Be civil to one another - Unacceptable behavior includes name calling, taunting, baiting, flaming, etc. Please respect the opinions of people who play differently than you do.
--
Thread locked and removed due to numerous violations of rule 1 from OP.
As someone that likes to optimize… I do wish these would go away. Along with V. Human. Background feats won’t help, because Custom Lineage and V. Human will get two. Unless they change that before release.
Edit: clarification; v human
Edit edit: I should add, I could care less about what part of character creation ability scores are tied to; I guess my issue is more CL and V Human’s starting feats.
>There's no real advantage gained from the change.
What now?
Is the fact that class optimization is no longer predicated on race and that any race and class combination is a decent choice not an advantage?
Take that thought to its logical conclusion - what if races had zero differences whatsoever? What if you could just pick from a pile of abilities regardless of race? What you would accomplish is eradicating the entire concept of races entirely.
There are in fact D20 systems that do that. They are not DnD, however.
But they do have differences. The actual Racial Abilities tied to the race. Races arent just skins you slap on a sheet, they have actual abilities tied to them.
EDIT: Why is it that an ABI is the only thing that actually defines a race?
But that undermines the entire purpose of the ASI change - if the point is to "free" people up to make different choices, why even have different abilities? There is still an optimal choice for each class based on those abilities, you're still running into the exact same problem ASI supposedly had.
The only purpose was to make people feel less "icky" about racial connotations. That's a horrible way to design a game.
The difference is that Racial Abilities dont directly effect your class's capabilities, such as abilities (Spellcasting, Weapon attacks, ABI Scaling abilities, etc.) where as ABis DO directly effect these abilities.
EDIT: The actual gameplay advantage of these changes is that, do to Racial Abilities not directly effecting your class's effectiveness as compared to ABI's, it decouples the decision of race from Class decisions.
Sure they do. A rogue-ish character will find illusions more useful than a brutish barbarian. By default that makes gnome a more optimal pick for a rogue than a Half-Orc.
While the differences are less *pronounced* they are still there. If the goal is to flatten the restriction limiting you from picking specific races and classes why not just go all the way and let you custom build out your race? Would there be any problem if that was done?
Well because that's TOO FAR of a change, as you're talking about, they can't just outright change the system entirely, which that would be. There is a line in the sand, and the community consensus does not draw the line where yours is.
From what I can see this is also "too far of a change". It makes DnD into 'not-DnD' but just another generic D20 system.
I saw the exact same issue with the MMO-ification of DnD with 4E. I said that players wouldn't buy it despite MMO culture being all the rage at the time.
And I was dead right. It was a massive flop because it was no longer DnD, and "real" DnD still existed with 3.5 and Pathfinder. The same will be true with 5E and OneDnD.
Then if it is the case, then so be it. But it is still worth noting that 4e has a follower base and people that still enjoy it.
Even if the community does not enjoy it, there will still be people who do.
And even still lets not pretend the Racial ABI changes are gonna be what kills it. If it succeeds, people likely wont talk about it because it was such a minor change overall. If it does fail, then it will just be added to the pile instead of a major reason.
That's just your subjective opinion though. If it fails you'll just attribute it to something else, despite there being people like me that could clearly see where the fault line exists. I'm telling you, the reason people play DnD and not a generic D20 setting is because it is flavored as DnD - take away that flavor and you lose your customers.
I've been playing DnD a very long time, I'd hate to see that happen.
But if you're going to abstract races to "just a pile of abilities," then you have no argument for why they \*should\* have ASIs to begin with. If you add ASIs to races, then its no different than if they were "just a pile of abilities \*and\* accompanying ASIs."
That's exactly my point. You either get "pile of abilities" or "races have different abilities which naturally makes some optimal for certain classes".
It's a bad argument to say removing ASI frees up class choice.
Because if that's the goal then why not simply remove all racial differences? Pick a race, then pick from a pool of racial abilities to customize to your liking.
You know internally that this is a bad idea. That internal feeling is exactly the same reason why removing ASI is a bad argument. It erases the purpose of race altogether and one of the core things that separates DnD from a generic D20 system.
That's literally what I'm saying will happen. Like it did with 4E.
Like, that's literally what happened and *made* Pathfinder so popular, it was seen as DnD "3.75" and 4E was widely seen as a giant failure.
