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.

Scribe

Legend
While your bolded notes are true, they do not change the fundamental truth of the math, and the rules.

One does not require 16's. Never did, and likely never will. We do not need a 65-70 or more success rate, when fighting 'equal opposition.'

I'd say Wizards leaned into the tropes because 5e was a call back edition, considering they lost the hearts and minds of their at the time player base with 4e, to the 3.75 edition of Pathfinder, who leaned INTO tropes, ASI, and restrictions.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

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.

No one said players "firmly lodged in their heads that a 1st-level PC should never have less than a 16 in the primary stat."

What was said is that players wanted race/class oddities and race/class alternates to be as strong as race/class stereotypes. The same mentality for decades. This happened in 4e as well.

While your bolded notes are true, they do not change the fundamental truth of the math, and the rules.

One does not require 16's. Never did, and likely never will. We do not need a 65-70 or more success rate, when fighting 'equal opposition.'

I'd say Wizards leaned into the tropes because 5e was a call back edition, considering they lost the hearts and minds of their at the time player base with 4e, to the 3.75 edition of Pathfinder, who leaned INTO tropes, ASI, and restrictions.

Never said 16 was required or needed
.
I said WOTC leaned hard on classic elements in 5e to call back fans. And it bit them a bit as they got a lot of new fans who didn't want class stereotypes.

5e: Suffering from success.
 
Last edited:

Faolyn

(she/her)
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.
OK, let me rephrase what I'm saying.

The example of character creation in the 5e PHB shows that putting your highest number in your class's primary stat is the typical way to go, and phrases it in such a way as to be a foregone conclusion. Brunor's a fighter, so of course his 15 is going into Strength. The example in the 5e DMG shows that races should be built with the correct classes in mind; i.e., if you want to have a race make for effective clerics and paladins, make sure one of their racial ASIs is in Wisdom.

Note that just about everything in 5e is based on your attribute + proficiency bonus. You fight, you don't have a BAB. It's your Strength or Dex. You cast a spell, your attack roll and saving throw bonus is based on your spellcasting attribute. You need to make a saving throw, it's based on your attribute and maybe your PB.

Neither book, AFAICT, puts forth the idea that players may want to think about putting their highest number in a non-traditional attribute. They don't say "many players find it fun to put their highest numbers in stats not required by their classes, or to play a class with a race that doesn't grant a bonus to the class's main stats." And I'm both pretty sure that this wasn't written in the 3x PHB and DMG either (no clue about 4e) and that any sample characters put out by either of these editions were shown with the "correct" race/class/ASI bonus combination.

(If either of those books does suggest such a thing, it's probably just a few easily-missed sentences somewhere; it's certainly not emphasized.)

Additionally, WotC was building off of AD&D, which as we all know had restrictions on race/class combos, and thus wanted to keep at least the basic flavor alive, so halfling rogues and elven wizards, etc. (Except for half-orcs, which went from the being the assassin race in 1e to the barbarian race in 3e).

So I strongly believe that, while WotC removed all those race/class restrictions, they still wanted to promote these ideals, because of tradition. And I believe they doubled down on those ideals in when they first produced 5e, which is, as we all know, the nostalgia edition. After all, they upped the damage on fireball and lightning bolt for exactly that reason. It's not that players misinterpreted what WotC wanted. It's that WotC strongly suggested that this is the way you play--they just didn't make it a rule.
 

Scribe

Legend
So I strongly believe that, while WotC removed all those race/class restrictions, they still wanted to promote these ideals, because of tradition. And I believe they doubled down on those ideals in when they first produced 5e, which is, as we all know, the nostalgia edition.
This, in particular.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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 dude. You've repeatedly told me that I was making stuff up when I tell you something makes sense. Hell, you're doing it in the other thread with your argument that Helm is not a human god, when there are only two categories of god, Human and non-human(no other categories can exist as it is a true dichotomy), but it doesn't actually use the word human.

You don't get to now argue that planestouched exist as a category when there is no word planetouched in existence in 5e.
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?
There are no racial traits that all "planetouched" in 5e have in 5e that can be linked to "planestouched." They all have darkvision, as do 90% of the other races. It's the most overused racial trait in 5e.
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.
All you have to do is look at the independent planar races to see the difference. Aasimar are a race WITH subraces. Tieflings are a race WITH subraces. Genasi are a race WITH subraces. Clearly they are not one race with a bunch of subraces, or they would have been presented that way.

