ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
What They Don't Tell You About Background Stats - D&D
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 ส.ค. 2022
- Link to Playtest & Survey: www.dndbeyond....
Check out my PDFs! www.mrrhexx.shop/
Support me on Patreon! ► / mrrhexx
Follow me on Twitter! ► / mrrhexx
Business Only Email ► MrRhexxGames@gmail.com
For art submissions, send it here! ► rhexxart@gmail.com
Please make sure you only send art that you have yourself created, and make sure to give me the name you want the piece to be attributed to.
For epic boxed text descriptions of your favorite D&D monsters, locations, or even spells check out dscryb.com/rhexx Sign up with code "rhexx" to get 10% off!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUSIC
The following music was used for this media project:
Music: Music for Manatees by Kevin MacLeod
Free download: filmmusic.io/s...
License (CC BY 4.0): filmmusic.io/s...
Artist website: incompetech.com
I think what they should do, is have a box in the new player's handbook with an optional rule for letting players choose their starting stats. Like what they did in Tashas, but put that on the player's handbook. I would be more than happy with that. That way you keep racial stats while indicating that DMs can allow players to choose their own if the situation warrants it.
I would love to have a druid subclass specifically built for barbarian tribes, so that half orcs, full orcs, goliaths, and any strength based character could use to full cast. That would be swell.
All you need is a +1 in intelligence to be an optimal wizard, so if they designed a half orc that wasn't half human but instead half elf perhaps...then you could have a +1 to int which would allow you to play a half orc wizard. The system works fine, we just need the content for it.
I would love to see a strength or Constitution-based Shaman class.
It seems like the problem is that you have people that want to play d&d in the sense that they want to experience that collective story and love the lore and history.
Then you have people that want to play “d&d” in the sense that they want to sit around role playing with friends. And that is fine, and since d&d has become the face of ttrpgs then I get that they want to play it.
So I’m not sure what the solution is when there are groups that want such drastically different things out of it.
You also have all the people that want d&d streamlined above everything else. So your solution, which sounds good to me, would turn them off.
Honestly, this is most likely a PR move to dodge the bullet of the age-old accusations of promoting the racist idea of racial superiority/eugeny, disguised as a "more flexibility and player choice". You are absolutely right that it is not a matter of race, but a matter of entirely different species, and D&D should have updated their terminology before launching 5e. But now, keeping the same rules but renaming would look like a cover up and not a fix. I would prefer that they did exactly what you suggested, or updated the text to imply that the majority of the species have a +2 here and a +1 there, but you can choose where to place those.
When taking about unusual race/class combos, I'm reminded of the Tumblr post about the Orc Rogue who put all his points into Intimidation. Whenever he waltzes into the room he just shouts "YOU CAN'T SEE GRONK!" and scares everybody into letting him "sneak" past.
I love strong rouges if nothing more than bc conan the barbarian, literally The archeripal barbarian, its more like a rouge than a barbarian if you read through the books
That's some 40k ork logic. That's dope. Their magic works if they think it works. Like yellow means fast etc
@@seanlamneck707 th-cam.com/video/kNjUiDpLvlQ/w-d-xo.html
Sean lamneck im sorry but I can help it. *red
@@sorenbjornson3595 same difference bud. Thx. You know what I meant. 😆
A simple reason why I like the collective fantasy of the Goliath being strong works even when someone makes outlying characters. I made a Warlock Goliath and it worked well because He is unique from the rest of his kind because he is still large, but I made him chunky and cheerful. What I loved about this character is how the world reacted to his strangeness as they all think of goliaths as strong hardy warriors, and they get both confused and disarmed at the prospect of this cheerful tubby.
Okay, but... you can still do that, just as a player you don't have to find a compromise between making a fun and unusual character and making a moderately optimized one.
@@rootyfulBut if each race can always be anything easily, they become less defined, less distinctive. Subverting expectations doesn't work if you can't form expectations; the less mechanical difference each race has, the less "unusual" you can be.
@@rootyful The optimization is literally +1 at most. It only makes a difference to your rolls involving that stat 5% of the time (i.e. you won't even notice in a regular session) and if you're that much of an optimizer, it only affects you at early levels as you race to get the stat maxed anyway.
Goliath is not a good example, its a race created for the stat bonuses, like "we need a STR and CON race"
@@rootyful If you don't want to play a game where races are distinct? Then you're playing the wrong game. These races aren't simply "different types of humans". These are entirely different *_species._*
You're arguing that a lion should have the same stats as a mouse, "because I want it to". No matter how much that doesn't make any sense, no matter how terrible that is for a story. There's a *_reason_* elves are stereotypical and dwarves are as well, no matter what fantasy book you pick up. Because that makes sense. You don't have to re-learn everything about elves when you go from LotR to generic fantasy book number three. Because we have ideas about what elves are. It's a comprehensive fantasy with a cohesive lore. Get over it, or play a game with one species.
The truth is simple - you just want "more points". That's why you don't just shift your stats from character creation, and instead make a problem out of nothing.
I've always introduced character creation as race is what you are, background is what you do, and class is how you do it.
It's likely born of my own biases having started from PathFinder, which I do find kind of over-bloated, but I've never felt like 5e had ENOUGH options. I've always been hoping they would add more options, more rules, more features, but instead I've been watching them phone in and progressively do less, like they're afraid to commit to anything. It's frustrating to get something like Spelljammer where they kind of forgot the actual Spelljamming part.
For me, it feels special to make a character in PathFinder whose race has a -2 Intelligence and then become the most dangerous and intelligent alchemist the world has ever known, BECAUSE THE LIMITATIONS OF MY KIND WILL NOT BE MINE!
That being said, I do like backgrounds coming with Feats. I don't think they should have the Ability Scores in them, but I'm down for the bonus Feats in addition to the quirky background abilities and non-combat starting gear.
