D&D General Species need more than spells (and why Tieflings have been shafted since 5e released)

[diabolistDestroyer]

I don't really agree some of this and I think you are leaving out things.

2024 High Elves get 60 foot darkvision, Fey Ancestry, Keen Senses and Trance. 2024 Drow get all this with 120 foot darkvision insread. The 2014 versions get similar plus weapon proficiencies and in the case of Drow Sunlight sensitivity.

You claim that species only get spells, then you go on to point out Poision Resistance and Magic Resistance on Yuan-Ti (and leave out Darkvision). Aarakocra likewise gets talons and flight as you point out. Faeries get Fey creature type and flight. All 4 Genasi get Darkvision, they all get a damage resistance, and all of them except Fire get another feature that is not a spell.

This made me look back on my first post, and while I thought I was clear, it's obvious I wasn't. Thank you for catching this. As the title suggests, my point wasn't that they have nothing but spells, but rather, in place of features, they got spells that, before the latter half of 2014 5e and 2024 5e, they could only use once, spellcaster or not, and other species either got updates to give them more features, or were created with a better design standard in mind. The 2024 Elf example was specifically about how the lineages had only one feature to differentiate themselves and the rest were spells, which I felt was a missed opportunity (definitely a personal opinion, the base species is fine). That example, as well as the others, were given to show how spells were used in place of unique features and how I view that as a missed opportunity.

I apologize that this point got muddled and wasn't concise enough.

Nothing wrong with calling magical effects spells. You’re finding it boring because of instead of considering what you can do with those abilities you’re dismissing them.

Actually, I find it boring because I feel like there is room for more original ideas rather than just giving them spells and not too much else, but I do understand how I came off as dismissive, given I didn't really go through the spells themselves.

On a side note your homebrew ideas are waaaaaaaaay too powerful. Your devil site feature is giving you effective invisibility any time you’re in darkness. While ongoing damage breaks the damage expectations. Both too good on a species anyone could take.

I appreciate the critiques!

Dragonborn. Just, Dragonborn. Tieflings may not have much to them, but it was at least useful. Dragonborn had sweet FA and a breath weapon that was ultimately useless past level 1

I honestly forgot about the OG Dragonborn, and I have to agree with you. Tieflings at least had two uses of their leveled spells compared to Dragonborn's one use of their Breath Weapon. I am so glad they've gotten the great glow up they've had over the course of 5th Edition.

 

[Corinnguard]

Dragonborn. Just, Dragonborn. Tieflings may not have much to them, but it was at least useful. Dragonborn had sweet FA and a breath weapon that was ultimately useless past level 1

Here is a species that really needs some subspecies of its' own. Each kind of Dragonborn (chromatic, metallic and gem) needs something more than a breath weapon damage type and a damage type resistance to really set them apart from each other.

 

[CreamCloud0]

although this is not limited exclusively to spells, it is however a major aspect of them, they have tend to have limitations on time or number of uses, and they have to tie into the overall artificial structure of spellcasting, nothing quite brings me out of feeling like my character's a species than when i run into 'your chameleon species has run out of uses of 'turn invisible' for the day' 'your frog species has run out of uses of 'jump' today' oh, unless i'm a caster, you know, the classes known for being more inclined to physical weakness have more uses of a biological ability, no no, it doesn't make sense that my frog fighter would be able to jump more and better than the frog wizard!

 

[DEFCON 1]

While I do agree with most of the post, this I'm highly 'eh' on this point. Bard really does not fit the Warlord hole outside of 'a vaguely melee based thing that does abilities'. Not nearly enough on the 'actually providing support and healing to the party'. Kibble's warlord does a far better job

Like with all the 5E offerings WotC has given to let players recreate the Warlord in 5E, any method (including mine) is YMMV. Depends entirely on any individual's wants and needs for a Warlord.

Haven't used Kibble's nor LaserLlama's versions at all, and the Bard-as-Warlord was a quick one-off that worked fine via reflavoring (but admittedly I have not had a player try to level up one over the long haul)... so I'm sure there are better methods and my methods won't work for a lot of other people.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Like with all the 5E offerings WotC has given to let players recreate the Warlord in 5E, any method (including mine) is YMMV. Depends entirely on any individual's wants and needs for a Warlord.

Haven't used Kibble's nor LaserLlama's versions at all, and the Bard-as-Warlord was a quick one-off that worked fine via reflavoring (but admittedly I have not had a player try to level up one over the long haul)... so I'm sure there are better methods and my methods won't work for a lot of other people.

i do think 5e contains individually the elements to create a great warlord, i do not think they provide the opportunity and design structure to correctly combine them to create a great warlord.