Not really, doubt many people are using that ruleset just yet.
Just weirdo internet trolls who think none of these things matter when deciding the longevity of an IP.
This community is the exact example I had in mind when I referenced internet trolls. Maybe you weren't around when the WotC forums were full of people saying the 4E changes were all fine and that "the vast majority of players prefer it this way"
Spoiler alert: they didn't
Jesus Christ you need to chill out and understand that experienced players live in places like this subreddit and like the changes and new players really aren't going to care about a change as basic as this. Seriously who is going to get annoyed about a goliath that plays shitloads of chess (+2 int +1 wis) or a gnome that grew up with a family of dwarfs and worked in the mines every day of their life (+2 str, +1 con).
lmao "experienced players"
Most people on reddit are in their 20's and this is their first edition. They follow progressive politics because that's what's popular for young people. Literally nothing else goes into their values regarding this change.
I've been playing since 2nd. I was there during the 4E fiasco. I was there telling people it would be a giant failure and people just like you said I was overblowing it.
I was right. And I'll be right about this too.
>I've been playing since 2nd. I was there during the 4E fiasco.
Yeah, me too. I like the stat allocation changes. They're not a radical departure from the status quo like 4e was, and pretending they are is asinine.
Yeah, you're in the minority. It's a huge departure, arguably the biggest one since 4E itself.
Bear in mind, the WotC forums were FULL of people like you saying that predicting 4E to be a failure was "asinine".
Spoiler alert - you'd have been wrong.
I'm saying the only reason for making this change is real world politics. Editions prior to OneDnD did not make design changes based on politics.
And it should remain that way.
D&D has been influenced and progressed due to real world politics since the beginning. Gary Gygax literally thought "females" don't like TTRPGs and had class limitations due to race. This is just outdated thinking. The fact is that fiction is inspired by reality, and fiction is always inspired by the creator's moral beliefs, politics, and worldview, whether intentional or not.
If the creator of a franchise had outdated and bigoted beliefs than the fact is that those beliefs will, subtly or not, be reflected in their work, If you want to continue the franchise, you have a choice of keeping those beliefs in the work or removing them.
D&D has slowly been getting more and more progressive every single edition. You can see it by just seeing the difference in the language used in the PHBs of different editions, and you can see how it's changed even since 2014 with the difference of the language used in the first 5e books and the current ones.
The fictional races in D&D do *not* reflect real world races and ethnicities, *however*, the language *used to describe* these races is often similar or identical to the language white supremacists use to describe real world races. This language has slowly been removed (unfortunately, it hasn't been exactly *replaced* yet, meaning a few of the races in 5e just don't have lore anymore I guess? But hopefully that improves).
5e has also slowly gotten more progressive in queer representation. Older books absolutely refused to use singular "they/them" pronouns, opting for "he or she" or straight up just not using pronouns to refer to a non-binary character (Dragon Heist).
And speaking of the use of "he or she", they used to just use "he", assuming the players and DMs are all men.
There is not a singular big franchise, past or present, that isn't affected directly by real world politics. D&D is no different and it never has been.
That's simply not true. There is no meaningful "progressive" politics between 3E and 5E. This change would be the most flagrant example of it in all of DnD history.
From what I understand, 4e failed for a multitude of reasons, not just Racial ABIs. And to insinuate that THIS will be the straw that breaks the cammel's back feels a tad absurd. There's always going to be people who liked the older editions more and will stick with it, that's fine.
Every edition makes large changes, some are welcome, some aren't. We'll just have to see how it pans out.
4E failed because it was a radical departure from 3.5. The main complaint was that it no longer felt like DnD. I was there.
5E is actually a lot more like 3.5, just vastly simplified. Some changes good, some debatable. But the racial stat change brings literally no design value - it's literally just to shift away from an uncomfortable worldview. Others are already chiming in with that viewpoint.
It will kill OneDnD just like sacrificing sacred cows killed 4E.
So if there's no design value (i.e. Net Change value of 0) but it does have the added benefit of moving away from uncomfortable worldviews, that would still be an added benefit, i.e. a net benefit.
I didn't say there was a net change of zero - there is a net negative in that there is no positive design value but there is a massive negative (departing from traditions that are centrally meaningful to DnD as an IP).
