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.