Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8119695" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Well let's break this down.Where in Volo's are those races? In Chapter 2: Character Raceshmm, that's odd, I thought they were separated from character races. Doesn't look that way. But, they are in their own section of that chapter. And they get less detail in lore, names, ect. Why might that be?Which races are they again? Bugbear, Hobgoblin, Goblin, Kobold, Orc and Yuan-Ti? Hmm, you know, those sound like they might have had entire sections written about them. Sections like Kobolds: Little Dragons, Yuan-Ti: Snake People, Orcs: The Godsworn, and Goblinoids: The Conquering Host. Now, I'm not a layout expert, but I think, just maybe, that they decided they weren't going to reprint a whole lot of information that they covered far more deeply just a chapter earlier. Seems like a waste of space. But, all of the other races needed the traditional format, including their lore. So, since these six options could be given rapid fire, and they all are generally from cultures and groups considered atangonists and so face some similar challenges, thye got their own section in the chapter.So, why are those options in the Character Races section at all instead of the Monster Lore section? Because, they are Character options, specifically races that players might be able to choose for their characters. You might even refer to them as... character races. You may even notice that they did not follow this format for Mordenkainen's tome of foes, which gave us additional Tiefling Subraces, the Eladrin, Sea Elves, Shadar-Kai, Duergar, Githyanki, Githzerai, Svirfneblin. Despite the fact that Shadar-Kai, Duergar and Githyanki are often just as violent and unaccepted as the Goblins or Kobolds. Why didn't they get a separate section? Because each one was based in a chapter about the associated races, and unlike Volo's, there was nothing outside of those races being presented. Oh, and of course finally, we can look to the Player's Handbook, and note that Drow are an option presented under Elves. So, unless you would like to try and convince me that somehow Yuan-ti and Orcs are more monstrous than Drow... I think it is safe to assume that character options are character options, and Volo's only made a seperate category because of layout and formatting, not because these races were somehow categorically different to include.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------And you just as easily could have played a Hexblade and gotten medium armor and shields, which is more powerful than just going straight mountain dwarf (+2 AC from shield) and still saved those invocations. Warlocks in medium armor are already a thing without needing Mountain Dwarves.It also says specifically that that is an option, and that you can use the stat blocks to represent the NPC of that race as they are written. I've quoted it multiple times by this point.If you want to dig back up into the thread, you can look into the massively long discussion I had about Gold Dwarves and Hill dwarves. TL;DR, Gold Dwarves use the Hill dwarf stats, but the Mountain Dwarf culture and their lore is more similiar to the mountain dwarves. It was only a single example, but then more recently I showed that just using 3d6 we can show that over a third of all dwarves of any type have as high or higher of a dex score than elves. 50% (give or take) of humans too. Which brings into the question of why the lore tells us Elves are very graceful compared to other races. A third of all races with dex bonus are as graceful as your average elf. The lore does not support these mechanics, but it is true if we run the numbers. And you yourself are claiming that some of these numbers don't match the lore, but they needed to be put in for "balance reasons". Which means that if the designers are telling us floating ASIs are balanced, then it shouldn't matter. But I do agree with you, players will come to the game with preconcieved notions of what the races are or are not, based on their media exposure. So, why should I tell them that playing an Orc Shaman like they do in Warcraft means they have to take a penalty to being a druid, because orcs aren't suited to those roles? While at the same time telling them that Orcs are also highly religious and superstitious in DnD, but that again, they don't make great clerics. What benefit am I getting from not moving these stats, when they contradict the established lore, prevent opening new, logical paths for lore, and the only issue is that certain combinations will be less rare?17/17 is only possible with point buy, which does change things. But, let me play this out for you.Mountain Dwarf Rogue level five 18/18 dex Con, attacks with a rapier for 1d8+SA+4, 48 hp, AC 16High Elf Rogue level five 18/16 Dex Con, attacks with rapier plus booming blade for 2d8+SA+4, 43 hp, 16 ACI have added 4.5 damage, minimum, to every single attack I make, in exchange for 5 hp. By level 20 when you have 20 more hp than me, I have 13.5 more damage on every strike, minimum again. Sure, if you value Constitution very highly, then this is an easy choice, you take the extra the hp. But maybe I value the damage more? Or maybe I want a tabaxi, because I value the extra +30/60/180 feet of movement more. Or maybe I want to play an Aasimar, because flight, light and healing on top of some extra damage is something I value a lot. Or maybe I want to really go for some crazy battlefield control, so I go bugbear to get free stealth, +2d6 sneak attack once a combat, and natural reach so that I can kit more effectively and never get hit in the first place. A Bugbear assassin could get some truly insane damage numbers on the first round of combat. Thing is? Medium armor on a rogue isn't the best. Without Medium Armor Mastery you are equally effective in the long run sticking with light armor. So, this really comes down to that single extra point of con.... and maybe I take the tough feat and get that exact same health bonus. Or maybe I do something completely different. I think it is clear that you have a preference. And I understand and respect your preference. But, if we are arguing about whether +1 hp per level is better than Glasya Tielfings ability to get Minor Illusion, Disguise Self and Invisibility? Then I think we are in a wonderful place in the design. Because now it is fully about playstyle preferences.