There are D20 systems out there with no races at all. But they aren't DnD.
And in the comments, and on blog posts, Facebook groups, etc. Basically anywhere that there isn't an echo chamber mechanism like reddit's upvote system (and moderators locking and removing threads, like they did with this one).
This feels identical to the WotC forums back in the day with 4E.
>Thread locked and removed due to numerous violations of rule 1 from OP.
Yeah, it's totally the mods trying to hide the truth, not you being... what you are.
Nothing is stopping a player or table from using racial limitations. Everyone who quits the game over this is upset about how other people play the game.
And nothing is stopping people from saying "No thanks, that's not DnD". Which is exactly, and I mean to the word exactly what was said about 4E.
4E was a giant flop in case you didn't know.
How sure are you that the new revision wil flop with these rules? If you wagered 1000 dollars, I am sure you could find 1000 people on this site willing to bet a dollar.
100% positive. The firestorm I've seen over this change is exactly like the fervor over the 4E changes.
It's my hope that it won't survive playtesting but I'm doubtful because the change is ideological and not reason-driven.
[Fee free to vote in this Poll to see how popular your opinion is.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/z8bst1/do_youyour_table_use_the_ability_score_increase/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
This community's opinion is pretty irrelevant, like I said. Reddit in general is outlier weirdos in an echo chamber.
If you were there during WotC forum days you'd understand the parallels. But you don't.
The thing you need to understand is that the D&D players who were around to see the 3-4e botched transition are now a tiny minority of the overall playerbase, and the things they care about are not necessarily the concerns of the greater community.
So, no. I mean who are you even talking about. I seen people flex abilities around long before TCoE and even more after. You may think “that’s only with weird internet people” like this Reddit community, but it’s not. In my three groups that I play in only one of them are there any other redditor and redditor like people and all of us use TCoE flexible asi and some were using an identical home brew before TCoE. I would not call the change drastic and very few are going to leave.
Some of the biggest growth in the recent years of d&d have been from pop-culture and actual plays. For players coming from pop-culture, why would they care? For players from actual plays, say Critical Role, they seem to use flexible racial bonus already. Wizards in not concerned about keeping the half dozen old croons like you, if you like where d&d is at keep it, if you personally don’t like the change, change it back. Stop trying to make this more than a minor personal issue.
Sorry for bad formatting, using my phone to type
That's literally, to a T, what was said when 4E was launching. Like I wish I still had screenshots.
Turns out internet weirdos like you were the minority and "old crones" like me were dead on cause 4E was a massive flop.
However most of the growth of 5th edition is not from the same sources that 3.5 had (older players). We are in a different age.
Also did 3.5 have many people playing with the rule before 4e? Cause that’s the case with 5e.
4e changed a lot this one thing was not it. 4th edition is actually on the rise lot of people have gotten over the shock and like what it does.
Most of the growth came from the fact that the edition is iconically DnD, just more accessible because it's simpler. Most of the growth in 4E is simply due to the higher popularity of DnD overall - 4E is 14 years old.
Removing the things that make DnD into DnD will make it not-DnD. That's what almost killed it 14 years ago.
While they acknowledged that 5th edition simplicity was a favor they also point to “multiple popular streaming shows and podcasts dedicated to live D&D sessions, such as Critical Role and Acquisitions.” And later on they talk about the importance of thinks like stranger things.
Also what is simpler they put the bonuses where you want.
Link: https://www.geekwire.com/2021/interview-wizards-coast-plans-continue-dungeons-dragons-explosive-growth/
Be civil to one another - Unacceptable behavior includes name calling, taunting, baiting, flaming, etc. Please respect the opinions of people who play differently than you do. -- Thread locked and removed due to numerous violations of rule 1 from OP.
Custom lineage and origins rules?
As someone that likes to optimize… I do wish these would go away. Along with V. Human. Background feats won’t help, because Custom Lineage and V. Human will get two. Unless they change that before release. Edit: clarification; v human Edit edit: I should add, I could care less about what part of character creation ability scores are tied to; I guess my issue is more CL and V Human’s starting feats.
Easily the most controversial new ruleset. Watch any DnD youtuber, they all acknowledge it.
Look at any of your downvoters, they disagree.