Do you have any argument other than, "I really want them to be one unified planetouched race" to show that in 5e they are? Or any evidence at all? I have the facts I listed to you. Facts you have yet to be able to counter.
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.
The example you gave was for half-demons and half-celestials, not Aasimar or Tieflings. Aasimar and Tieflings don't have parents who were fiends or celestials.
Secondly, can you prove that devils, celestials and demons have blood and not ichor, bile, sap or some other fluid?
Yes. It's hard to have a Blood War between demons and evils without having any blood.

Page 286 of the DMG

"EXAMPLE RACE : AASIMAR
Whereas tieflings have fiendish blood in their veins, aasimar are the descendants of celestial beings."

Even gods have blood.
 
Last edited:

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
n in the 3x PHB and DMG either (no clue about 4e) and that any sample characters put out by either of these editions were shown with the "correct" race/class/ASI bonus combination.

(If either of those books does suggest such a thing, it's probably just a few easily-missed sentences somewhere; it's certainly not emphasized.)

4e PHB offers examples and illustrations of race/classes that don't have matching primary or secondary stats. It gives you the 16 stat up in point buy and array.

Many people wanted a 18 or 20 but the 16 was seen as normal by the community and therefore any race/class combo was seen is fine.... somewhat.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
No dude. You've repeatedly told me that I was making stuff up when I tell you something makes sense. Hell, you're doing it in the other thread with your argument that Helm is not a human god, when there are only two categories of god, Human and non-human(no other categories can exist as it is a true dichotomy), but it doesn't actually use the word human.

You don't get to now argue that planestouched exist as a category when there is no word planetouched in existence in 5e.

And as I have tried to explain in that thread, you are wrong, there are more than just "human" and "non-human" gods. The lore of the settings themselves hold this up. I have also said I agree with your sense, which is why I homebrewed many of those gods to be explicitly human, it is simply that I recognize that that is not how the settings are written.

But on this, you have shown nothing that would indicate that planetouched are in anyway changed. All it was was the name of a group of races, and that group of races still exists.

There are no racial traits that all "planetouched" in 5e have in 5e that can be linked to "planestouched." They all have darkvision, as do 90% of the other races. It's the most overused racial trait in 5e.

Okay, so you want to claim that they can't be related races because they don't share any racial traits... except darkvision.

What about spellcasting? Aasimar, Tieflings and Genasi all get spellcasting. What about energy resistances? Tieflings, Aasimar and Genasi all have resistance to an energy type. So, these two racial traits seem like they are shared between these groups and that they can be traced back to being "planetouched"

All you have to do is look at the independent planar races to see the difference. Aasimar are a race WITH subraces. Tieflings are a race WITH subraces. Genasi are a race WITH subraces. Clearly they are not one race with a bunch of subraces, or they would have been presented that way.

Do you have any argument other than, "I really want them to be one unified planetouched race" to show that in 5e they are? Or any evidence at all? I have the facts I listed to you. Facts you have yet to be able to counter.

Aren't the new Dragonborn a race with subraces that have subraces? You have Dragonborn, then you can pick between chromatic, metallic and gem, and then within that you can pick from (red, white, blue, green, black), (brass, copper, gold, silver, bronze), (topaz, emerald, amethyst, sapphire, ruby [I think])

Would this make the New Dragonborn not qualify to be a race? Because the races would be Chromatic, Metallic and Gem, while the subraces would be the colors?

Goblinoids are supposedly one race, but the term isn't used in the player's section for Goblins, Hobgoblins and Bugbears, and those three races share no traits between them (except darkvision)

Firbolgs and Goliath are both Giantkin, a category that to my knowledge is not used in the player sections for them either, and they do share a trait with Powerful Build.


So, looking at the other races I see that

1) Subraces having subraces can happen and seems to be acceptable, even if it isn't common
2) Sharing racial traits isn't neccessary to be in a related group
2a) Planetouched do share a set of racial traits however
3) A category being explicitly spelled out in the player's choice section is rare, and usually does not happen.

The example you gave was for half-demons and half-celestials, not Aasimar or Tieflings. Aasimar and Tieflings don't have parents who were fiends or celestials.

And where does it say that they can't? Looking over everything I can find there is nothing that says that the half-mortal child of a Deva couldn't be an aasimar, or that the child of a human and a weak demon coulnd't be a tiefling. Yes, I understand Cambions exist, but they are just more powerful Tielfings.


