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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Faolyn

(she/her)
This is where I disagree. WotC has not ever told players they must pair a character's racial bonuses with the character's highest stat.

They have incentivized it by making it possible to get a higher starting score in the primary stat when a player does so.

That is not the same thing.
I never claimed they were the same thing. I said that WotC has encouraged race/class combos.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

jayoungr

Legend
Supporter
  1. WOTC pushed Race-Class Stereotypes exclusively at the start of 5e
  2. Race-Class Stereotypes all have primarily scores of 16 or more if you follow WOTC suggestions of how to create PC
  3. Many, particularly newer gen, Players wanted to play uncommon stereotypes and no stereotypes with the same power.
  4. Because the stereotypical PC had 16, these players saw that as the baseline.
  5. Tasha Changes
So what you're saying is that the players decided that 16 was required. Which is not the same as WotC telling players that 16 was required. I know you think it's the same, but it's not.

Seriously, let's just agree to disagree on this.

The designers stated clearly that it was done to let player "create the characters they wanted".
Which is probably intentionally vague about why the players might want to create those characters. It doesn't say whether players felt that the problem was mechanical numbers or biological essentialism. If you need examples showing that the latter is a source of concern to a not-insignificant number of players, look no further than this very board.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
If anything, WotC did their best to discourage this approach by suggesting that players choose a race as the first step of character building. (Which I'm betting a lot of players don't actually do; I know I usually pick the class first.)

They make you choose race first however in the class section of character creation, they emphasize the matching of race and class when they speak on ability scores
 



Chaosmancer

Legend
5e changes things, which YOU argued when YOU said demigods can only be children of gods and mortals. You don't get to argue out of both sides of your mouth. Find me a quote that says planetouched exists if you can.

I'm not arguing outside of both sides of my mouth. Planetouched were only an organizational tool to put similar mechanical options with similar origins in the same box. Those options still exist. They have remained largely unchanged in origin.

Demigods were a power level and are now just the children of gods and mortals. Planetouched were a group that included Aasimar, Tieflings and Genasi who find their origin in extraplanar roots. Teiflings, Aasimar, and Genasi still exist, and they still find their origins in extraplanar roots. Nothing about that has changed, the only difference being that they didn't see a point in making an organizational group for them, since they were so scattered over three different books.


No plane touches any of them, or ever has. They have the blood of fiends, celestials, etc. in their blood. "Planetouched" was just a poetic way to group the various races with bloodlines from planar creatures.

If you want to see it that way, sure, and that poetic device is still true. Tielfings still have the blood of fiends, Aasimar still have the blood of Celestials, ect. So, if nothing has changed, why are you declaring that something must have changed?

You don't need to disprove. You need to prove. You need to prove your claim that races with no connection in 5e(they are all listed as separate races) are suddenly all one race.

And how am I supposed to do this when you have provided no defintion of race or subrace? I did my best with my previous examples, but you declared that sharing genetic material doesn't make you of the same race, then you declared that canonical origins for tieflings and Aasimar actually make entirely new beings that don't even exist in 5e.

You have refused to define the terms, that way you can alter them at a whim to continue declaring yourself right.

Talk to a new player and mention martial, and yes they will be confused.

Unless they have ever heard the term "Martial arts" or "Martial Law" or any of the million of other places that this word is used that would make it a fairly obvious term.

Because it's a ridiculous supposition. There aren't any like that. It's not as if any of them have celestials, fiends or whatever as parents.

Except in the example I gave they literally did. So again, you seem to just ignore my posts and respond to strawmen because that is more convenient for you.

So first, we're talking PC races here. Second, devils, celestials an demons all have blood. Third, so what. This response is just a Red Herring of my point. It doesn't matter how many races don't have blood. All the ones that do would still be "bloodtouched" if we go with your logic.

So, first, no we are talking about "races" I never once said that I was limiting this discussion to playable races. Especially since any race is playable.

