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

[Scribe]

Recommend, Quick Build, type language, for people with little D&D exposure, is not a mandate.

It's like saying the system 'expects' or 'requires' a +5 modifier to function at level 1 like we have been told for months.

There is no such thing.

 

[Minigiant]

Encouraging is not the same as mandating.

No one said

That's the point.

WOTC kept suggesting "Your prime ability score should be 16", "Your prime ability score should be 16", "Your prime ability score should be 16", "Your prime ability score should be 16".

So guess what happened when the newer and later generation of players wanted to play non-racial-stereotypes.

They wanted primary ability scores of at least 16.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No one said

That's the point.

WOTC kept suggesting "Your prime ability score should be 16", "Your prime ability score should be 16", "Your prime ability score should be 16", "Your prime ability score should be 16".

So guess what happened when the newer and later generation of players wanted to play non-racial-stereotypes.

They wanted primary ability scores of at least 16.

Ok...
There are more things to consider.

I think now mountain dwarves are picked for wizards more often, since they get +2 con +2 int and medium armor. A very good (overpowered) package for the wizard. That is what I would not like.

This needs to go. Actually I probably ban mountaon dwarves from customizing your stats as I think it is too much.
Hill dwarves must do now.

 

[Scribe]

No one said

That's the point.

WOTC kept suggesting "Your prime ability score should be 16", "Your prime ability score should be 16", "Your prime ability score should be 16", "Your prime ability score should be 16".

So guess what happened when the newer and later generation of players wanted to play non-racial-stereotypes.

They wanted primary ability scores of at least 16

Yes, this is a failure by Wizards to reflect and reinforce that diverse options already existed, and Tasha's absolutely wasn't necessary.

 

[HammerMan]

Ok...
There are more things to consider.

I think now mountain dwarves are picked for wizards more often, since they get +2 con +2 int and medium armor. A very good (overpowered) package for the wizard. That is what I would not like.

This needs to go. Actually I probably ban mountaon dwarves from customizing your stats as I think it is too much.
Hill dwarves must do now.

I have seen 2 people take Mtn Dwarf and customize it to get prof and 2 +2 stats... O I hope 5.5 rebalamces the races

 

[Minigiant]

Recommend, Quick Build, type language, for people with little D&D exposure, is not a mandate.

It's like saying the system 'expects' or 'requires' a +5 modifier to function at level 1 like we have been told for months.

There is no such thing.

Again.

Expect.
Require
Mandate

These are different words.

Again this is a self inflicted issue by WOTC.

They made race and class matched the expectation for basic play instead of for strong play. They made Mountain Dwarf Fighter, High Elf Wizard, and Lightfoot Halfling Rogue the base and not the Mountain Dwarf Warlock, High Elf Cleric , and Halfling Paladin.

 

[Minigiant]

Ok...
There are more things to consider.

I think now mountain dwarves are picked for wizards more often, since they get +2 con +2 int and medium armor. A very good (overpowered) package for the wizard. That is what I would not like.

This needs to go. Actually I probably ban mountaon dwarves from customizing your stats as I think it is too much.
Hill dwarves must do now.

Mountain Dwarf being the only 2 +2 kinda shows that WOTC wasn't really thinking about or playtesting unusual race class combinations.

It think one of the issues with the 5e playtest was that since they constantly did huge changes, people rarely tested anything unusual.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Mountain Dwarf being the only 2 +2 kinda shows that WOTC wasn't really thinking about or playtesting unusual race class combinations.

It think one of the issues with the 5e playtest was that since they constantly did huge changes, people rarely tested anything unusual.

It was perfectly fine. Str +2 and armlr proficiency's usefulness were mutually exclusive. One without the other was rather underwhelming, together it was a nice combination.

Before Tasha, no problem at all. After tasha, still nothing gamebreaking, but annoying because the argument that being able to shift your scores to make the space of combinations bigger is flawed.
So 5.5 needs to take a serious look at races and give other iconic abilities.
The harengon is a great example of how you could do it. Give a useful bonus that helps every class feel more dextrous, no matter how the stats are distributed.

 

[Minigiant]

It was perfectly fine. Str +2 and armlr proficiency's usefulness were mutually exclusive. One without the other was rather underwhelming, together it was a nice combination.

Before Tasha, no problem at all. After tasha, still nothing gamebreaking, but annoying because the argument that being able to shift your scores to make the space of combinations bigger is flawed.
So 5.5 needs to take a serious look at races and give other iconic abilities.
The harengon is a great example of how you could do it. Give a useful bonus that helps every class feel more dextrous, no matter how the stats are distributed.

Like I and many like @Faolyn said before, 5e was built on the assumption of PCs being racial stereotypes.

This is different from something like 4e which went out of its way to present races in different lights to many classes.

1. 4e gave every ability score a class or 2 that uses it as primary ability score from the start.
2. 4e stressed the importance of secondary ability scores and pushed the idea of using races with adjustments to secondary scores.
3. 4e eventually gave classes more and more support for primary and secondary ability scores and pushed (2) more.

And even there 4e moved to giving races options of secondary ability boosts. 5e repeated 4e's mistakes harder and isfixing it with more drastic solutions.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Like I and many like @Faolyn said before, 5e was built on the assumption of PCs being racial stereotypes.

This is different from something like 4e which went out of its way to present races in different lights to many classes.

1. 4e gave every ability score a class or 2 that uses it as primary ability score from the start.
2. 4e stressed the importance of secondary ability scores and pushed the idea of using races with adjustments to secondary scores.
3. 4e eventually gave classes more and more support for primary and secondary ability scores and pushed (2) more.

And even there 4e moved to giving races options of secondary ability boosts. 5e repeated 4e's mistakes harder and isfixing it with more drastic solutions.

