D&D 5E What do you like, and what do you not like about Volo's Guide to Monsters? (spoilers)

[zaratan]

O really missed all that unbalancement.
There are a plenty of power buildings that I would continually choosing older races. Human variant will keep the throne as primary race.

It's possible to specify why Volo's races are so powerfull?

Enviado de meu SM-G900MD usando Tapatalk

 

[The Jenneral]

So, any mind flayer has 19, Ulitharid can reach 21, same as elder brain, but he still a servant.

The new lore of Ulitharids is that they eventually split off from their "birth" colony and become a new elder brain, so it makes some sense that they'd be on the same level as one intellectually.

 

[CapnZapp]

You'd think you'd just bump or lower it's CR?

Because designing balanced material is hard.

Someone will call any given thing the opposite of what reasonable people would call it, sure. Every time. Especially on-line & anonymous somebodies.

Or, ECL might've been 'merited' (mathematically or mechanically) - but having one at all would have clashed with 5e's DM-centric design. That kind of formulaic/objective component is ideal to empower players crafting complex character builds, for instance.
A DM can decide to include or ban or mod a given race in accord with his campaign. The heads up that it's over or under powered compared to standard races under 'standard' assumptions (as if standard races were perfectly balanced) is nice, and more than adequate for an Empowered DM.

First, CRs aren't appropriate for player races.

Designing balanced material is hard, yes. But I'm contesting the very notion all player races must be balanced. For instance: the 5th edition Drow might be balanced. But it is also a (very) far cry from the fearsome Drow of previous editions. Now, if you want to play an Underdark race, you're much better off with something like Svirfneblin: awesome under the surface, but without the crippling disadvantages above it. I'm not sure I'd call that a success. Taking a decision "let's keep Drow overpowered" might have been the decision that is both hard, and correct.

And, to return to the point, not lazy.

Okay so now you've just reduced that line of our discussion into meaninglessness. Did you have a point here?

I completely agree ECLs are way too complex for 5E. (Not to mention how unpopular they were). Let me draw your attention to the fact the blurb I suggested would say not to have them.

Cheers,
Z

 

[Mouseferatu]

Correct me if I'm misremembering, but isn't the svirfneblin the one with the racial feat attached to it? The whole "If you want the race's full suite of powers, you also take this feat, and nobody else can take it" thing?

I think that's an idea worth expanding to other monstrous races where the "full experience" can't be readily balanced with other races.

 

[Tony Vargas]

First, CRs aren't appropriate for player races.

But, they are for monsters, and that's what you said, monster, not race, you drifted to race later...

balanced material is hard, yes. But I'm contesting the very notion all player races must be balanced.

Not going to fight you on that one, built-in mechanical balance is virtually moot in the context of 5e.

. Taking a decision "let's keep Drow " might have been the decision that is both hard, and correct.

And, to return to the point, not lazy.

The tough choice, would have been 'trust the DM with Balance ' after that each individual instance is just following a design philosophy.

And, it is the easy way, whether we label easy 'lazy' or 'efficient' (it could well be an efficient use of design resources, for instance, and WotC has fewer designers dedicated to D&D than in the past).

completely agree ECLs are way too complex for 5E.

Complexity isn't the issue, the kind of decisions ECL enables on the player side and what they imply about the game's dynamic would undermine DM empowerment. You could famously play a Balrog in 0e, 'if you started as a young one,' if the DM let you, and could probably play almost anything in 5e, you just need the DM to accept or stat it out for you, like he would a background, only more work on his end. The key in both cases is that the DM plays a very active role in enabling and exercising judgement. With ECL, the player can handle building a non-standard-race PC on his own, 'RAW,' and the DM is left with just the not always attractive option of vetoing it.

 

[zaratan]

Correct me if I'm misremembering, but isn't the svirfneblin the one with the racial feat attached to it? The whole "If you want the race's full suite of powers, you also take this feat, and nobody else can take it" thing?

I think that's an idea worth expanding to other monstrous races where the "full experience" can't be readily balanced with other races.

Agree, same with duergar invisibility and enlarge eith short rest recharge.

I still don't understand why player race can't be tiny or large too

 

[CapnZapp]

I still don't understand why player race can't be tiny or large too

They probably judged the inconvenience cropping up too often for it to be worth including.

If you're large, you can't follow your friends through Small spaces etc. This is mostly not a balancing issue, but perhaps they see it as a recipe for disappointment?

If you're tiny, enemy blocking become meaningless since you're two sizes smaller than most foes. This does have balance implications.

I'm sure there are more issues. Not saying they couldn't be resolved or worked around, only that I believe such issues are the answer to your question.

 

[CapnZapp]

Correct me if I'm misremembering, but isn't the svirfneblin the one with the racial feat attached to it? The whole "If you want the race's full suite of powers, you also take this feat, and nobody else can take it" thing?

I think that's an idea worth expanding to other monstrous races where the "full experience" can't be readily balanced with other races.

That is correct.

Although I happen to believe Svirfneblins are (among) the best choice* without the feat. The feat isn't bad, but I don't see it as the designers locking away the best features of the race behind the feat.

*) What you want is 120 ft Darkvision without any sunlight sensitivity. The reason why Svirfs rock, while Drow suck, is that they get the best feature (120 ft Darkvision) without its greatest cost (sunlight sensitivity). In comparison, all the other features (such as which abilities each race gives bonuses to) pale into significance (yes, including the racial feat).

For your theory to be true, I would have wanted Svirfs to have sunlight sensitivity per default (or regular 60 ft darkvision), but you could pay a feat to get rid of the sunlight sensitivity (or up your darkvision range to 120 ft). Then you would have a feature worth locking behind a feat!

 

[Tony Vargas]

I still don't understand why player race can't be tiny or large too

Large gets really problematic, in part because the game traditionally leaned on penalizing the use of mounts, especially in dungeons, and a lot of DMs are just in the habbit of putting in narrow corridors and low cielings, and all sorts of other inconveniences and obstacles to large creatures, whether PC, Mount, companion or summoned.

Tiny has some hard to quantify advantages as well as implying some severe disadvantages, but HotFw pulled off the Pixie, for example, well enough, even to the more stringent (relative to 5e) balance considerations still remaining in post-Essentials.

In 5e, balance is even less a factor - besides, things a Tiny PC could accomplish due to size alone can likely be accomplished by familiars or cantrips or whatever, as well...

 

[zaratan]

Large gets really problematic, in part because the game traditionally leaned on penalizing the use of mounts, especially in dungeons, and a lot of DMs are just in the habbit of putting in narrow corridors and low cielings, and all sorts of other inconveniences and obstacles to large creatures, whether PC, Mount, companion or summoned.

Tiny has some hard to quantify advantages as well as implying some severe disadvantages, but HotFw pulled of the Pixie, for example, well enough, even to the more stringent (relative to 5e) balance considerations still remaining post-Essentials.

In 5e, balance is even less a factor - besides, things a Tiny PC could accomplish due to size alone can likely be accomplished by familiars or cantrips or whatever, as well...

Yeah I know all of that, but all Wizards campaing I read didn't impossibilitate large creatures to act, there is always an alternative rote, or you can split groups or use reduce spell or reduce potion... there is always an alternative and it is a good penalization for this. In the end, this would be a good different option in some tables and with "balance".
Better than make minotaurs, ogre and any other thing medium size. If fact, any group eith a moon druid will get a lsrge creature most of the times in a dungeon.
Same thing with tiby ones, worked ok in previous editions.

This is the type of "we'll need too much after work with questions if we do that" thing.