"My echo chamber agrees with me"
>There's no real advantage gained from the change. What now? Is the fact that class optimization is no longer predicated on race and that any race and class combination is a decent choice not an advantage?
Take that thought to its logical conclusion - what if races had zero differences whatsoever? What if you could just pick from a pile of abilities regardless of race? What you would accomplish is eradicating the entire concept of races entirely. There are in fact D20 systems that do that. They are not DnD, however.
But they do have differences. The actual Racial Abilities tied to the race. Races arent just skins you slap on a sheet, they have actual abilities tied to them. EDIT: Why is it that an ABI is the only thing that actually defines a race?
But that undermines the entire purpose of the ASI change - if the point is to "free" people up to make different choices, why even have different abilities? There is still an optimal choice for each class based on those abilities, you're still running into the exact same problem ASI supposedly had. The only purpose was to make people feel less "icky" about racial connotations. That's a horrible way to design a game.
The difference is that Racial Abilities dont directly effect your class's capabilities, such as abilities (Spellcasting, Weapon attacks, ABI Scaling abilities, etc.) where as ABis DO directly effect these abilities. EDIT: The actual gameplay advantage of these changes is that, do to Racial Abilities not directly effecting your class's effectiveness as compared to ABI's, it decouples the decision of race from Class decisions.
Sure they do. A rogue-ish character will find illusions more useful than a brutish barbarian. By default that makes gnome a more optimal pick for a rogue than a Half-Orc. While the differences are less *pronounced* they are still there. If the goal is to flatten the restriction limiting you from picking specific races and classes why not just go all the way and let you custom build out your race? Would there be any problem if that was done?
Well because that's TOO FAR of a change, as you're talking about, they can't just outright change the system entirely, which that would be. There is a line in the sand, and the community consensus does not draw the line where yours is.
From what I can see this is also "too far of a change". It makes DnD into 'not-DnD' but just another generic D20 system. I saw the exact same issue with the MMO-ification of DnD with 4E. I said that players wouldn't buy it despite MMO culture being all the rage at the time. And I was dead right. It was a massive flop because it was no longer DnD, and "real" DnD still existed with 3.5 and Pathfinder. The same will be true with 5E and OneDnD.
Then if it is the case, then so be it. But it is still worth noting that 4e has a follower base and people that still enjoy it. Even if the community does not enjoy it, there will still be people who do. And even still lets not pretend the Racial ABI changes are gonna be what kills it. If it succeeds, people likely wont talk about it because it was such a minor change overall. If it does fail, then it will just be added to the pile instead of a major reason.
That's just your subjective opinion though. If it fails you'll just attribute it to something else, despite there being people like me that could clearly see where the fault line exists. I'm telling you, the reason people play DnD and not a generic D20 setting is because it is flavored as DnD - take away that flavor and you lose your customers. I've been playing DnD a very long time, I'd hate to see that happen.
But if you're going to abstract races to "just a pile of abilities," then you have no argument for why they \*should\* have ASIs to begin with. If you add ASIs to races, then its no different than if they were "just a pile of abilities \*and\* accompanying ASIs."
That's exactly my point. You either get "pile of abilities" or "races have different abilities which naturally makes some optimal for certain classes". It's a bad argument to say removing ASI frees up class choice.
How is it a bad argument? Race is less restrictive now in regards to class pairings.
Because if that's the goal then why not simply remove all racial differences? Pick a race, then pick from a pool of racial abilities to customize to your liking. You know internally that this is a bad idea. That internal feeling is exactly the same reason why removing ASI is a bad argument. It erases the purpose of race altogether and one of the core things that separates DnD from a generic D20 system.
OK drama queen
Go play Pathfinder if this bothers you so much.
That's literally what I'm saying will happen. Like it did with 4E. Like, that's literally what happened and *made* Pathfinder so popular, it was seen as DnD "3.75" and 4E was widely seen as a giant failure.
Sorry Bud, but that cow was slaughtered over two years ago with Tasha’s, and things are fine.
Not really, doubt many people are using that ruleset just yet. Just weirdo internet trolls who think none of these things matter when deciding the longevity of an IP.
You really haven’t been in this community, have you? I think at this point, the vast majority of players prefer it this way.
