D&D General What it means for a race to end up in the PHB, its has huge significance

[Parmandur]

Does anyone else think there are yet more unannounced races like Gobliniods or Genasi, or Gith?

Possibly, it Possibly not. Sure we will find out in the next couple of months.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Alignment also matters to some magic items and in the Outer Planes mechanically.

Given the multiverse theme of the Core I think Genasi are the most likely extra species that in it.

I'm looking forward to see the art for the new Aasimar, Tiefling, and Goliath lineages (anyone else still think of species and lineages as races and subraces in their heads?)

I look forward to more videos and articles discussing their PHB choices.

 

[Hussar]

Alignment also matters to some magic items and in the Outer Planes mechanically.

Given the multiverse theme of the Core I think Genasi are the most likely extra species that in it.

I think you’re right. There’s a couple of magic items.

But the point does stand. Despite alignment having nearly zero mechanical impact, it still remains important for how a player portrays a character.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

To me, species should largely go the same route as alignment.

Honestly, I've seen a huge amount of people saying this.

Personally I'd be gutted though. I'd personally want species to have much more in the way of impact, rather than less. I'm endlessly annoyed by how hard it is to make an elemental themed martial due to the genasi mechanics not being enough to carry an entire class on its back (and the elemental UA feats being axed).

Meanwhile I absolutely love how Pathfinder 2e handles species.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly, I've seen a huge amount of people saying this.

Personally I'd be gutted though. I'd personally want species to have much more in the way of impact, rather than less. I'm endlessly annoyed by how hard it is to make an elemental themed martial due to the genasi mechanics not being enough to carry an entire class on its back (and the elemental UA feats being axed).

Meanwhile I absolutely love how Pathfinder 2e handles species.

That would certainly be the other way to go. And, there are positives and negatives of both approaches.

But, I was more responding to the idea that races need mechanical heft in order to be important in the game. That by going the simpler route that WotC is taking with simply choosing one or the other parent, they are "erasing" half races. My point is that mechanics don't necessarily drive play. They might. Obviously class is a big thing. But, no one wants races that are half as complicated as a full class.

So, if mechanics don't necessarily drive play, then, it's not a bad thing to make species carry less mechanical heft. It might not be to someone's taste, and that's perfectly fair, but, I've seen rather a lot of claims that they are "erasing" half species by not making the half species have unique mechanics. Which is the point I disagree with.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Psionics isn't arcane magic or divine magic, though. Illithids don't go digging around in pouches for components regardless, they just mind blast you

5e makes no distinction between divine and arcane magic. Magic is magic.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

That would certainly be the other way to go. And, there are positives and negatives of both approaches.

But, I was more responding to the idea that races need mechanical heft in order to be important in the game. That by going the simpler route that WotC is taking with simply choosing one or the other parent, they are "erasing" half races. My point is that mechanics don't necessarily drive play. They might. Obviously class is a big thing. But, no one wants races that are half as complicated as a full class.

So, if mechanics don't necessarily drive play, then, it's not a bad thing to make species carry less mechanical heft. It might not be to someone's taste, and that's perfectly fair, but, I've seen rather a lot of claims that they are "erasing" half species by not making the half species have unique mechanics. Which is the point I disagree with.

It also depends on the groups playstyle. A more narrative focused group might not need any species mechanics at all. It's all description and flavour.

A more tabletop dungeon crawl focused group might be the opposite end of the spectrum, where if something doesn't have mechanics it's basically not in the game.

Sometimes it almost feels like 'DnD' could fit multiple games under its name, as the community is so varied that it's impossible to make everyone happy.

 

[Aldarc]

Meanwhile I absolutely love how Pathfinder 2e handles species.

One thing that still rubs me the wrong way about the half-orc and half-elf or half-options in PF2 is that there is a feat tax involved. So while there are more options that this opens up, it psychologically feels not good or sub-par. I think that is an issue that must be understood about these things: there is a psychological component to play. It's why many people prefer advantage/disadvantage over (+/-) five to a roll. It feels better to roll two dice and pick the highest or lowest. There is likewise a psychological component to see the half-elf being removed as a particular playable option. Even if we are told that it's still there in the form of "pick elf or human and call yourself a half-elf," that still feels psychologically speaking like it's not actually there because that would probably be what you would also do if there was no half-elf.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

One thing that still rubs me the wrong way about the half-orc and half-elf or half-options in PF2 is that there is a feat tax involved.

Seen this complaint against planetouched being feats too. And people were against feat trees for the same reason.

I never understood the hate for feat trees though. People complained that you had to go through 1-2 meh feats to get the powerful feat.

So the result was only the initial meh feats stayed and the powerful and thematic feats got axed.

 

[Mind of tempest]

One thing that still rubs me the wrong way about the half-orc and half-elf or half-options in PF2 is that there is a feat tax involved. So while there are more options that this opens up, it psychologically feels not good or sub-par. I think that is an issue that must be understood about these things: there is a psychological component to play. It's why many people prefer advantage/disadvantage over (+/-) five to a roll. It feels better to roll two dice and pick the highest or lowest. There is likewise a psychological component to see the half-elf being removed as a particular playable option. Even if we are told that it's still there in the form of "pick elf or human and call yourself a half-elf," that still feels psychologically speaking like it's not actually there because that would probably be what you would also do if there was no half-elf.

I see that point, rationally it does not matter but our brains say it does