D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Fenris-77]

To be blunt, there's a reason that at this point the only fantasy games I run that are 5E are the ones I run for my kids. I don't hate the system, and I've played it a lot, but the overhead kills me. To many things, too many books, too much crunch. Fenris grumpily opens another bag of Grognard Crisps and thinks longingly about descending AC.

 

[Lyxen]

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

And yet it's back, stronger than ever, in the last two published books, whereas lineage has thankfully gone down the drain where it belongs, except for specific settings like the Mists.

The word "tribe" has only a reallife meaning.

So, now, after trying to forbid us words like "race", you are trying to ban the use of the word "tribe" ? What next ?

Tribe is just a description of a specific type of social structure. So, of course, like any social structure, we only have human examples. And like any social structure on earth, there have been good examples and bad examples throughout history. Can you please stop trying to police out the use of really good words on the extremely wrong basis that they might be used badly by bad people ? Sheesh, the problem are not the words, it's the people who use them. If some people start using "cheesecake" wrongly, will you also try banning that word ?

The impression from the Monster Manual descriptions suggests a poor opinion about what a "tribe" is, and which "races" should have them.

First, you are not correct, in the MM, these are not "races", these are species. So, are you going to try and ban that word as well ?

These kinds of stereotypes about "tribes" are highly problematic.

Oh my god, can you please, please, please, PLEASE leave your agenda out when coming to discuss on these forums ? The only thing highly problematic here is that attitude, please go be offended somewhere else, if every single word being used in the game offends you, why are you still even playing it ?...

 

[Minigiant]

The ultraconservatism of some is the tradition of others, as for the "bandaid", it is indeed being forced on the game for reasons that might be noble at their heart, but more than a bit corrupted and "motivated" in this case. While tackling nothing of the possible problems since the species are totally untouched, the only thing that this has created is a blander game where characters technically just ressemble each other more and more, and where cultural differences are being frowned down as well. This is not what I call a road to diversity and vibrancy.

The ultraconservativism is not tradition.
The Ultraconservativism is wanting each race tofollow a stereotype even though D&D is supposed to support thousands of worlds and settings.
MM LOTR style Orcs or MM Minotaurs might not make sense in a Greco-Roman setting or a setting built of Post-Han China.
High elves might not make sense in a Post Apoc setting like Dark Sun.

Saying itis corrupted or that species areuntouched severly messes the point as many of the Pro-Float want more biological traits attributed to races.

Why not, as long as people are not deluding themselves and others about why they want the changes, it's just for power (where it is absolutely not needed to have an effective character and have fun).

It's not all for power. It's mainly due to D&D 5e's conservatism and oversimplification.

Let's look at the Orc Caster.

Before an orc was a weak but functional caster. Thier high strength.could be used with touch spells and there were tons of touch spells. Their high constitution could be used to get in closeenough to use touch spells. It wasn't a good archatype but it had a point.

What happened in 5e? Touch spells use your casting stat. There are few touch spells. Every caster got tougher. The casters make spell melee attacks with their casting stat. Whereas orcs and halforcs where leaned harder to weapons.

So now where they once was a niche for them, there is none for the orc wizard/sorcerer/cleric/warlock. Any complaints where chased away with "Well orcs are supposed to be melee. You just want the +2 INT for power gaming."

And this goes for a lot of characher concepts. The simplification of rules, lack of creativity in might and magic design, and hard push to streotypical roles for many races mean a lot of character concepts in modern D&D don't function. It's basically the major flaw with 5e crunch.

 

[clearstream]

The ultraconservatism of some is the tradition of others, as for the "bandaid", it is indeed being forced on the game for reasons that might be noble at their heart, but more than a bit corrupted and "motivated" in this case. While tackling nothing of the possible problems since the species are totally untouched, the only thing that this has created is a blander game where characters technically just ressemble each other more and more, and where cultural differences are being frowned down as well. This is not what I call a road to diversity and vibrancy.

I don't find the game blander, just as I do not find human cultures bland even though they are all human. There is plenty of diversity and vibrancy in our single species - and that is down to cultures - not genetically thicker or thinner biceps.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Before an orc was a weak but functional caster. Thier high strength.could be used with touch spells and there were tons of touch spells. Their high constitution could be used to get in closeenough to use touch spells. It wasn't a good archatype but it had a point.

Off topic, but god, 5e really did simplify the game, didn't it? Touch spells used to use Strength??

 

[clearstream]

So, now, after trying to forbid us words like "race", you are trying to ban the use of the word "tribe" ? What next ?

Tribe is just a description of a specific type of social structure. So, of course, like any social structure, we only have human examples. And like any social structure on earth, there have been good examples and bad examples throughout history. Can you please stop trying to police out the use of really good words on the extremely wrong basis that they might be used badly by bad people ? Sheesh, the problem are not the words, it's the people who use them. If some people start using "cheesecake" wrongly, will you also try banning that word ?

For me that misses the point. We should be able to use tribe, but it should not be a term loaded with negative connotations and applied only to cultures we have deemed primitive (again loaded with negative connotations.) If anything the argument made points toward reclaiming the ability to use those terms more fairly.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Which is perfectly fine.

Some fantasy species are simply, on average, flat-out better or worse at some things than other fantasy species simply due to what they are, and I for one have no problem with the mechanics reflecting this.