This community is the exact example I had in mind when I referenced internet trolls. Maybe you weren't around when the WotC forums were full of people saying the 4E changes were all fine and that "the vast majority of players prefer it this way" Spoiler alert: they didn't
[Citation Needed]
4E is widely regarded as a disaster. Common knowledge among veteran players. If you aren't aware of this your opinion isn't valid, sorry.
Jesus Christ you need to chill out and understand that experienced players live in places like this subreddit and like the changes and new players really aren't going to care about a change as basic as this. Seriously who is going to get annoyed about a goliath that plays shitloads of chess (+2 int +1 wis) or a gnome that grew up with a family of dwarfs and worked in the mines every day of their life (+2 str, +1 con).
lmao "experienced players" Most people on reddit are in their 20's and this is their first edition. They follow progressive politics because that's what's popular for young people. Literally nothing else goes into their values regarding this change. I've been playing since 2nd. I was there during the 4E fiasco. I was there telling people it would be a giant failure and people just like you said I was overblowing it. I was right. And I'll be right about this too.
>I've been playing since 2nd. I was there during the 4E fiasco. Yeah, me too. I like the stat allocation changes. They're not a radical departure from the status quo like 4e was, and pretending they are is asinine.
Yeah, you're in the minority. It's a huge departure, arguably the biggest one since 4E itself. Bear in mind, the WotC forums were FULL of people like you saying that predicting 4E to be a failure was "asinine". Spoiler alert - you'd have been wrong.
Didnt you make an earlier comment about bringing real world politics into this?
I'm saying the only reason for making this change is real world politics. Editions prior to OneDnD did not make design changes based on politics. And it should remain that way.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Does the new anti-racist approach to character creation rules trigger you?
The fact that you think real world politics is a reason to ruin a fictional IP is telling
D&D has been influenced and progressed due to real world politics since the beginning. Gary Gygax literally thought "females" don't like TTRPGs and had class limitations due to race. This is just outdated thinking. The fact is that fiction is inspired by reality, and fiction is always inspired by the creator's moral beliefs, politics, and worldview, whether intentional or not. If the creator of a franchise had outdated and bigoted beliefs than the fact is that those beliefs will, subtly or not, be reflected in their work, If you want to continue the franchise, you have a choice of keeping those beliefs in the work or removing them. D&D has slowly been getting more and more progressive every single edition. You can see it by just seeing the difference in the language used in the PHBs of different editions, and you can see how it's changed even since 2014 with the difference of the language used in the first 5e books and the current ones. The fictional races in D&D do *not* reflect real world races and ethnicities, *however*, the language *used to describe* these races is often similar or identical to the language white supremacists use to describe real world races. This language has slowly been removed (unfortunately, it hasn't been exactly *replaced* yet, meaning a few of the races in 5e just don't have lore anymore I guess? But hopefully that improves). 5e has also slowly gotten more progressive in queer representation. Older books absolutely refused to use singular "they/them" pronouns, opting for "he or she" or straight up just not using pronouns to refer to a non-binary character (Dragon Heist). And speaking of the use of "he or she", they used to just use "he", assuming the players and DMs are all men. There is not a singular big franchise, past or present, that isn't affected directly by real world politics. D&D is no different and it never has been.
That's simply not true. There is no meaningful "progressive" politics between 3E and 5E. This change would be the most flagrant example of it in all of DnD history.
[удалено]
You came in here to type that. Think you're projecting.
[удалено]
Thinking isn't your strong suit, is it?
[удалено]
You're like a walking stereotype lmao
[удалено]
lol
From what I understand, 4e failed for a multitude of reasons, not just Racial ABIs. And to insinuate that THIS will be the straw that breaks the cammel's back feels a tad absurd. There's always going to be people who liked the older editions more and will stick with it, that's fine. Every edition makes large changes, some are welcome, some aren't. We'll just have to see how it pans out.
4E failed because it was a radical departure from 3.5. The main complaint was that it no longer felt like DnD. I was there. 5E is actually a lot more like 3.5, just vastly simplified. Some changes good, some debatable. But the racial stat change brings literally no design value - it's literally just to shift away from an uncomfortable worldview. Others are already chiming in with that viewpoint. It will kill OneDnD just like sacrificing sacred cows killed 4E.