 

[humble minion]

Can't speak for anyone else... but when I'm playing my character and I say I do 'X' thing... I am never specifically saying "I cast a spell that does X". As far as the game is concerned... I am just doing the action that gives me the effect that the X spell gives me. If I use a Bonus action to move... I just say I'm using my Bonus action to move, not saying "I'm going to cast a spell called Expeditious Retreat that allows me to use my Bonus action to move."... even if the feature that gives me the ability to use a Bonus action to move is a "spell" that I've been given. To me... there's nothing gained by calling them two separate things if they are the exact same mechanic.

Yeah, I'd personally like rangers (in particular) to be able to do that sort of thing as a way of emulating extraordinarily well-trained and well-practised feats of outdoormanship, and it does work for some racial abilities too. Of course, it only works right up to the point when some bad guy casts Dispel Magic on you and then yep, it's a spell after all. Or when you want to stealthily use your Find Traps 'ability' only to find that it's harder than expected because for some reason you have to chant various nonsensical syllables in order to make it work. It's the whole 3e magic/psionics transparency thing all over again.

Of course none of this is beyond house-ruling, but it does make the matter a little more fraught if you're running RAW.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Of course none of this is beyond house-ruling, but it does make the matter a little more frauht if you're running RAW.

Well, there's your problem! Why are you doing that?

Nothing to be gained by playing RAW. To me, it's just a roadblock to having the game work the way I want it to.

 

[CreamCloud0]

admittedly, i do think tieflings are one of the species that would be more naturally more inclined to having magic abilities, but that's far from saying they should be their only abilities, they could have a tail-trip manoeuvre, an exclusive use of find familiar, nightcrawler-esc teleportation (ie: not limited to like, 5 uses a day), resistance against hot environments and elements, special binding demon-contract abilities.

but as i've said many times before, i think the small power budget of all species hinders their proper expression and leaves them feeling bland and mediocre as a result.

 

[DEFCON 1]

admittedly, i do think tieflings are one of the species that would be more naturally more inclined to having magic abilities, but that's far from saying they should be their only abilities, they could have a tail-trip manoeuvre, an exclusive use of find familiar, nightcrawler-esc teleportation (ie: not limited to like, 5 uses a day), resistance against hot environments and elements, special binding demon-contract abilities.

but as i've said many times before, i think the small power budget of all species hinders their proper expression and leaves them feeling bland and mediocre as a result.

I have suggested in the past that species have always been bland and mediocre in almost every edition, because the game always puts the power budget of a PC into their class, not their species.

The only two times where the argument might be made otherwise would be Basic D&D (because that was the one time when species WAS the class)... and AD&D/2E when it came to certain species being the only way to multiclass in certain unique ways. Although in both those cases... the "bonus power" to species was directly given through the class system like it always has with all the other editions.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah, I'd personally like rangers (in particular) to be able to do that sort of thing as a way of emulating extraordinarily well-trained and well-practised feats of outdoormanship, and it does work for some racial abilities too. Of course, it only works right up to the point when some bad guy casts Dispel Magic on you and then yep, it's a spell after all.

Going all the way back to oD&D (clerics and later rangers), a lot of abilities that could have been non-magical effects instead ended up as spells (because they already had a mechanic for it, and they didn't have a skill system). As much as I would like a non-magical ranger, I think those many editions where every party needed* a religious character (regardless of whether it made sense or anyone wanted to play them) was the worst of it and medic classes and non-spell major healing took entirely too long to appear. Book of Nine Swords and later 4e finally did what a lot of us did with houseruling (or just re-imagining) the spells as not-spells. It is a little strange that they haven't leaned into stuff being 'like <spell X>, but is not magical and cannot be dispelled.' You would think that would be a creative avenue they'd be more apt to explore.
*okay, sure, you didn't need a cleric, good for you if you played without one. You still understand my point.

The only two times where the argument might be made otherwise would be Basic D&D (because that was the one time when species WAS the class)... and AD&D/2E when it came to certain species being the only way to multiclass in certain unique ways. Although in both those cases... the "bonus power" to species was directly given through the class system like it always has with all the other editions.

I would agree. Character species has never been that exciting, excepting back when it was a major limiter on what type of character you could play (elves getting to be armored fighter-magic users when no one else could, dwarves only getting to be fighters or thieves, halfling and half-orcs only getting to play in lower-level campaigns, etc.).

There's always been the odd shapeshifter or flying creature type where what you are (race/ancestry) impacted play the same as what you did (class), but in general the mechanical impact of race/species has been rather muted (outside of impacting class, as above). Certainly looking at the rest of the 5e24 species (Dwarves getting hit points, darkvision, darkvision v.2, and poison resistance), there isn't a huge amount of truly groundbreaking stuff. 5e14 had some more, with things like weapon proficiencies opening up certain multiclass-free character concepts* and the like.
*whether 'it facilitates this type of build' is a good thing to use species for is another question

But honestly, the time when I feel character race/species mattered the most was when there were pages and pages of text about what it meant to be an elf, dwarf, or orc (so late 2e, 3e, and BECMI). The mechanics have always been playing catch-up in this regard.