I can not express how much I agree to your "Spelljamming is missing in Spelljammer" argument! 😍🤩
When Tashas came out, I did start making my own characters with the optional rules. However I didn’t like that they then started removing racial stats from any races posted since then. I always thought since that shift, that all the new races should have stats written as “suggested stats” for each race, but keeping the main rule to be “you can choose what you want though”. And that to me is a way for to have your cake, and eat it too. Keeping the implied lore behind it, while also letting the players do what they want.
However I’m afraid that they’ve already moved too far away from racial stats now to give suggested racial stats to races anymore, even though they should have done it to begin with after Tashas.
I agree. When they did this I thought back to when I first started playing dnd and if I didn't have those racial stats I would have been so lost. Not to mention I'm terrible at knowing what stats to boost and what not to.
I never understood whats up with removing stuff and replacing it with "do what you want", I mean, wasn´t that always like this? wasn´t the final word always the DM's? have I been playing it wrong for allowing my warlock players to use intelligence instead of charisma? or my criminal player to pick thieves can´t instead of gaming set proficiency?
I do feel like the Customising Your Origin rules in Tasha's were a good compromise.
I _also_ feel like people are freaking out more than they need to over this, since the races still have _plenty_ of mechanical diversity from their various traits.
They never removed the implied lore to begin with. Honestly, a lot of this comes off as complaining for the sake of complaining.
@@RodrigoTakehara This is all because of how politically charged the game's image has become. In 3rd edition all races had a +2 in one stat and -2 in another stat. Half-orcs got -2 Intelligence. There was a huge outcry some years back comparing orcs to certain human ancestries, which makes absolutely no sense, but these people were loud enough that in 5th edition they removed negative modifiers to stats altogether.
Okay, I have a bone to pick with your opening story. None of us actually have friends in real life that is so unrealistic
Shush, you are just jealous. :P
I have been playing with the same people for the past 17 years and we were friends before we started playing even.
What is friend?
Who is friend she sounds really nice
Friend?
@@Elmithian [looks off in the distance] I'd like to investigate Spirit's claim of lifelong friends, since it's clearly an illusion. 🤣
The reason we don't have strength, dexterity and constitution as rule of thumb for casting is because those stats already come with huge in combat advantages, whereas apart from saving throws, Wisdom, Charisma and Intelligence are only used for casting in general as a combat skill. So if you were a constitution caster, your constitution would cover your hp, your con saving throws (not uncommon) and your casting. It's putting far too much weight into a single stat. If you're a Dex caster, you get dexterity saves (very common) high AC, high damage (both melee and ranged) plus powerful magic. From. One. Stat. For flavour it seems fine but mechanically it's extremely overpowered.
That's true, but you left out that str, dex and con are extremely subpar to int, wis and chr for RP situations. Sure, the body stats are strong in combat but the mental stats are the most commonly used at all other times. At almost any table, you will roll perception, insight, nature, religion, history, persuasion or deception substantially more than things like athletics or acrobatics. Body stats (with the exception of stealth and sleight of hand) have very little utility. Anything you need acrobatics for can generally be overcome with a rope, climbing speed or magic. You can't just persuade somebody with a rope... Unless they are into that. The point is, there is not a single skill dependent on con, and only one on str. Dex has 3. Int and chr have 4 each, wis has 5. Those 13 skills are all very frequently used and most are real important. The 4 body skills are used infrequently in most games with the exception of stealth, and most aren't very critical to the game. How often does a failed or successful athletics check alter the course of a game? Way less often than a keen use of persuasion or deception.
@@adangerousnoodle While I totally agree with you, when balancing DnD, they rarely balance for RP reasons, the primary focus of balance is combat, which is why I didn't mention them. Most skills, baring maybe Perception, SoH, Medicine and Stealth have no combat use whatsoever and their combat use is fairly limited.
@@riverlaveau They have never really come close to balancing combat in 5e before. There are always classes that outshine others in combat. A dex caster that follows the general rule of armor proficiency isn't going to have a crazy AC. Even with mage armor and maxed dex, you have 18 ac. That isn't hard to reach. Anyone who owns and wears plate already has that (same for chain + shield, starting equipment), and it doesn't cost them a spell slot like it does for you. The real benefit is the higher initiative, which for a caster is pretty powerful. A con caster gets a beefier hp pool and better concentration checks, but your main stat will pretty much only be useful in saving against poison based attacks, which is already the easiest type of damage to get resistance or immunity to. Your main stat being con or dex already makes you weak to all the debilitating chr and wis save spells that remove you from the fight. 5 out of 7 of the caster classes use wisdom or charisma as their main stats, giving them a much higher chance to save on the truly bad magic. Dex saves help to lessen damage, but being banished is way worse than eating a fireball. It's not as OP as you think. More versatile since they can incorporate weapons, sure... but their cantrips are better since only a couple subclasses of casters can multiattack.
then do it for bad subclasses like purple dragon knight and elemental monk, so they can be still bad, but at least they can be bad at everything without the need to invest on 5 of the 6 stats
You can just balance the class around that though. Say a Con caster only accesses concentration spells, or has to hold concentration on any spell until the end of the round to actually finish casting it.
There's work arounds to this problem.
I think there's actually a deeper reason for why "It sucks to play a meathead race and have a 15 INT as a Wizard", and I learned what it is by trying to create a PHB Dragonborn Life Cleric for my first ever D&D game some few years ago. In short: Unless you're a Fighter, starting with a 15 leaves you unable to reach a score of 20 until *LEVEL 12.*
You generally won't feel like you can start taking feats without your effectiveness and consistency in battle taking a dip until level 15. Just by playing a Dragonborn for your Cleric, you don't feel like you can take feats like War Caster or Resilient (Constitution) until much, much later. Whereas starting off with that 17 means you can comfortably sit with that for an ASI or two before you start bumping it because you will generally still be effective.
In other words: The problem is that feats are either mostly irrelevant (If you're a monk or if you're just looking at niche feats like Dungeon Delver) or they're way too good (PAM/GWM, CBE/SS, many of the Adept feats, War Caster, etc), and no matter what, it competes with your ASI. It just begs us to treat feats and ASIs like an optimization challenge of "Is this feature stronger than decreased accuracy and throughput on my main score" rather than a system for player customization that enhances your effectiveness in primary, secondary, or even tertiary scenarios.