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Could be because Star Trek is less interactive. The fans of Star Trek are just watching, fans of DnD are participating.You were talking about racial traits. Those things fall under that category. The authors meant for the racial scores to be tied to races, yes, they outright state that "Every race increases one or more of a character's ability scores." They also outright state that your language is tied to your race "By virtue of your race, your character can speak, read, and write certain languages." Both of these quotes are from pg 17 of the PHB. So, writing a language is "by virtue of your race" but you aren't talking about language, because logically that can't be innate to a race... but a race increasing an ability score must be innate?And I have shown you multiple sentences where it is possible to see that they indicated it was the case. But let us take a step back.Let us assume for a moment you are right. Then they changed it to be for PCs only, and that is fine, but it might effect play a little. Now, let us assume for a moment I am right. They did not change it, but people misunderstood and now they know it was meant for PCs only, and that is fine, but it might effect play a little. What's the difference? One is that the writers were misunderstood, because it didn't really matter at the time how it was defined. And the other is that they changed their mind... which doesn't alter anything. So, what value is there is proving that the Racial ASI's used to apply to the entire race? What does that gain us?Sorry, I was talking about the thread in general, not your discussion with me in specific. And, I've never denied that they were creating archetypes. They have never denied that. But, now we are changing the mechanics so that playing against type doesn't come with a penalty. And I know some people seem to think that a decision without a penalty is a useless and empty thing (not you in specific, just people in general), but I disagree that I need to be penalized for one choice and rewarded for a second in a game. Because, let us be clear for a second, you are heavily rewarded for playing into certain archetypes. A Lightfoot Halfling rogue has better mobility in crowded areas, better ability to hide, better dexterity for all of their abilities, and better dice manipulation. All of which are great for a rogue. So getting different bonuses like hitting harder, extra skills, darkvision, and the ability to not die once a day shouldn't need to be penalized, when I'm already also losing out on other abilities any rogue would love to have.Sure, but that has always been the case. Players might come with the Piety system from Theros. Or the Stronghold and Follower's Rules from Colville. Or the Backgrounds from Ravnica. Heck, some DMs see Dragonborn and Tielfings in this light, or feats like GWM or SS. If this has been something DMs have had to navigate since the beginning of the game... then this is nothing new. And if you want to argue that this is bad, because if there is so much DMs need to navigate then why add more? Well, because new content is always going to be added to the game, until the game is retired. And every time a new option is added, at least one person declares that "this will never see use at my table" and that DM is always going to have to contend with players who want to use that option, and seek to find a compromise. IT is just the nature of the beast. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Okay, let us also acknowledge that at least one poster has also said it would destroy the game and make all of the races meaningless blobs. (Helldritch, in particular) So let us look at a more moderate version. 1) More people will play mountain dwarves and half-elves. 2) Race is less of a determining factor in what class you pick. Neither of those sound bad to me. In fact, number 1 is a completely neutral statement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sudden? I've been using the Gith as a counter to the Mountain Dwarf argument since the beginning. People have been declaring "Mountain Dwarf wizard" as this new, incredibly powerful combo because you can have a 16 intelligence and medium armor. Well, the Gith had 16 intelligence, and medium armor. If that alone was enough to make it so that in the future all we will see are Mountain Dwarf Wizards, then it should have already happened with Githyanki Wizards. It hasn't.Okay, but my example was not predicated on only talking about AL, and since the point has always been 16 intelligence on a wizard and Medium armor, and you don't need Tasha's to pull that off with the Gith... then this should still apply. Especially since most of the most powerful wizard options are in the PHB anyways. If 16 Intelligence and Medium Armor, with the PHB options was truly the most optimal thing for wizards, so much so that everyone will flock to create it... then they would have been doing so for years now.Also Tasha+PHB also misses out on some good stuff from Xanathars, which has some incredible spells and subclasses.As your asterik's notes, different people have been claiming different things. But, even if we just mean optimal, then we are still looking at the same situation. 16 Intelligence. Medium Armor Proficiency, from level 1, on a Wizard. If that was optimal, then it would have been chosen consistently since the introduction of the Githyanki in 2018I believe I straight up said "Dragon Sorcerer" which is why I was not assuming mage armor. And, I certainly was never saying it was inconsequential, merely pointing out that this "everyone can get medium armor" ignores how many AC options there were already. A Standard array Half Elf Dragon Sorcerer could get 16 Cha, 16 Con, 14 Dex. Giving them an AC of 15 by level one (dragon scales is 13+Dex mod (2)) with the current PHB rules as written.If the Mountain Dwarf did point buy to get 16/16/14, then medium armor would eventually give them an AC of 17 from Half-Plate (with disadvantage on stealth) That is +2 AC. And that is the biggest effect on potential AC I could find. Wizards? Could have played a Gith and gotten the same armor.Warlocks? Could have played Hexblade and gotten the same armor.Bards? Could have played Valor and gotten the same armor. Druids? Already have medium armorClerics? Already have medium armor. Maybe you think I'm being dismissive, but you seemed to make your claim that "everyone getting medium armor" was somehow this grand, sweeping change to the system. But it isn't. There were a lot of ways to get decent AC as a full-caster before this.</blockquote>

Verification