D&D 5E (2014) Witchlight publishes the new official format for player character races.

[Yaarel]

Then you are not reading what I am saying, or the several threads which spiral into thousands (literal) of posts on the subject.

To officially remove these things that form part of the definition of what these PC options are, is a net loss, to me.

Didn't like it in the Ravenloft UA, don't like it in Tasha's, don't like it in Candlekeep, don't like it in the Fairy, Rabbit, Owl UA, and don't like it here.

It's very straightforward. I don't like the change from how 5e was designed, and maintained, throughout the years up to MToF.

Wait. What did you lose? You still have your tough, stought, LG dwarf. You didnt lose it. So what, exactly, did you lose?

 

[Scribe]

An actual freeform option with reasonable choices to choose from doesnt exist yet.

Yes it does.

Be/Talk to, the DM.

 

[Scribe]

Wait. What did you lose? You still have your tough, stought, LG dwarf. You didnt lose it.

As noted, you can reference the thousands of posts regarding this if you like.

You'll find some disagree with your conclusion.

I doubt folks want it opened again here?

 

[Faolyn]

I agree with all this. If you don't want a gameworld that makes blanket moral generalizations (specifically, of humanoid creatures), "typically" doesn't do a lot of work for you. You are still basing the world in generalizations, but then explicitly carving out exceptions: e.g. typically the drow are evil, but this one drow is not. It doesn't answer the question of where alignment comes from. Is it a cosmic force, a set of cultural norms, or just individual morality?

This exactly. Whether the "typically" is written in each statblock or just mentioned in the intro as the default but you can change it, it still doesn't explain anything. Why are most drow evil? Why is this one drow not evil? How does their society work, that it produces mostly evil drow but some are mysteriously good/neutral rebels? How has their society not collapsed? In the real world, not-evil people can escape evil environments because they are exposed to other people, cultures, and methods (even if only through media) and learn that what they learned isn't actually good. But how do the drow do it?

It's why I prefer not having any racial alignment. Then sure, some drow are going to be evil, because you're going to get evil members in any society and for far more understandable reasons than "just coz." It's just so much simpler.

 

[Yaarel]

As noted, you can reference the thousands of posts regarding this if you like.

You'll find some disagree with your conclusion.

I doubt folks want it opened again here?

Your posts remain unclear.

I am sure, you are not saying this, but the vagueness of your posts, sounds as if you are saying: you want racism, you lost racism, you want racism back.

Because, besides the ability to "other" some group based on their skin color and height, nothing else seems to have changed.

Seriously, please, explain, exactly, what it is you lost. The vague references to other threads dont help me understand where you are coming from.

 

[Yaarel]

Yes it does.

Be/Talk to, the DM.

"Do whatever you want", is the opposite of support. There currently doesnt exist an official freeform option.

The custom lineage in Tashas seems like a step toward making a freeform option happen, but it lacks meaningful legal choices to choose from.

(Also the custom lineage is slightly underpowered compared to new race format, as it is missing the extra +1 ASI and the heftier half-of-a-feat trait.)

 

[Faolyn]

Then you are not reading what I am saying, or the several threads which spiral into thousands (literal) of posts on the subject.

To officially remove these things that form part of the definition of what these PC options are, is a net loss, to me.

An option would be "your dwarf can be lawful good, lawful neutral, or neutral good." And that's it. Here's your alignment options. Pick one. But D&D doesn't have that kind of option. You can play a chaotic evil dwarf if you like, and you always could (well, at least since you could add "evil" to your "chaotic" alignment.) D&D has never restricted racial alignments, at least not for core races (classes, yes, but not races).

Another thing I believe is important for you to know is that while you might think getting rid of "dwarfs are normally lawful good" is a loss to you, including that line is a loss to all other players and DMs who now have to accept LG as the default dwarf--even when the actual D&D books don't reflect that (such as how Mordenkainen's described the incredibly not LG response the dwarfs had to the disappearance and reappearance of the duergar). So basically, not having "typical alignments" isn't really a loss at all. It just removes something that straightjacketed a lot other people.

 

[Malmuria]

I don't get the issue with size? Almost all of the PC races (even Goliath) have been classed as Medium, and a few as Small. Basically that's still the case?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't get the issue with size? Almost all of the PC races (even Goliath) have been classed as Medium, and a few as Small. Basically that's still the case?

Some people wanted them to be Tiny all the time, instead of depending on Enlarge/Reduce to become Tiny 1/day. (I personally would have preferred if they could be Small/Medium, because then they could also fill the role of a playable Sylph character.)

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

My games has Tiny gnomes and nobody (IRL) died yet....