The problem of ASI and feats competing for the same slots was why I found Pathfinder just better to play than 5e. I didn't need to sacrifice regular upgrades to math in order to do new and cool things.
The problem for me with this change is that it makes the species feel too homogeneous, the goliath is as strong and as stealth as a halfling, the dwarf is as graceful as an elf, to me, it makes them feel like its moving to the species be a purely aesthetic choice, and be too 'samey'
And to add to this, I do think that all species being basically just human who can do anything is fine too. I love Elder Scrolls and I love Warcraft. There is nothing wrong with those worlds. But I always loved how in d&d we dealt with completely different species rather than just different variations of human.
To also add to that, not even racial traits matter anymore because with the mixed heritage thing you can basically be a halfling with a breathweapon or a dwarf with the elf traits or so on... Honestly this way of handling mixed races is pretty poor because mixed races both in previous editions (counting 5e as a previous edition now) and 3rd party books always did something special for mixing races that added to the mix... Like how the halfelf and half orc were their own thing and how the critical role books added the dwarf elf and elf orc combinations... Recently found a 3rd party book that dealt on hybrid races... Some of them were weird but the mechanics were amazing (the elf and the orc had a baby i think it was called) and i think they could be built here
So basically, you all want the purity of the races to remain separate and different? God forbid your fantasy (made up) character doesn't stick to the OG material because of genetics. I hear a parallel to the real world coming.
In an effort to appeal to everyone they are racing towards appealing to no one.
Is it me or a comment was erased? o.o?
The truest irony is that the older method of tying Attributes to Race (instead of Backgrounds) makes non-conformists all the more interesting. Say you wanted to try a Goliath Druid... Using Standard Array, you'd get something like:
STR : 10
DEX : 10
CON: 14
INT : 12
WIS : 15
CHA: 14
Nothing spectacular, but no penalty modifiers. He's notably weaker than his peers, but he makes up for it by using his wits; between his superior foraging abilities and affable personality, he's still seen as a contributing member of the tribe. Even moreso as his strange connection to the natural world helped them endure an unusually fierce shift in weather which decimated several nearby clans. Goliaths also know that experienced Druids can take on the forms of powerful beasts, and 'the runt' is on the cusp of gaining that ability (at 2nd level). *Outlander* would be a natural fit for Background, as it grants proficiency in Athletics (fitting for any Goliath, particularly a weaker one) and he's going to stick out when travelling to other lands.
Right off the bat, we've got an exceptionally well-fleshed character from simply going against type. As an adventurer, he might even enjoy taking advantage of other's preconceptions - playing the 'dumb brute' while setting the stage to turn the tables, or intimidating those who believe he's incredibly strong and violent (moreso, thanks to a considerably higher Charisma than most Goliaths).
Absolutely agree with everything you said. I sent in my survey recommendations today. I truly miss the old psionicist class that used different ability scores for it's powers. Shaman would be fun too.
I would like to argue that removing the ability score improvements only weakens the 'collective fantasy', not completely removing it. Orcs still have relentless endurance, powerful build, and adrenaline rush which still convey their strength and brutish nature. Halflings still have their luck and natural stealth. I think these traits contribute more to the collective fantasy than the ability score improvements
I agree. It does weakens it not completely removes it. And I also agree that racial features do more than stats.
I 100% agree. Especially since Tasha's already lets you move stats around as you wish.
Plus the race may be drastically different based on setting. The players handbook is always forgotten realms focused in 5e.
Each change WotC has made over the course of its stweardship over D&D has weakened the collective fantasy.
Third edition removed the racial class retrictions.
Fourth edition removed - or significantly watered down - subraces and variety within a race, as well as blended settings together so they all had the same stuff.
Fifth edition removed any penalties to ability scores based on race.
D&Done removes any modifiers from race at all.
How long before theres no collective fantasy at all
This is a true Based take.
Makes me wish they increased the specialties of race abilities.
I kind of like how pathfinder 2 did it(to my knowledge) where the race gives you a few stats and then your background gives some and your class gives some.
i really like that, it sounds so logical
Classes giving stats is just a better evolution of stat requirements for classes.
But 5e players are soy weenies who whine abt complex systems. Saying this as a 5w player
@@thfkmnIII yeh but pathfinder is just... a bit much. I'm currently playing through Kingmaker on pc and there are some mechanics in there that make me glad I'm playing it on pc, because it would massively drag down combat if done on pen and paper. Anything more complex than a dude who swings a sword can have several different mechanics that all depend on this or that. 5e is a bit dumbed down, but there's a balance to be found between the simplicity of 5e and the 16 different types of AC or how much damage you deal depending on what the enemy ate for breakfast that day if you're a cleric of ramsay in pathfinder.
Works with pathfinder 2, because you can still max your important stats even if you have a negative modifier from your race by taking a voluntary flaw. I wouldn't advise to adapt that for 5e without some heavy homebrew overhaul of the character creation process. I think for a system like 5e the free ability scores are a much better fit as they are easy to understand for beginners.
Finally somebody else said it! I was arguing for some time now about the fact that the initial score you choose or roll and assign to your character represents the way they lived and in comparison the race gives minimal benefits.
Sure a goliath fighter is strong, he got a +2 in strength but that means an average goliath has only 12 strength but the fighter has 18. That means the character trained and raised his strength by 6 points in his life.
Is it not better than folks read the lore of the race rather than looking at the starting stats.
Goliaths can still be strong mountain dudes, dwarves can still be stocky lil dudes who handle alcohol really well. Without tying stats to it
@@feelmypuddle4963 If you tie stats to it then you make the race choice irrelevant mechanically.
Not often you COMPLETELY agree with a video, in both premises and conclusions, but this is one of those rare cases. Bravo, MrRhexx. You gave word to my own thoughts without even knowing it.
