D&D (2024) No Dwarf, Halfling, and Orc suborgins, lineages, and legacies

[Crimson Longinus]

I’ve never quite understood this argument.

With floating asi’s and heritages you absolutely can create traditional races. There’s nothing stopping you from making a dwarf fighter. It’s 100% supported.

But now you are no longer being told by someone else that you must play a dwarf fighter. If you want to play a dwarf monk, no problem.

Why do people seem to want the books to give them a sense of authority to force other players to play a specific way?

Isn’t it better that we all get to play what we want?

You could always play a dwarf monk etc. It is just that people couldn't stop minmaxing, and had to always get the best possible score in the main stat.

And I get it. To most people it seems more fun to choose more powerful option. And regardless, ideally all option combinations should be balanced, or at least pretty close to that.

On the flip side, it is just hella weird that evey species is equally good at everything. Halflings are just as physically strong as humans and orcs, elves are no more agile than dwarves etc.

 

[Minigiant]

Humans can also live anywhere.

I don't see having 2 different flags as enough to have 2 different subraces.

Especially since you don't need to different ability scores, the difference between hill dwarf and mountain dwarf are just too tiny. Both are just toughness.

Halflings actually have more differences. Not a lot, but sneaky and tough are 2 different things.

Traditional D&D dwarves put all the elements of dwarves into the base race then split them by minor cultural differences because the inspiration was from a book not made for a game.

• Stout
• Grudges
• Clans
• Greed
• Toughness (Both, More for Hill)
• Smithing (Both, More for Mountain)

They could have made Stoutness and Toughness the base biological feature, Clan and Grudges as the base cultural feature and add the rest as subspecies. Much how Warhammer Dwarves have Normal, Slayers, and Chaos.

Stout + Tough + Clan + Grudges + Smiths + Forge (Fire)
Stout + Tough + Clan + Grudges + Warriors + Strong (Earth)
Stout + Tough + Clan + Grudges + Miners + Dark (Psionics)
Stout + Tough + Clan + Grudges + Runesmiths + Drunks (Frost)
Stout + Tough + Clan + Grudges + Merchants + Greed (Gold)

Took a few minutes.

 

[Minigiant]

On the flip side, it is just hella weird that evey species is equally good at everything. Halflings are just as physically strong as humans and orcs, elves are no more agile than dwarves etc.

Everyone isn't good as everyone else.

PCs are exceptional weirdos of their species who survived the base weirdness.

 

[Corinnguard]

Because all of the classes available to other races were designed as human classes. Nobody wanted to design classes that weren't available to humans... and when they did, they placed them in the "kit" design space.

Battlerager and Bladesinger could very well have been dwarf- and elf-exclusive classes instead of kits. They're certainly more different from Fighter than Ranger and Paladin were.

The classes in D&D are meant to be race neutral. They weren't designed with one race in mind. If they were specific to a particular race, then D&D would be suffering from a really bad case of class bloat.

Lets start with the basics: Four races and Four classes BECMI style. Humans get Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief. Dwarf gets three or four (depending on if you're going to allow dwarf magic users), elves get four, haflings get three or four like dwarves. Conversatively, we've designed 18 classes just to cover the basics; 20 if we are allowing dwarf and halfling casters.

Now, each time you add a new class (barbarian, paladin, druid, bard, etc) you're going to have to add an appropriate racial variant as well. Likewise, every new race will have to create a new collection of classes. To replicate the races (9) and classes (12) in the 5e PHB, you are looking at 108 separate classes. Now, we can shave that down by not giving every race a class variant, but you're still looking at well over 50 classes at the most stringent. And that, of course, doesn't even consider things like elf-like multiclass "classes" and ignores all variants like subclasses. That number is going to balloon quickly.

Remathilis nailed it here. If you want to add some racial flavor to a given class, come up with a racial subclass instead. PF1 has a number of race-specific archetypes for it's classes. The same could be done for 5e.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Everyone isn't good as everyone else.

PCs are exceptional weirdos of their species who survived the base weirdness.