Yes. It's hard to have a Blood War between demons and evils without having any blood.

Page 286 of the DMG

"EXAMPLE RACE : AASIMAR
Whereas tieflings have fiendish blood in their veins, aasimar are the descendants of celestial beings."

Even gods have blood.

So a poetic name that has no bearing on fact, that's poor evidence.

I also see you quoted something that would prove that Tielflings are the children of fiends and Aasimar the children of Celestials, a thing you just said was false. But sure, we can use this as evidence that at least some fiends and some celestials have blood.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
And as I have tried to explain in that thread, you are wrong, there are more than just "human" and "non-human" gods. The lore of the settings themselves hold this up. I have also said I agree with your sense, which is why I homebrewed many of those gods to be explicitly human, it is simply that I recognize that that is not how the settings are written.

But on this, you have shown nothing that would indicate that planetouched are in anyway changed. All it was was the name of a group of races, and that group of races still exists.
But not as any sort of official category. WotC grouped them up in 3e, but there was never any need to do so. A half-demon isn't the same race as a half-celestial, which isn't the same race as a half-elemental. Neither are their descendants.
What about spellcasting? Aasimar, Tieflings and Genasi all get spellcasting.
So do gnomes, elves, dwarves, firbolg, tritons, and probably some others.
What about energy resistances?
Different names and different resistances. Other races also get those things. They don't have a unified resistance in common like a race would.

The one and only racial ability they have in common is darkvision.
Aren't the new Dragonborn a race with subraces that have subraces? You have Dragonborn, then you can pick between chromatic, metallic and gem, and then within that you can pick from (red, white, blue, green, black), (brass, copper, gold, silver, bronze), (topaz, emerald, amethyst, sapphire, ruby [I think])
I have no idea as I don't have the new book, but even if that's the case, it's irrelevant here. All the "planetouched" races were made prior to these new rules.
Goblinoids are supposedly one race, but the term isn't used in the player's section for Goblins, Hobgoblins and Bugbears, and those three races share no traits between them (except darkvision)
They are not one race. They are like giants, dragons and other categories which have multiple races within them. Think of them like Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals. Related, but different races.
Firbolgs and Goliath are both Giantkin, a category that to my knowledge is not used in the player sections for them either, and they do share a trait with Powerful Build.
And yet they are different races.
So, looking at the other races I see that

1) Subraces having subraces can happen and seems to be acceptable, even if it isn't common
2) Sharing racial traits isn't neccessary to be in a related group
2a) Planetouched do share a set of racial traits however
3) A category being explicitly spelled out in the player's choice section is rare, and usually does not happen.
And still your major hurdle is that Genasi, Aasimar and Tieflings are all separate races in 5e. Do you have any hard fact that show otherwise?
And where does it say that they can't? Looking over everything I can find there is nothing that says that the half-mortal child of a Deva couldn't be an aasimar, or that the child of a human and a weak demon coulnd't be a tiefling. Yes, I understand Cambions exist, but they are just more powerful Tielfings.
Descendants. It says descendants, not children. And we have cambions as the children of demons and mortals. You know, half-demon cambions.
I also see you quoted something that would prove that Tielflings are the children of fiends and Aasimar the children of Celestials, a thing you just said was false. But sure, we can use this as evidence that at least some fiends and some celestials have blood.
You think "fiendish blood" proves that they are children? Nope. Doesn't prove that at all.
 

Firbolgs and Goliath are both Giantkin, a category that to my knowledge is not used in the player sections for them either,
That's historical, they where created before WotC realised they could give PCs a type other than humanoid without breaking the game. Pretty sure next time they get revised their type will be "giant".

Also due a revision, eladrin -> fey.

Aren't the new Dragonborn a race with subraces that have subraces?
Not as presented, no. They are three separate linages, each with a choice to be made for damage type/resistance. Similar to how a high elf gets to choose a wizard spell.
 
Last edited:

Chaosmancer

Legend
Not as presented, no. They are three separate linages, each with a choice to be made for damage type/resistance. Similar to how a high elf gets to choose a wizard spell.

What is the practical difference here? All three are dragonborn, they are just specific types of dragonborn, and within those three types, there are further subdivisions. In practical terms this is identical to how a race -> subrace -> more subraces would break down.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top