D&D 5E Wow! No more subraces. The Players Handbook races reformat to the new race format going forward.

[cbwjm]

Well we'll probably see UA's of the PHB races with the new approach or what not at some point. Time will only tell how it'll turn out.

Hopefully. Mountain dwarf is going to need a bit if a change if they no longer get a +2/+2 in the revision, not too much point to pick them at the moment otherwise.

 

[Mort]

Hopefully. Mountain dwarf is going to need a bit if a change if they no longer get a +2/+2 in the revision, not too much point to pick them at the moment otherwise.

If they revise them to +2/+1 sure.

But currently, per Tasha's, Mountain Dwarves can apply +2/+2 to ANY 2 stats making them an amazing choice for most builds.

 

[Bolares]

I wonder what this means for the PHB races and sub-races? But also what about the dragonborn subraces that we are getting in Fizban's Guide?

I bet there will be no dragonborn subrace. Just three separate dragonborn full races. For the phb, nothing changes until 2024

 

[Minigiant]

This will be interesting since the Dwarf is mostly just ability score bonuses and bonus proficiencies. If Ability scores, languages, and bonus proficiencies will be "fully" controlled by the place and subraces become full entries, there is basically no difference between Mountain and Hill dwarves shrinks so considerably that it might be a waste of page space to print them as separate things.

 

[Oofta]

This will be interesting sense the Dwarf is mostly just ability score bonuses and bonus proficiencies. If Ability scores, languages, and bonus proficiencies will be "fully" controlled by the place and subraces become full entries, there is basically no difference between Mountain and Hill dwarves shrinks so considerably that it might be a waste of page space to print them as separate things.

One option is that they have a "core" dwarf (or whatever) race then have an options list to pick from with defaults. Maybe some sort of point allotment with different options having different costs.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's rules for more detailed custom race options, likely in the DMG. Time will tell.

 

[Yaarel]

My guess is that they're showing how they will update the elf. Subraces might still exist, but since ASIs are now more to to with rolling ability scores rather than race/subrace, they have to follow the new method to showcase the subrace. I won't be surprised if we still have the parent elf race with a cluster of traits common for all elves and then subraces with their own unique traits in the future.

The problem is, it is hard to define what a "parent" or "core" elf race is.

Some elves have darkvision, some elves have sensitive darkvision, and hopefully, some elves can lack it and have standard day vision.

It is more helpful if each race concept stands on its own, fully expressed as a comprehensive character concept, without getting compromised by an obligation to conform to a parent or core.

Same goes for the gith, and so on. If two concepts within the same race are meaningfully different, let them be different.

If they revise them to +2/+1 sure.

But currently, per Tasha's, Mountain Dwarves can apply +2/+2 to ANY 2 stats making them an amazing choice for most builds.

I suspect the Anniversary 2024 core will make Mountain Dwarf (whatever its taxonomy) use the standard +2/+1 ability score improvement process.

However, the earlier 2014 core will remain backward-compatible and be a familiar option, that many will continue to choose, because of Tashas ability and proficiency swaps.

Heh, and with any human height possible, I can finally get my Norse tall dvergar officially!

 

[cbwjm]

The problem is, it is hard to define what a "parent" or "core" elf race is.

Some elves have darkvision, some elves have sensitive darkvision, and hopefully, some elves can lack it and have standard day vision.

It is more helpful if each race concept stands on its own, fully expressed as a comprehensive character concept, without getting compromised by an obligation to conform to a parent or core.

Same goes for the gith, and so on. If two concepts within the same race are meaningfully different, let them be different.

It's not really that hard to define what a core elf (or other) race is, they already have, they just need to update it for the new paradigm. Not saying they can't also do a full write up for each subrace but I also don't think they will need to if they want to save on page space. A full write up might not take up much space, but after a number writeups, it will add up.

 

[Charlaquin]

I wonder what this means for the PHB races and sub-races? But also what about the dragonborn subraces that we are getting in Fizban's Guide?

I don’t think they’re going to be subraces, as the term has been used thus far in 5e. The preview was for “Metallic Dragonborn” and was formatted like a full race entry. In retrospect, we should have had this realization when that was previewed, but it seems to have taken an elf “subrace” getting the same treatment for us to put it together.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not sure this is a valid assumption. Just because they repeat elf info doesn't really mean much. It's a UA article.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but based on Occam's razor I'd say the latter.

Previous elf subraces have not been formatted this way in Unearthed Arcana.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I don’t think they’re going to be subraces, as the term has been used thus far in 5e. The preview was for “Metallic Dragonborn” and was formatted like a full race entry. In retrospect, we should have had this realization when that was previewed, but it seems to have taken an elf “subrace” getting the same treatment for us to put it together.

We may still get race/subrace, albeit with different names in the revised PHB but the current format would still be necessary in UA's to offer options that are non standard for current race/subrace lineages.