I believe the disconnect you are feeling is that the new core character options and player's handbook isn't selling you a world or a collective fantasy at all. It seems to be trying to be more setting agnostic to fit forgotten realms, as well as dragonlance, as well as eberon, as well as kamigawa. They are not making a forgotten realms handbook the way they did in 5e, they are making a D&D rulebook that plugs into any setting.
Your connection of racial stats rolling in both biology and culture is exactly what they seem like they have been trying to unbind for the last few years.
This is a very good point. Just because orcs are relatively strong in the forgotten realms setting doesn’t mean they can’t instead be master scholars in your homebrew setting.
@@garrettc1973 Isn't this just the same point he spent the last part of the vid saying? It seems ppl keep thinking when we say "we want species to give some ASI's based on the species to tell a story about the heritage of these people, both bio and culture" some how get mixed up and now somehow means "This is the way it has to be played by everyone the end" rule 0 is there for everyone, Tasha's already made a variant rule for this for those dms who are too gun shy to make their own rule, and the reverse is a bit taxing as when you have to make too many changes just to convey this collative fantasy feel that got the game where it is today. i agree with the vid background dose already matter more, think we need a flex wizard or a con druid more then watering down species to just be humans with stuff on their face.
@@PiApproximate I sen the issue there is still that you aren’t playing the typical example of your race. By level 1 you already have more hp than a commoner. So yeah maybe in your setting orcs are very strong, but your orc character is meant to be an exceptional character so your race shouldn’t really matter when it comes to what you are good at.
Additionally the original comment was saying those suggested stats are setting specific. Those are suggestions based on the forgotten realms lore, not everyone cares about the forgotten realms lore.
And not every DM uses the tasha’s optional rule… this move just makes everything uniform.
@@garrettc1973 yes but they get 10s 8n every thing and then the asi for being an orc, we as players as the vid pointed out get eather point buy, standard array or rolling to get the ability scores and if so your not a strong orc you would dump str but being a orc you are still stronger then a human that dumped str
@@PiApproximate But are you though? PCs are the exceptions to the rule. Yeah maybe orc in your world has a higher average strength than every human in your world but that shouldn't apply to the PCs because they are the exception. The PCs are not really meant to be a representation of the typical member of the race. So yeah maybe orcs are typically strong but maybe your PC was born different and as such isn't as strong as the typical orc but instead they are very nimble and dexterous.
The issue is you arer assuming the racial standard must be true in all cases without considering the fact that player characters represent exceptions to the standards of the world. You aren't playing Joe who works in the mines 9-5, you are playing Joe who travells the world killing dragons.
The thing that annoys me is you can already play a Goliath or Orc wizard if you want even though they have bonuses that benefit being a warrior more so. If I pay an orc wizard, I want to be known as a great wizard not because I was just a “smart Orc” I want to be known as the wizard that overcame his issues and came out on top. To take away the racial stats just takes away from the fantastic characters that choose to go a different way.
First of all, not everyone wants that. If I play an Orc Wizard I don't want to be always a few steps behind other Wizards. Second, you can do that anyway. If you want people to be shocked by an Orc Wizard, you can talk to the DM and work that out. If you specifically want a stat penalty, you can give yourself one.
Though realistically in a world like e.g. forgotten realms being a highly intelligent orc wizard would indeed bestow your PC some fame being a curio and all even if a mediocre wizard
But this new way doesn’t keep you from being a traditional Orc who overcame a comparative lack of intelligence. It just means not everyone has to (unless they get special permission from their DM) play that same exact type of character if they want to play an orc wizard ever. Now you can have two totally different stat representations of an orc wizard that are now fully represented by the rules!
Not everyone wants to be an orc wizard.
Agreed
Yes yes and yes. Agree 100%. I've been arguing this for days now, and you explained it far better than I could.
I dig the idea of classes using different stats, i really like the idea of and orc sorcerer using Blood magic based on self sacrifice and their own CON to Scar themselves to do magic.
I've been playing since 3.5 and while I admit I like playing the exception, there have always been ways to do this. A halfling raised by orcs is going to spend his youth compensating for his weakness by building strength a normal halfling won't but they'll also be less inclined to hide or sneak.
Precisely
I think that an interesting medium might be taking one ASI from race and one from background. A halfling raised by orcs would probably be less inclined to hide or sneak, yes, but they're also a lot smaller than the orcs and would likely use that to their advantage to dance around larger, less precise foes - you can see how they might still get a +1 to dex. But at the same time, they're going to be expected to function in an orcish society, which in most settings values things like physical power, so it would make sense for that person to spend a lot of time building strength, to fit in with the people of the culture they were raised in, getting that +2 strength ASI.
@@whydidtheychangemyname This makes a lot of sense, but all of this is best set at session 0 in a discussion with the DM. Racial stat modifiers should tell you what the average member of a race (species) is like. Also, keep in mind that a +1 in a stat only really matters half the time, since modifiers go up with every even number.
And I just see that as a vote in favor for background ASI....as you just created a custom background that defines your stats right there.
@@benq7593 did I? Because I feel all of that can be reflected in the Stat build when using point buy or standard or rolling.
Personally, i don't have a problem with racial stats going away, as long as the racial traits take their place. As long as the racial traits are (mostly) unique to the race and support the collective fantasy that they've built. Since Goliath cap out at 20 str like everyone else, is prefer they have some unique features that tie into their strength, that elevate them beyond "weaker" races
I'm the same about this. I don't think in this case a numerical bonus in a system can give this much impression about the lore.
Exactly, I think features such as halfling's being able to walk through anyone or goliath's having the carrying capacity of a large are much more iconic and interesting than a +2 stat bonus.
Agreed. Moving the race stats for backgrounds only results in having more versatility for players to build THEIR caracteres. It doesn't mean that ALL other players, nor NPC's, have to be so "singular" as that individual caracter was meant for.
@@lucassateles8196 the absolute correct tack to take on it imo. It allows individuals to exist
Poor Dragonborne... They could have been so much better. I'll just transmog them for Human Abilities.
