to reify that already agreed upon mechanical change with the desired narrative.
Absolutely true, but it would be a house rule.
 

Great. Changelings can use any racial feat or magical item in the game as long as they "look" like that race when they do it.

We have literally entered "race as rubber mask" territory.
You dont just 'look like' an elf; Elves are your kin. Mechanically.

If my kin are African or Japanese people, I'm also African (or Japanese) respectively. Ergo if my custom lineages kin are Elves, I'm Elven.
 

Remathilis

Legend
You dont just 'look like' an elf; Elves are your kin. Mechanically.

If my kin are African or Japanese people, I'm also African (or Japanese) respectively. Ergo if my custom lineages kin are Elves, I'm Elven.

So, if I say "I am an elf, I was born of elven parents, have elven family and raised in elven society, but mechanically I'm a deep gnome" I can take snirvneblin magic and elven accuracy, right? I'm immune to ghoul paralysis and can wield a moonblade, right? I can have the benefits of one race (mechanically) and another (narratively) because I say so in my backstory, right?
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
You dont just 'look like' an elf; Elves are your kin. Mechanically.

If my kin are African or Japanese people, I'm also African (or Japanese) respectively. Ergo if my custom lineages kin are Elves, I'm Elven.
So, third time now you've dodged my direct question to you about whether "Appearing in every way like a Cleric" means you can or can not attune a magic item which has as a prerequisite "Cleric".

Is there some reason you won't engage with that question but keep repeating your position?
 

Is there some reason you won't engage with that question but keep repeating your position?
Being an elf is a biological thing. What your job is isn't. Its a non-starter of an argument

And I'd argue there shouldn't be Cleric-only items as the concept that the universe cares enough that any type of cleric could use something that's unusable by a celestial pact warlock, divine soul aasimar, particular flavour of devout paladin or, heck, devout anything else can't use is dumb
 

Being an elf is a biological thing. What your job is isn't. Its a non-starter of an argument

And I'd argue there shouldn't be Cleric-only items as the concept that the universe cares enough that any type of cleric could use something that's unusable by a celestial pact warlock, divine soul aasimar, particular flavour of devout paladin or, heck, devout anything else can't use is dumb
Perfectly viable opinion, but not more than that. It seems like some people are trying to "canonize" their opinion as actually being in the rulebooks. Why? If you want it that way, just do it (or convince your GM to do it if you're a player). Why does your opinion have to be RAW? House rules are cool. Many people use them. I use them all the time. But I would never insist my house rule is what's in the book.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
Maybe they meant for Custom Lineage to also work more like Custom Subrace or Variant Race?

If that was the intent, then I would be fine with someone playing a Variant Elf or whatever. After all, compare Human to Variant Human:

Human:
1608509875409.png


Variant Human:
1608509898811.png


Instead of gaining another 4 ASI +1s, you gain a Skill and a Feat. But, Variant Humans are still Humans.

A Variant Elf would give up Darkvision (maybe), Keen Senses, Fey Ancestry, Trance, and Elvish for a Feat and choice of Darkvision or a Skill.

I think WotC could have made the intent clearer by calling this Variant Lineage instead of Custom, and included that you can use the process as well to create a new race as well?

EDIT: I am still not happy about the option to make a race that has both a FEAT and DARKVISION because IMO and IME they are two very powerful things in the game. Variant Humans don't have Darkvision after all, but with Custom Lineage, you could still be a new Variant Human with both. I do NOT like that... too over-powered. The Custom Option should have been a FEAT or Darkvision and a Skill IMO. So, in that respect, I would still not use Custom Lineage as written.
 



Is there some reason you are answering for someone else? I mean, I don't mind I suppose. But it doesn't advance the conversation I am having with them.
Open forum, mate. Additionally its that much of a non-starter I felt it needed addressing given this "Is this an elf" thing has been going on for too long
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top