Secondly, can you prove that devils, celestials and demons have blood and not ichor, bile, sap or some other fluid?

Thirdly, if it doesn't matter and you don't want to discuss it, why bring it up? As a category it could exist, if you wanted to define creatures on that line. I won't dispute that. Does that make them all the same race? I don't know, you haven't defined race yet so I would have no way of knowing if it would match your definition.

Show me such a grouping in 5e, which is the edition under discussion here. 5e changes things, so you need to prove it under 5e rules.

So, we immediately pivot from you being wrong that they weren't being grouped together in 3e to you suddenly demanding I provide the same grouping for 5e.

But again, because Tieflings were in the PHB, and Aasimar didn't come out officially til years later in Volos and Genasi were first introduced in the elemental evil companion.. they've never actaully all shown up in the same book.

Additionally, not having a stated official group doesn't make the group not exist. For example, "Playable Small Races" is a group that exists. There is no category name for them, but they certainly exist and can be discussed. Generally we do so by saying "small races". Therefore, since the planetouched do exist, and planetouched still means the same thing... then there is no logical reason to assume that it doesn't exist as a category.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
what you're saying is that the players decided that 16 was required. Which is not the same as WotC telling players that 16 was required. I know you think it's the same, but it's not.

Seriously, let's just agree to disagree on this.

That's what I've been saying from the beginning!

WOTC pushed stereotypes and the player base took the mechanical power level of stereotypes as the baseline.

However many didn't want to play stereotypes and complained that uncommon, oddball, or common alternate setting combinations were not at that level. Especially with some of the weaker classes being more ability score dependant.

WOTC made the Mountain Dwarf Fighter the example and fans took it as the base assumption of 5e PC strength.
 

Scribe

Legend
That's what I've been saying from the beginning!

WOTC pushed stereotypes and the player base took the mechanical power level of stereotypes as the baseline.

However many didn't want to play stereotypes and complained that uncommon, oddball, or common alternate setting combinations were not at that level. Especially with some of the weaker classes being more ability score dependant.

WOTC made the Mountain Dwarf Fighter the example and fans took it as the base assumption of 5e PC strength.
So we understand.

1. 16's are not needed.
2. Wizards didnt mandate or force anything.
3. Wizards presented presets, which would see the most basic level of success due to the simple math of 5e.
4. Players decided anything less than a 16 is untenable for a classes primary stat.

That all correct?
 

jayoungr

Legend
Supporter
Argh. @Minigiant and @Faolyn , seriously, we're all talking past each other.

What this all boils down to is a different reading on where the responsibility lies for those players who have it firmly lodged in their heads that a 1st-level PC should never have less than a 16 in the primary stat. We all agree that those players exist and that they are reasonably numerous, although there is no way of knowing whether they are a majority.

You are both claiming that WotC is responsible for creating this mindset in players by providing examples of characters with 16 in the primary stat.

I believe they intended for certain race/class combos to be desirable, but that player culture has (at many tables) made those combos into dogma in a way that WotC most likely didn't intend. And players are much stronger enforcers on each other than WotC could ever be.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
So we understand.

1. 16's are not needed.
2. Wizards didnt mandate or force anything.
3. Wizards presented presets, which would see the most basic level of success due to the simple math of 5e.
4. Players decided anything less than a 16 is untenable for a classes primary stat.

That all correct?
Half right
corrections bolded.

1. 16's are not needed.
2. Wizards didn't mandate or force anything.
3. Wizards presented stereotypical presets that all had 16 or more in their class primary. This included a STR 17 dwarf fighter in customization, all the LMOP starter stat PCs having 16s, and race creation having class matching as important.
4. Wizard provided zero presets or examples of characters who would have class primary of less than 16.
5. Players assumed anything less than a 16 is atypical for a classes primary stat unless there were other factors balancing power.

If I only visit my fiiend's kids on birthdays and holidays bearing gifts, they will assume anytime I visit that I bear gifts.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top