I would like to add that the stat attributions only disinsentivises going against type. they do not restrict it. going against type can be very fun. I have played a goliath wizard. with the normal bonuses to strength and con. and had success with him. it affected my spell choices a bit but I was a proper goliath wizard. I was a large imposing physical.. wizard. with all the culture that came with the goliath. now my goliath may not have been optimal. but he was effective and enjoyable. it was still a goliath. and felt like a goliath and wizard. but it felt different from a normal wizard with a different "skin" on it.
this
Exactly.
What a 1 more to a stat does?
Give you a +1 in a roll. That isnt really much.
Aditionally i have seen how SEVERAL other games deal with this and is:
2 modifiers:
-Racial, giving you a little boost in 1 or 2 stats
-Personality/background: this is diferent in tht is a Positive but WITH A NEGATIVE effects too.
For example, Street brawler for someone poor will give boost to strength, constitution, but will cause a minus in inteligence and charism.
Some games even have 2 to 3 personality/story modifiers to make it more complex.
For example, want a WWE profesional brawler of a underground ring.
So would have boost to several stats, but also minus to some.
The result is such that for example strenght gets the same after adition and minuses, constitution a BIG BOOST, charism a boost, wisdm a minur boost or neutral and int/luck a minus.
Keep in mind, some of this also have RESTRICTION to evade minmaxim or give HEAVY penalties to dump stats.
Make me remembr of Disco elysium, if your constitution is SOO LOW you would have a HEART ATTACK just 5 minuts in the game lol
What a game without rules? Nothing because it's meaningless. You can have stats attributions without a book telling a GM they have to do it and if they don't, then you get players who act like the comment section.
You ideas are quite amazing - my first impression was that it is a good idea to give more variety to every race. But the setting defines species in a way and that should reflect in stats, is a amazing point. Realy enjoyed your thoughts!
I would like a middle way: you get one physical stat bonus from your 'race' but your background gives you also a bonus. That way you can present more flexibility in character creation.
I mean Tasha's already let's you swap the stats as you see fit. The lore does not necessarily have to change, since heroes are of exceptions to the rule.
Plus the race may be drastically different based on setting. The players handbook is always forgotten realms focused in 5e.
The custom race is a mistake tbh. I only heard a select few people gushing over it. And they did so because of how horridly broken and easy to abuse those rules were.
@@demoulius1529 I honestly don't see it as any worse than variant human.
@@demoulius1529 meh, i dont see really the problem, narratively doesnt affect at all, your sword coast can still have tough dwarves charismatic elves and stronk orcs and you can take the chance to ask their players how it is that their characters diverged from the norm, and mechanically okay there is room for exploitation, but have you consider just saying no? maybe you are not the DM and someone in the table wants to abuse the rules, just say something and bring it up, may be you are not the only one that doesnt want a group with a OP combo character and the DM was going to let it slip because he thought everyone was okay with it, maybe everyone in the table its okay with it and you just have to make a coffelock or find another group.
or you could just keep playing 5th edition if you dont like it, there are people who still play 3.5 or even 4th.
i dont particularly like both tasha's rules or the new rules but saying they are a mistake its kinda lame
@@Necrotaku999 you say its easily abused and then gloss over it like thats not an issue. That IS the issue. Coupled with the fact that its written in an official rulebook. It basicly gives people who like to abuse broken things an get out of jail free card to do it at every tabke. And what ive experienced at the table only 1 type of players gush all over the racial options. Munchkinners.
Or powergamers if you prefer that term. When the only people who like the option are the ones who are soiling themselves about how broken this racial option is compared to eeverything else, then thats an issue.
Good friend of mine who was a tourney player for 40k glossed over it and commented how outright broken the rules system is when coupled with a dwarf. 2x +2 ASI coupled with all of the other feats? He plainly said if he wouldnt care about RP hed only play that just because of how mechanicly strong it is compared to.....literally everything else. Nothing even comes close to it.
This all said, its only mechanical bonuses. Out of everyone I know he roleplays the most and will do things with his character if it makes sense for the character. Even if it bites him in the ass. But the majority of people looking to get the most out of their race as they can wont think like that. And inter-party strife can defenitly come from 1 player beeing alot more powerfull then the others. Its a recipe for disaster and to allow it as a standard rule is a mistake.
@@demoulius1529 and why its that a problem? its a ttrpg not a videogame, again just talk with the people, there are people who outrigh ban magic classes from their games, and its a totally legitimate way to play, one which i would never even think about trying and i personally despise, but its not a mistake, its their call
and a good dm adapts themself to the players, a session 0 its also a good idea and specially talking about what kind of campaing or adventure its gonna be, i have had incredible fun DMing anima beyond fantasy with homebrew and loose experience to make the players OP countless times, i also have played with lots of DMs in lots of sistems in which we were very underpowered or just normal but we played it well like lost mines
getting excited for having OP options its okay, not liking those rules its okay, but criticising in such a zealous way... i dont know its just such a boomer vibe
the way to go its to talk with all the players and the dm about what kind of game its going to be and what kind of character the others want to build, if the other want to build something that its going to be not very powerfull build a not so stronk character if the game isnt going to be too ruthless, in the case of a deathmarch a minmaxed suppot can be the thing that makes the others PC survive long enough to rp and have fun and even not getting frustrated with the grueling encounters, its just having a decent group and a decent dm
the real problem its jerks and even without exploitable rules they gonna be a burden
I would like to see ASI wise, your Race/Class/Background give an ASI. Let's go Human, humans can get a +1 to any 1 stat. Then you pick wizard, wizard get a +1 to either Int or Wis. Then background wise you pick charlatan, wich gives a +1 to either charisma or Wisdom.
The idea is tendencies with your ASIs. The stuff your biology provides and the stuff you got from your life
I absolutely do love the idea of +1 from race, +1 from class, and +1 from background. That to me feels hella flavorful and showcases what each decision you have made for your character has done to your overall stats.
pathfinder 2 did something similar, and it worked really well
I really like this idea. This feels like a perfect marriage of the two camps and it would reinforce a bit more role-playing when you remember your fighter has a point of Strength because she used to be a city guard or whatever. It also would help to balance against people having too little of their main stat, mostly a newbie training wheels kind of thing but still appreciated.
