D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Yaarel]

Like @Crimson Longinus

I view the poll results as two camps:

• race determines abilites
• culture determines abilities

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Please stop using the word "race".

Like @Crimson Longinus

I view the poll results as two camps:

• race determines abilites
• culture determines abilities

Please stop using the word "race". There is no way a Flying Kobold is of the same "race" aka sub-species as a Goliath, or Tiefling, or according to the new UA, Plasmoid. They are distinctly different species.

 

[Scribe]

Please stop using the word "race".

Please stop using the word "race". There is no way a Flying Kobold is of the same "race" aka sub-species as a Goliath, or Tiefling, or according to the new UA, Plasmoid. They are distinctly different species.

Race is, as recently as Fizbans, the proper key word, for what we are describing in 5e D&D?

As early as at least page 9.

 

[Yaarel]

Please stop using the word "race".

Please stop using the word "race". There is no way a Flying Kobold is of the same "race" aka sub-species as a Goliath, or Tiefling, or according to the new UA, Plasmoid. They are distinctly different species.

If you want to delete the term race and use "species" instead, I agree.

Currently, the designers are using "race" in a jargon sense to mean the "player options" of a particular species.

I hope by the year of the anniversary 50e, the core update will simply have the simpler and clearer terminology of "player features" and "nonplayer features" of a particular "species".

Again, I want the word "race" gone. It doesnt mean anymore what it used to mean.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Race is, as recently as Fizbans, the proper key word, for what we are describing in 5e D&D?

As early as at least page 9.

If the gaming world wants to get away from using the word race in the way we have been using it for the last 50 years in gaming I'm fine with it.

But you aren't going to be able to police the people who have grown up using the term that they have been using for 50 years quickly. There is a lot of inertia to overcome to change language use.

 

[Scribe]

If the gaming world wants to get away from using the word race in the way we have been using it for the last 50 years in gaming I'm fine with it.

But you aren't going to be able to police the people who have grown up using the term that they have been using for 50 years quickly. There is a lot of inertia to overcome to change language use.

Yeah, and that's fine, just seems odd to call it out as something to not be used, when it is a defined rules container in the printed text by the company.

 

[Yaarel]

Once upon a time, academics used the term "race" to refer to creatures that were nonhuman but humanlike, such as elves and giants in folkbelief studies. This usage was normal around 1900. Today it feels archaic at best.

 

[Maxperson]

You're really not making sense. There are reasons for why people favour certain options, and those have no commonalities across the axis you propose.

Their individual reasons are not relevant to what the business is going to look at first. Also, you're ignoring that a lot of people who say want pure floating ASIs will be okay with one fixed and one floating ASI. Same with a lot of those who want pure fixed. The company has to look at the groups together to figure that out.

 

[Maxperson]

I find it much easier to open a table than restrict a table. So I feel, just from my experience, the reverse of this should be implemented.

Yeah. If you start restricted and open up to where people want to be, they will be happy. If you start too open and have to restrict, they will be unhappy, even if they would have been happy doing it the other way. People don't like things taken away from them.

 

[Maxperson]

It's easier still to offer a few options and let the table choose which option they want.

That has a pretty high chance of just making people unhappy. The fewer options you have, the more likely none of those options are going to appeal to the players.