I did not like the direction of v-shaped classes to A-shaped classes.
Also in 4e there was the problem of uncapped scores, so maintaining two main stats and a third one on top difficult.
Effectively characters usually only took on of the 2 secondaries/primaries.
So usually races were pushed into certain classes with specific "sub-classes" even more heavily than in 5e. I don't know how you get to your conclusion.

 

[Minigiant]

I did not like the direction of v-shaped classes to A-shaped classes.
Also in 4e there was the problem of uncapped scores, so maintaining two main stats and a third one on top difficult.
Effectively characters usually only took on of the 2 secondaries/primaries.
So usually races were pushed into certain classes with specific "sub-classes" even more heavily than in 5e. I don't know how you get to your conclusion.

My point is that 4e presented races as being a fit for any class whereas 5e like manyother editions and games pushed certain race/class combos.

For example, the 4e Dwarf was +Con and +Wis. However in the adverturer second of the dwarf, the presented classes was fighter, cleric, and paladin. Fighter had Con and Wis as secondaries. Cleric has Wis as a primary. And Paladin has neither Con nor Wis as primary nor secondary. It pushed the idea of not caring if your race bonuses didn't match your preferred class.

5e pushed racial and subracial stereotypes from the PHB and DMG front to back. This caused expectations in DM and players alike. So when DMs and players wanted to break from racial and subracial stereotypes, expectations sat in the way.

 

[Scribe]

I wonder if there's a non-biased review of why 4e didn't work.

 

[jayoungr]

WOTC kept suggesting "Your prime ability score should be 16", "Your prime ability score should be 16", "Your prime ability score should be 16", "Your prime ability score should be 16".

On what page(s) did they say this?

So guess what happened when the newer and later generation of players wanted to play non-racial-stereotypes.

They wanted primary ability scores of at least 16.

Only if they are the sort of players who flip out over the difference between a 16 and a 15. Which does not describe every player, or even every new-to-5E player.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's not unprecedented in Fantasy. Elrond identified as an elf, his full brother Elros as human.

But isn't that because half elves in Tolkien could literally choose to stop being elves and become human? It was a plot point.

 

[Chaosmancer]

False Equivalence. Similarities in birth don't make you the same race. Elves, halflings, and humans are all born the same way. After a long labor. With two arms, two legs and a head. And so on.

Demons are not celestials which are not slaads which are not geneies which are not... They are objectively not the same races. This is born out by the books.

Sure, demons aren't celestials, but Devils were. And Tieflings are more closely tied to devils than demons anyways.

And again, other than just a blanket "they aren't" you haven't actually... argued anything. You are just declaring that you are right without any evidence. And somehow all Genasi are a race even though some are half-genies and the others are magically irradiated humans. But a magically irradiated human who has celestial radiation is now a completely different species?

Seems like some special pleading to me.

Those would not be a genasi or an aasimar. Those would be a half-genie and a half-celestial, which is very different. And yes, they are different races and have been in every edition with half-races. Just like a half-elf is a different race from both of his parents.

And again, since you keep dodging it. Please address the fact that planetouched isn't even a thing in 5e.

Children of Genie is a valid choice for Genasi. Children of Celestials is literally the main choice for Aasimar. So, no, they aren't things that don't exist in DnD 5e

And, again, planetouched IS a thing in 5e. It literally just meant "those touched by the planes". And the majority of Planetouched races are in 5e. They just didn't bother to make a special category considering each of the planetouched are in a different book and aren't listed in anyway close to each other.

 

[Minigiant]

On what page(s) did they say this?

PHB 12-13
DMG 286-287
Start set premades

5e stressed particular race-class combos that would have 16 or more in their class primary score. The character character system and most of the art promoted characters that would have matching class and race ability scores.

Only if they are the sort of players who flip out over the difference between a 16 and a 15. Which does not describe every player, or even every new-to-5E player.

It wasn't every player.
However there had to be many of those players for them to make the Tasha change. And there was enough to make further changes

 

[Scribe]

However there had to be many of those players for them to make the Tasha change.

Assuming it was ever about the 16.

 

[Faolyn]

From the PHB, on step-by-step character creation: Bob decides to use the standard set of scores (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) for Bruenor's abilities. Since he's a fighter, he puts his highest score, 15, in Strength. His next highest, 14, goes in Constitution.

This isn't saying "you must put your highest score in your most important stat," but it is showing that it's the most obvious and useful way to assign stats.

 

[Scribe]

Yes, they held people's hands to show them the most effective way to use the basic math of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, demons aren't celestials, but Devils were. And Tieflings are more closely tied to devils than demons anyways.

And again, other than just a blanket "they aren't" you haven't actually... argued anything. You are just declaring that you are right without any evidence. And somehow all Genasi are a race even though some are half-genies and the others are magically irradiated humans. But a magically irradiated human who has celestial radiation is now a completely different species?

So all of that is a big bunch of poodoo.

I have provided hard evidence. Incontrovertible facts.

Fact 1: There is no such thing as planetouched in 5e.
Fact 2: Tieflings, Aasimar and Genasi are all separate races in 5e.

Unless you can(and you can't) prove those facts to be wrong, you are wrong.

Children of Genie is a valid choice for Genasi. Children of Celestials is literally the main choice for Aasimar. So, no, they aren't things that don't exist in DnD 5e

Those races exist. Planetouched as a category does not. You can make it for your game, but it does not exist in 5e.

And, again, planetouched IS a thing in 5e. It literally just meant "those touched by the planes".

If you make it so, it is so. I mean bloodtouched just means creatures that are touched by blood, so there are only two races, right, Warforged and everything else, right? Just because you can point to something in common, does not make them the same race.

considering each of the planetouched are in a different book and aren't listed in anyway close to each other.

Same as they were in 3e, too. Separate races.