This idea is better than what WOTC is pitching.I still think racial archetype should guide the direction of the characters and incentive players to play those various archetypes. I mean, people who want to play a dwarf as a human should be free to, but they’re not humans, even if they were raised by them. It’s as simple as that. Give them a region like in 3.5, give them access to regional feats to reflect the culture they grew up in. But let dwarves be hearty.
This is exactly like what I was thinking of as well! The class stat prevents the player from having an underwhelming main ability, (having it at least at 16 if using point buy) and it factors in the influences of both biology and background without making either of them more influential (as opposed to races now, backgrounds in the new rules, or even getting a +2 for one and a +1 for the other, making biology and/or life experiences the sole influence, limiting the players options to certain races or backgrounds)
While I understand the initial hesitancy for background stats > racial stats, I do like where this is going. I initially played in 3.5 and just started back up this last year w/ 5. That said, you are the DM... You could state that dwarves WILL have plus 2 to con and sink the other where ever the player likes. This goes for any race.... However, I do like the idea of a dwarf scholar with int and wis as their primaries. Lore keepers if you will. I could go on, but it really comes down to what the DM will allow.
Yeah, but if you wanted any race to be able to use any stats, you could just homebrew it. It's a lot easier to say, "You can just take whatever," than to explain to every player at any of your tables what each specific race's stats are, or make a table of your own that they have to use to supplement the PHB, which is unnecessarily unwieldy and is really just WotC tossing away a rule and making the DM do all the work, not to mention the added confusion for new players.
I like Rule 0, but please, WotC, I would like more rules than that or I'm going to ask why I'm paying for them.
@@edgegrimmcdeathhate6335 Homebrew will be the way to go in my future games. After further research and the recent activity of WotC, I doubt I will invest in DnD One. There is enough content available that my group and I do not have to change additions. So yeah, I agree that I would need more motivation to change editions.
Really good point on your background being reflected in your original stat allocation
I'm really glad you mentioned your *starting ability scores*, because people seem to forget those even exist when it comes to character creation and what they mean. Its the true meat and potatoes of your character and the bonuses from your species are just nudging them in a direction that's determined by their species' biology. True, they may not always be optimal, but playing optimally isn't the point.
Based on a lot of talk I've seen both for this and 5th edition, plus a ton of guides on races and classes on youtube, it seems that people are very much thinking in terms of min-maxing and playing optimally. Even in this very video it is stated that 'having a +2' in your primary stat just isn't fun. Why? Is it because D&D heavily incentivizes that style of play, or is it because people who play just like to optimize?
@@krinkrin5982 It is because sucking in the main thing your character does just feels shit for a long term campaign
@@geekpeak5052 I believe we have a very different definitions of what 'sucking' means. The standard array has a max value of 15 after all. To me, sucking means failing constantly, not 'not having the highest possible value'.
@@krinkrin5982 If playing optimally is your jam and is fun for you, I'm not gonna stop you.
But to clarify, you're playing a character. You have weaknesses and sometimes you might not be built perfectly to fit your class. Yes a +2 is kinda sucky, but wait till you're level 4 and then boom, you'll get that stat to a +3. Or you may need to seek out an item to improve that deficiency you have, build something to overcome it, find ways around it.
I dunno, I've just looked beyond the numbers on my sheet and as a GM, acknowledge a player whose perhaps not building a character as optimally as they could.
Came across your channel yesterday. I absolutely love the lore of all things D&D. You are by far the best at detailing and explaining not only the lore but the game itself. Thank you and keep up the good work 👍
You should also check out AJ Pickett if you haven't. He details specific monster species and cultures as well as settings. He's one of my top favorites along with Rhexx
@@shade5640 I was going to say the same.
You're making really good points. I feel, however, that an important think to remember is that the PCs and adventures in general are supposed to be an extraordinary case among their folk, so it would make sense that they don't fit completely in their general idea of race.
HOWEVER, I do feel like it is necessary to show some sense of unity about how a race works, and that must reflect the stats. For example, the times I've made HB races or revisions of lineages for my friends, I've used the +2, +1/+1³, but added immediately after: "If you prefer to use predetermined increases, do X" and I add there what the general idea of that creature is good at, because the players should have a choice about if they are or not part of that general idea.
Since WotC is embracing now the idea of the Multiple Worlds and stopping using Toril as the default world I think they should add a recommendation section, like "When you're playing for your world, think about what you know about this race, or determine their general reputation. If the player wants to embrace that idea of their race, choose accordingly with the most fitting abilities"
I think something like that could work well
I like the more customisation personally, I dislike feeling like I need to choose the most optimized race for whatever class I want to take
I was not on board until you pointed out that we already assign stats based on backstory at 16:50. I’m totally on board now!
Same here! That's one thing that's totally overlooked maybe even WotC forgot it..? xD
good luck being any class with only a 15 in its main stat
@@trizmisce The point that was made in the in the video is that you (the player) are already deciding where that 15 goes. If you want more than a 15 in your main stat, you could choose one of the many races that offer a boost to that stat. Simple!
@@cfalkner1012 you want to play a lizardfolk wizard or a tabaxi barbarian that is functional? The solution is simple - Dont!
@@trizmisce its perfectly functional, its just not optimal, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Here, here! I just made this very comment on the One D&D playtest feedback. Fantasy (and sci fi) races are symbols of human aspects, because we are humans telling human stories (unless you have a very strange table). As symbols, they are powerful, archetypal and familiar. I'd be fine with splitting ability scores, or allowing an option for the source (or just choosing), for those who want to play an exceptional individual. But you play a goliath because you want to be have goliath characteristics. You play a dwarf because you want to have dwarf characteristics. And so on.
And the Goliath as presented in Monster's of the Multiverse has Powerful Build and Stone's Endurance, which do far more to make them feel incredibly strong than starting with a 16 strength when the human fighter ALSO starts with a 16 strength.
