D&D 5E Tweaks to the races

[Plaguescarred]

Also, low-light vision no longer allow to see without light. Both the Dwarf's darkvision and the Elf's low-light vision were rewritten.

 

[Gorgoroth]

I'm glad my dwarf now has proper darkvision. Let's face it, in a mixed group it doesn't unbalance things since there's always a Light spell or torch going, and in those rare case where it isn't, it's good for them to have a niche other than poison tester.

 

[Li Shenron]

I quite like the current Darkvision and Low-Light Vision write-ups. All that matters to me is that these are kept as simple as possible, i.e. one short sentence should be enough to define them. I also like the fact that a creature could have both and they stack.

I only have one concern: I would like a written clarification on whether a character can use these to read.

Right now, I'd say intuitively that anybody can read in dim light with or without LLV, with no doubt.

But for DV it's not so 100% obvious, my guess is that you can because if you can read in dim light, and DV makes you see in darkness as it was dim light, then you can use it to read in darkness.
But then comes bit about "black and white" which makes it a little bit confusing... if you start wondering how written books and parchment really look like (probably not so clearly black on white, but more like pale sepia on yellow). IMHO this detail really adds nothing to the game... maybe once in a thousand cases it will make a difference, but IMHO this part about B&W vision it so seldom matters that it could be better removed to avoid useless discussions.

 

[cmbarona]

I prefer the current solution: the bonus damage means that it is counter-productive for the best fighters to be creative and have a cool concept. That's a win: we should reward players who want to break the mould, not punish them. It also means that we do see "default" racial weaponry in the under-skilled: every elf wizard uses a longsword due to tradition, even if they never want to get into combat. That's a win (though potentially game able, depending on multiclass rules). It also prevents every halfling doing more damage with a dagger than every other race ever. Another win.

Three-zip in my books.

It really doesn't break my suspension of disbelief to step from a d4 to a d6 with the dagger. At any rate, I often consider the Halfling trio otherwise under-utilized (ESPECIALLY the sling!). I just wish they would have kept that in the Halfling write-up somehow, even if it was just some redundant proficiency. It would be nice for Halfings to have some advantage or familiarity with "quaint" weapons.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Halflings using shortswords as d8 weapons was a bit much.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I only have one concern: I would like a written clarification on whether a character can use these to read.

This is a fun question.

My thought? Seeing black-and-white, you could read a spellbook or a scroll, but not an inscription carved in stone. There needs to be the contrast. That would be a fun obstacle to incorporate into a challenge.

 

[Salamandyr]

Humans are now a bit on the underpowered side, but have the appearance of flexibility going for them. They have gone from a strong choice for any class to being the second or third choice from a straight power perspective. So I'm hoping something gets given back to humans to beef them up and give them some real flexibility.

 

[cmbarona]

Halflings using shortswords as d8 weapons was a bit much.

*shrug* I guess. But they get to use rapiers as d8 weapons if they are proficient, and I really don't get the difference in logic there.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Humans are now a bit on the underpowered side, but have the appearance of flexibility going for them. They have gone from a strong choice for any class to being the second or third choice from a straight power perspective. So I'm hoping something gets given back to humans to beef them up and give them some real flexibility.

Humans are still good stat-wise if you're using point buy, because you can do a 16 16 16 9 9 9 startup routine, which is actually quite good for many classes.

For example, a barbarian with three 16s in the physical stats, will have an 18 starting AC with 8gp worth of armor (shield + loincloth). Pretty decent considering plate armor gives you the same for 5000gp. (I'm not against it, because, well, barbarians need AC)

 

[Li Shenron]

Humans are now a bit on the underpowered side, but have the appearance of flexibility going for them. They have gone from a strong choice for any class to being the second or third choice from a straight power perspective. So I'm hoping something gets given back to humans to beef them up and give them some real flexibility.

It depends what kind of flexibility is wanted...

a) edge flexibility: you get to choose a benefit to get better at something of your choice; this is the case of 3e humans, which get an extra skill point and an extra feat, the skill is a "horizontal bonus" (i.e. you get one more thing you're at, but it won't make you better than anybody else at that skill) while the feat could be either a horizontal or a vertical bonus (you can use it to take 3 feats that increase you straight at something while everybody get 2). You are "flexible" in the sense that you have more choices for what to be good/better at.

b) base flexibility: increase your minimum at everything, more or less... 5e humans are just this, that "+1 to every ability score" means +0.5 bonus to every roll in the game, so you'll be "flexible" in the sense that you are slightly better in every situation may come up.

Needless to say, I much much prefer a), but in any case they are two very different interpretations of "flexibility".