I can't accept that. It is just bizarre that PCs just happen to be weird in super specific way that makes them equal. Like if PC halfling can be a freakishly strong halfling that is way stronger than any other halfling with strength of 18, why a PC goliath cannot be similarly a freakish that is much stronger than other goliaths and thus have strength of 24 or something?

And generally I want the rules to tell us something about the setting and to be connected to it. When I look the rules for elves, I expect them to tell us something about how the elves are.

 

[Remathilis]

I can't accept that. It is just bizarre that PCs just happen to be weird in super specific way that makes them equal. Like if PC halfling can be a freakishly strong halfling that is way stronger than any other halfling with strength of 18, why a PC goliath cannot be similarly a freakish that is much stronger than other goliaths and thus have strength of 24 or something?

And generally I want the rules to tell us something about the setting and to be connected to it. When I look the rules for elves, I expect them to tell us something about how the levels are.

That's why the last word in RPG is GAME. Games play better when the rules are fair across the board.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

In most settings, I don't think Orc Wizards make sense. Witches, Sorcerers, maybe some flavors of Magi? Totes.

Witches and Magi do not exist as separate player options in D&D 5e. I’m not sure they should be separate. I have no idea what would set a magi apart from a wizard, and very few ideas that would set a witch apart from a wizard. Magi are probably best represented by Divination Wizards. Witches by Warlocks or Enchantment Wizards, or even a Druid.

This is why I’m against classes restricting which races can be them. There’s a lot that can be done through slight reflavoring.

I’m also feel that “no, those people can’t be wizards, they’re too barbaric and stupid to understand the enlightened magicks of our white European Merlin/Gandalf/Odin wizards, your mages are just untrained cheaters/orientalist knock-offs” is probably best to be rid of. It tends to be used in Eurocentric ways and echoes real world biases (I.e. the colonial urge to dismiss all aboriginal priests as merely “shamans,” for example). They can just be Wizards with whatever necessary reflavoring.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

About the only things a Halfling Barbarian as going for them is that they're luckier than other Barbarians with their rerolls, advantage on saves against the frightened condition and can move through spaces of larger creatures. A Goliath Barbarian (assuming the new PHB version is like the UA version) has an advantage to strength saving throws against grapple available at all times, can do a variety of extra things: like do more damage or take less damage or something, and become large for 10 minutes. It doesn't matter if the Halfling Barbarian and the Goliath Barbarian add the same bonus to their attack rolls (assuming they have the same strength scores) what the Goliath has are things that are generally more advantageous to have as a Barbarian.

 

[mellored]

Traditional D&D dwarves put all the elements of dwarves into the base race then split them by minor cultural differences because the inspiration was from a book not made for a game.

• Stout
• Grudges
• Clans
• Greed
• Toughness (Both, More for Hill)
• Smithing (Both, More for Mountain)

They could have made Stoutness and Toughness the base biological feature, Clan and Grudges as the base cultural feature and add the rest as subspecies.

Again. You can easily have 2 different clans / counties / tribes / guilds with the same race.

There isn't human (merchant) and human (smith) sub-races. Those are backgrounds.

Make a Mountain Clan background that comes with the Lightly Amory feat and the Gold Clan background can come with Toughness (level 1?).

Then you can also have a halfling that grew up with the Mountain Dwarves. Or a Dwarf that grew up with the elves in the Forest.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

About the only things a Halfling Barbarian as going for them is that they're luckier than other Barbarians with their rerolls, advantage on saves against the frightened condition and can move through spaces of larger creatures. A Goliath Barbarian (assuming the new PHB version is like the UA version) has an advantage to strength saving throws against grapple available at all times, can do a variety of extra things: like do more damage or take less damage or something, and become large for 10 minutes. It doesn't matter if the Halfling Barbarian and the Goliath Barbarian add the same bonus to their attack rolls (assuming they have the same strength scores) what the Goliath has are things that are generally more advantageous to have as a Barbarian.

So if the issue still exists, why did we need to get rid of species ASIs? Don't we by the same logic need to remove all these other rules that benefit goliaths over halflings as barbarians too?