You can't even say the Goliath can start with a 17 and the human can't, because variant human absolutely can.
The ASIs do not define the races like you think they do.
@@Chaosmancer7 ASI + culture which is why some races should remain unique like Mountain Dwarves having two +2. That's why stripping away cultural uniqueness for a lazy "they all live in the same city" mess is toxic for game imo.
No your just a bigot
-5e player
I think this is what many people don't want anymore. I don't want my halfling sorceror to be a symbol of human aspect, I want it to be a halfling, an independent race with its own lore and customs different from humans. Not a powerful, archetypical and familiar, but strange, brooding and distant in his quest to increase his personal power.
It's such a pity that this change happened only now and not in my playing days.
@@Chaosmancer7 isn't this pointing out that Variant Human literally shouldn't exist?
"some of you may not know that my channel used to be elder scrolls related for like 6 years" just hearing you say 'Elder Scrolls' gave me a nostalgia you can't imagine. Funny thing is that I used to watch and REWATCH all of those lore videos and yet I gravitated towards D&D and being a Dungeon Master all on my own and a couple years later of not watching your channel I come back to a completely new D&D content channel and it just felt right to me... Like I had grown in the exact same direction as your channel 😅
Obviously it's also something of fantasy worldbuilding and that if you enjoy that... Its kind of hard not to come across D&D even more if you come from Elder Scrolls.
And as for the actual topic of the video lol I've always been of the opinion that people love rallying behind a cause but march in the wrong direction. Comparing D&D races to real life "races" is as illogical as comparing a horse to a lion. Both walk on four legs... Doesn't mean they are biologically the same. We need less system improvements and just more content, the system WAS built to be imperfect for DMs and Players to rebuild it together on their table, now we just need inspiration, guidelines, classes that have balanced mechanics, options. That's all.
Of course this is not ALL of D&D's issues but one thing at a time.
To this day, when I hear “Oblivion”, I think “It’s pronounced ‘Oh-BLEE-vion’!” Lol. And you are absolutely right. “People love rallying behind a cause but march in the wrong direction.” That’s good. I like that. As a grouchy old cynic, I’m inclined to add that it’s usually in the direction of a cliff. The concept of fantasy ‘races’ being ‘problematic’ is just inane virtue signaling, at best. If you genuinely think, to use the classic example, “Oh, a horde of violent, uncivilized brutes with pig noses? Hey, that’s just like _____ people”, that is very much a *you* problem, *not* a D&D problem. Honestly... smh...
Your explanation of the standard array being the backstory is great!
And this is one of the reasons why I like your content. Even when you're biassed towards one direction or another, you are well capable of articulating WHY you are. Too often people forget that the reasoning behind an opinion is far more important and influential than the fact you have an opinion. I have an opinion on politics, but it means little to people unless I tell them -why- I have that opinion.
As for the content of the video, as a player I can see the advantages of the changes to the system. Having the ability to make a hyper-intelligent but atrophied orc, or dumbass elf who just happens to be very ANGRY all the time is nice... But you already could to a degree, and I agree that having a consistent overarching story is just as important.
Your reasoning has convinced me to edge towards the existing system for racial stats and I will fill in the feedback form as such.
Keep making the content you do, it's enlightening and super appreciated.
I have a lot of problems with what they're doing to the stats and lore, but right now, i'm more worried about the aftermath of all this. If they're trying to make everything digital and they're taking total control of what can and cannot enter their system, then it means no more third-party content. It means they're going to try and launch a campaign against roll20 because that will be their biggest competition. It means that D&D has a real chance to become an expensive hobby, which is really going to drive people away. I do this instead of other hobbies because it's cheap. If it stops being cheap i have to find something else.
Nah, they make too much money off of Roll20 to shut it down. Who do you think gets paid for all the official material you have to buy there, if you want it all entered into the system for you?
Guys at Fantasy Grounds said they’re not going to be shut out. The owner spoke with someone at WOTC, and they gave them assurances, for whatever that’s worth.
@@jiujitsuguy74 fantasy grounds also charges money to use most of it's features, so i'm not really concerned with them or the guys at virtual tabletop
@@clericofchaos1 yeah, fair point. They’re better insulated whichever way it goes.
@@clericofchaos1 but a virtual tabletop running Unreal Engine 5? That’s going to beat them out and no way around it. It might be a more elite clientele, but it is what it is.
I think the main thing is a term that is being used by WotC more often "setting agnostic". This term is key to understand the current path. Forgotten Realms is no longer the default world, for better or worse. Eberon, Dragonlance and Greyhawk or for that matter the MtG Multiverse all have their own flavor of creatures, as does the handfull of modern homebrews from streamshows and kickstarters are part of the system. So the core will be as "bland" as it can.. Much like the pack of quick noodle's you are supposed to add the flavor. Will it be good or another 4:th ed... Time will tell i guess. But 3 and 3.5 did show us that you can have tooo many subclasses
No. This isn't "every setting having their own flavor" for the races. This is having *_no flavor_* for the races.
There are books I have read where, in this instance, Elvesband Dwarves were enemies, and others where they were the best of friends and couldn't believe that they would have reason to fight.
That is "every setting having it's own flavor". *_This_* is having *_no_* flavor, because we don't dare state that different races might have different inborn talents for fear of being called racist, even when these are not "races" in the human sense, but literally different *_species._*
And we all know that's what this is because this nonsense only exists because of "woke" far left extremists with neon hair screaming and crying about it, saying thisw exact things.
So no, making up BS excuses doesn't change what this actually is.
As for player choice and new classes, i’d like to amend that I strongly feel that they need to go back and add new options for every class at each sub-class feature level much like you see with Hunter Rangers. Things that are thematically similar but mechanically diverse enough to give choices.
Eh, so long as orcs and goiaths are mostly represented as martial characters in the monster statblocks and lore, I don't think players (being the exception) being able to choose their stat allotment harms the fantasy. Adventurers are already not the norm for most cultures.