The game-related need for balance has eliminated the possibility of having litterally better choices as races are balanced (or at least, they strive to be). I wouldn't have any problem with an unbalancing being assumed depending of settings. If you're from the Fey, yes, you're flat-out superior. Would it remove totally the choice of other races by players? I am not sure: if we remember the Stormbringer RPG, where if you rolled a Melnibonean or a Pan Tangian, you'd be showered with bonuses, most people in my experience played Vilmirians or other closer than average races. I've never seen anyone hailing from Org or Oin, granted, but if people sought only the most powerful choices, they'd only play the two most powerful ones. [Edit: actually, they are all humans, it's not races it's nationality that gives stat bonus in Stormbringer 1e...] [Though it's arguable that Melnibonean are a race apart].

* - one thing I don't think 5e has kept is the idea of one's apparent Charisma being different based on who you're dealing with; for example a Dwarf who is Cha 13 to Humans might count as Cha 15 when dealing with other Dwarves and come across as only Cha 11 when dealing with Elves.

Racial tension between playable races has generally been dropped from the settings. If you look at many countries in FR or Eberron, they are all extremely diverse and there is few (if any) example of resentment from a part of the majority group against a minority group. I'd say that people in fantasy setting have a level of enlightenment that makes our societies in real-life to shame.

 

[Lyxen]

The ultraconservativism is not tradition.

I used only the word because you did in an effort to slander it.

The Ultraconservativism is wanting each race tofollow a stereotype even though D&D is supposed to support thousands of worlds and settings.

And then, like any setting, you are free to do whatever you want. And "thousands" is not "any" either.

MM LOTR style Orcs or MM Minotaurs might not make sense in a Greco-Roman setting or a setting built of Post-Han China.

Then don't use them, who said you had to ? I had an entire setting in which the local where only scaly.

High elves might not make sense in a Post Apoc setting like Dark Sun.

The don't us them.

Saying itis corrupted or that species areuntouched severly messes the point as many of the Pro-Float want more biological traits attributed to races.

And this is a silly argument, floating ASIs do absolutely nothing for racial stereotypes, since the species/races are untouched in all the worlds of D&D. Orcs are still savage with an Int of 7.

It's not all for power. It's mainly due to D&D 5e's conservatism and oversimplification.

It's ONLY about power, as demonstrated below.

Let's look at the Orc Caster.

Before an orc was a weak but functional caster. Thier high strength.could be used with touch spells and there were tons of touch spells. Their high constitution could be used to get in closeenough to use touch spells. It wasn't a good archatype but it had a point.

What happened in 5e? Touch spells use your casting stat. There are few touch spells. Every caster got tougher. The casters make spell melee attacks with their casting stat. Whereas orcs and halforcs where leaned harder to weapons.

So now where they once was a niche for them, there is none for the orc wizard/sorcerer/cleric/warlock. Any complaints where chased away with "Well orcs are supposed to be melee. You just want the +2 INT for power gaming."

Exactly, but why are you focussing on orcs ? Because you have exactly the same problem with ANY race that does not offer the bonus to Int (and it's actually most of them).

So, basically, not only are you are making this political AGAIN by talking ONLY about the orcs, but it just goes to show that you ONLY want to play race/class combination that gives you the maximum BONUS. What is it but powergaming ?

Whereas, since the start of 5e, no one at our tables except our few remaining powergamers (easily identified because of that, by the way) has had any trouble playing other combinations because they were cool, whether they were halfling warlocks, dwarven mages or orc bards.

And this goes for a lot of characher concepts. The simplification of rules, lack of creativity in might and magic design, and hard push to streotypical roles for many races mean a lot of character concepts in modern D&D don't function. It's basically the major flaw with 5e crunch.

And here you are, fully unveiled, because who cares about crunch ? Yes, it starts with "powergame" and ends with "owergamer".

So, be happy, you can powergame all you want with the options in Tasha, just stop pretending that it's any other concern than this.

 

[Minigiant]

Off topic, but god, 5e really did simplify the game, didn't it? Touch spells used to use Strength??

In 3e, they were just basic attacks. Str for melee. Dex for ranged. It ignored armor and shields so caster would have decent accuracy doing them.

However 5e made them spell attacks that use your spellcasting stat. Which was easy than dealing with touch AC.

The side effect was that casters have no use for Strength so what minor benefit all the STR races had was gone. Combine that with finesse without a feat and STR races heavily incentivized to be melee warriors in 5e.

 

[Lyxen]

For me that misses the point. We should be able to use tribe, but it should not be a term loaded with negative connotations and applied only to cultures we have deemed primitive (again loaded with negative connotations.) If anything the argument made points toward reclaiming the ability to use those terms more fairly.

I'm sorry, but are you going to forbid me to use "primitive tribe" now ? Is the thought police allowed on these forums now ?

I'll use "primitive culture" any day I want to describe a society that may include lack of a written language, relative isolation, small population, relatively simple social institutions and technology, and a generally slow rate of sociocultural change. And if these small populations are grouped in "tribes", too bad, they are primitive tribes.

As for the negative connotation, I'm sorry, I'm not responsible for people using good words in a bad fashion wherever you live. Sue me, I'm European. And If people are using this in a bad fashion in the real world, why don't you go sue them instead ? But leave me alone if, in my fantasy worlds, species that have nothing to do with whatever you are thinking off, happen to be primitive tribes, whether they are savage raiders of a particular species or peaceful nomads from another or any combination thereof.