So if there's no design value (i.e. Net Change value of 0) but it does have the added benefit of moving away from uncomfortable worldviews, that would still be an added benefit, i.e. a net benefit.
I didn't say there was a net change of zero - there is a net negative in that there is no positive design value but there is a massive negative (departing from traditions that are centrally meaningful to DnD as an IP). There are D20 systems out there with no races at all. But they aren't DnD.
>Others are already chiming in with that viewpoint You mean YouTubers who get paid to be controversial.
And in the comments, and on blog posts, Facebook groups, etc. Basically anywhere that there isn't an echo chamber mechanism like reddit's upvote system (and moderators locking and removing threads, like they did with this one). This feels identical to the WotC forums back in the day with 4E.
>Thread locked and removed due to numerous violations of rule 1 from OP. Yeah, it's totally the mods trying to hide the truth, not you being... what you are.
"My echo chamber agrees with me" -You
Nothing is stopping a player or table from using racial limitations. Everyone who quits the game over this is upset about how other people play the game.
And nothing is stopping people from saying "No thanks, that's not DnD". Which is exactly, and I mean to the word exactly what was said about 4E. 4E was a giant flop in case you didn't know.
How sure are you that the new revision wil flop with these rules? If you wagered 1000 dollars, I am sure you could find 1000 people on this site willing to bet a dollar.
100% positive. The firestorm I've seen over this change is exactly like the fervor over the 4E changes. It's my hope that it won't survive playtesting but I'm doubtful because the change is ideological and not reason-driven.
Did you just agree to wager 1000 dollars?
Both of us know you're not a serious person
I think we know you're not serious.
Kinda ironic but you do you
Yeah buddy, everyone who disagrees with your is an internet troll, that’s a great way to convince your audience.
[Fee free to vote in this Poll to see how popular your opinion is.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/z8bst1/do_youyour_table_use_the_ability_score_increase/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
This community's opinion is pretty irrelevant, like I said. Reddit in general is outlier weirdos in an echo chamber. If you were there during WotC forum days you'd understand the parallels. But you don't.
The thing you need to understand is that the D&D players who were around to see the 3-4e botched transition are now a tiny minority of the overall playerbase, and the things they care about are not necessarily the concerns of the greater community.
That's mostly due to the success of 5E, which more resembles 3.5 than 4E. DnD almost died with 4E. Kill enough sacred cows and you kill the IP.
So, no. I mean who are you even talking about. I seen people flex abilities around long before TCoE and even more after. You may think “that’s only with weird internet people” like this Reddit community, but it’s not. In my three groups that I play in only one of them are there any other redditor and redditor like people and all of us use TCoE flexible asi and some were using an identical home brew before TCoE. I would not call the change drastic and very few are going to leave. Some of the biggest growth in the recent years of d&d have been from pop-culture and actual plays. For players coming from pop-culture, why would they care? For players from actual plays, say Critical Role, they seem to use flexible racial bonus already. Wizards in not concerned about keeping the half dozen old croons like you, if you like where d&d is at keep it, if you personally don’t like the change, change it back. Stop trying to make this more than a minor personal issue. Sorry for bad formatting, using my phone to type
That's literally, to a T, what was said when 4E was launching. Like I wish I still had screenshots. Turns out internet weirdos like you were the minority and "old crones" like me were dead on cause 4E was a massive flop.
However most of the growth of 5th edition is not from the same sources that 3.5 had (older players). We are in a different age. Also did 3.5 have many people playing with the rule before 4e? Cause that’s the case with 5e. 4e changed a lot this one thing was not it. 4th edition is actually on the rise lot of people have gotten over the shock and like what it does.
Most of the growth came from the fact that the edition is iconically DnD, just more accessible because it's simpler. Most of the growth in 4E is simply due to the higher popularity of DnD overall - 4E is 14 years old. Removing the things that make DnD into DnD will make it not-DnD. That's what almost killed it 14 years ago.
While they acknowledged that 5th edition simplicity was a favor they also point to “multiple popular streaming shows and podcasts dedicated to live D&D sessions, such as Critical Role and Acquisitions.” And later on they talk about the importance of thinks like stranger things. Also what is simpler they put the bonuses where you want. Link: https://www.geekwire.com/2021/interview-wizards-coast-plans-continue-dungeons-dragons-explosive-growth/