Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 9502601" data-attributes="member: 4348">I haven't been in the conversation, so this wasn't directed at me.I do not really prefer the direction they have taken with race in D&D recently.  It's probably because I see the differences in "race" more like a thing between species, or even more, like genus (if we go through other 'races' in the past, things like a fungoid which is fungus based, or plant-based humanoids, those really aren't even somewhat illusionarily closely related to humans, but are an entirely different Kingdom [biological distinction] rather than race or species).So, I prefer races to have bonuses to ability scores, and those bonuses to be specific and distinct (so, nothing like Tasha's options in general).  I don't see something like a Venus Flytrap and a Horse having the same ability score bonuses, and I see them having different strengths related to their ability scores (if such a thing existed in real life).However, as one would point out, it makes for optimization.  If you want a Rogue, getting a race with bonuses in Dexterity and Intelligence could be extremely useful.It's another reason I think Level Limits of the TSR editions were valid balancing ideas.  Even though the ability score bonuses and special abilities probably were lesser than they are today, they still had a focused idea that if you wanted to take those special bonuses, you were going to pay in some way.  You could optimize to get a better Constitution, but you were going to pay for that with a level limit (though there were exceptions).  I will admit though, that this is a PREFERENCE of mine.  The races probably have just as much flavor today with their individual abilities going on, if not more, than they did in TSR D&D.  I do wonder how many may share my preferences though, and how wise it has been for WotC to go off the deep end catering to what I see as a specific group of players rather than having a broader base. I'd say that applies to the entirety of the new rulebooks though, and not just this matter.  The inclusion of making feats mandatory, creating weapon masteries and such, seem to be catering more towards a hardcore player, and the 3.X crowd than it does for the casual player with which 5e originally has done so well with.Gritting it down to catering to these groups rather than keeping it a more simple and broad game makes me wonder if WotC has been making a mistake in some ways with the new books, or if perhaps I'm just not seeing what they are seeing.</blockquote>

Verification