The arguments being made are never that "My character is the exception" it's that all of them need to be able to be any class and have any ASI. If it was just about PCs being special than the Tasha Optional rule would be enough, more so even since it actually shows the PC is outside the norm by stating the norm and letting the PC choose to go against it.
I heard an interesting option of the race, background, and class all proving a +1 to a score and if WotC still wants people to be able to pick whatever stat they want for the bonuses that it could have a recommended stat or stats for all of the races, backgrounds, and classes like the orc having +1 in Str or Con, the fighter having +1 to Str or Dex, and the Acolyte having +1 to Wis or Int.
Of course that would enable having +3 to a single stat, so starting with an 18 in main stat.
@@Sibula It would depend if it specified that the character could not have a higher bonus than a +2 from that combination of bonuses then a character would not be able to do that. If having a +3 in something is so much of a problem, WotC could have that rule to stop it from happening and they could probably word it bettter then me.
The game I play in, the DM let's us change the casting stat as long as it makes sense for the character. It's been super fun. I've played a knowledge based arcana cleric and a wisdom based bard. It opens up so many opportunity for class and race combos that feel unique or like a different spin on a trope.
That's how it should be. I think the issue was that tables wouldn't allow it if it wasn't codified. After years of saying, "hey, it's your table--do what makes sense to you", WotC had to put it in a book. (And half of fandom complained about that!)
Its funny that you mentioned Warcraft as an example, since i used it as inspiration for a character. Negotiated with my DM to change the racial stats because my orc was crippled at an early age and tolerated only because of his parentage. He was given the role of watching prisoners, and began to learn other languages through them. He started to read the books and scrolls found at the places his tribe pillaged, and became fascinated with the idea of wielding magic not by bloodline or by pleading with the gods, but by his own skill, something he could own of his own merit. He stopped trying to fit in, studying and learning whatever scraps he could, a wizard prodigy as he began to decipher magic with texts and no teachers. At one point he left, sick of how he was treated, looking to practice and find more knowledge and maybe some day get revenge.
They actually have a semi-hidden cut-scene in WOW:Legion where you get to see Gul'Dan's horrible upbringing, due to his crippled nature he was treated badly and eventually kicked out his tribe, before finding his power and eventually becoming the revenge fuelled monster we know and "love" in the game.
I definitely agree. We need more classes/subclasses. And more importantly, to actually go back and fix things. We’ve seen a little of that with the revised ranger and Fizbans dragonborn (even if the latter are once again unequal), but for the most part, no.
I want more classes, but if they are going to be half assed or broken then it’s not worth it.
My issue with his thoughts on more classes is he's acting like adding new classes and subclasses is somehow going to erase the desire to play a class that doesn't benefit from the pre-assigned racial stat boosts. Like, I don't care how many Con or Int based caster classes get made, if I wanna play a fire genasi fathomless warlock, I'm gonna play a fire genasi fathomless warlock. If someone says "I want to use this race for a wizard, but I'll lag behind in stats if I do", you don't say "OH YOU MEANT YOU WANT TO PLAY THIS NEW CLASS THAT'S DISTINCTLY NOT WIZARD, BUT CATERS TO YOUR RACIAL STATS". The player would just go "No, I said what I meant, I wanna specifically play wizard with this specific race, but I'm worried about lagging behind in stats. Are you sure you won't allow Tasha's Customize Your Origin rules?" The best way to help players who feel discouraged (or even prevented) from playing certain classes with certain races is to get rid of the obstacle that makes them feel that way, not give them consolation prize classes.
Don't get me wrong, more new classes and subclasses is always welcome, but not for the specific purpose of ignoring the route of the problem causing a lot of players, myself included, to get seriously irritated at a lack of race/class synergy.
@@jacintacapelety9600 true, but there are always limits to things. Otherwise, what’s someone to say that they want to play a divination wizard, but also be optimized for charging people with a battle axe. Even in classless systems, you would still need to divide your points.
@@dragonturtle2703 All the more reason to favor free-form at-creation stat boosts, cause a build like that would be one heck of a balancing act, and any player aiming for such a build is going to need that extra bit of freedom to make that build viable, especially if playing at a low level.
@@jacintacapelety9600 If they're low level it isn't gonna work unless they're playing a duel class homebrew which can create some insanely epic characters. Yet if you're running off JUST offical junk you're gonna have to make due. Yet to be blunt if a player want to play something bad they can simply find out they can't just RP their way out of falling behind. Since 5E needs some homebrew to run better.
@@jacintacapelety9600 the racial stats objectively aren't a dealbreaker. Players can stop being weenies and organize their ASIs accordingly
It feels like wizards of the coast is veering towards a really loosey goosey approach to fantasies and settings, there’s a pretty serious lack of mechanics for the ships in spelljammer. I don’t mind the optional rules from Tasha’s but removing so much of the cultural and biological tendencies of 5e monsters and races is kind of annoying (except to address some problematic things like the vistani in ravenloft, or drow in the forgotten realms)
“””problematic””” LMAO
Wizards of the Coast knows that 5e is HEAVILY homebrewed and at this point seem to feel like they don't need to churn out much content for it when most groups will fill in the gaps for them to taylor to their individual games
Yeah Spelljammer was really poorly done, they could have basically copied the ship rules from Saltmarsh and it would have been great. Some of the races have this weird thing where by trying to remove culture from race statblocks they just put in more bioessentialism somehow, like the Giff. But I think that's really separate from removing racial ASIs. One is a question of the fundamental design philosophy, the other is just bad mechanics writing.
WoTC removing cultural and biological traits from monsters. Also WoTC, Why do we have a shortage of quality DM's?
exactly how are the Drow problematic? The drow are explained as to why they are evil, they are evil by conditioning, Lolth has them tied by a very thick thread the same way other evil gods keep their followers, by fear. Drow are evil because their culture and whole live is made around an evil bitch spider that will murder you if you do not comply. Drow being evil is explained, the same way orcs being evil and dumb are, or lizardfolk being emotionless and not too intelligent. If it has to do with anything related to IRL racism just because they have dark skin then you can take that out the door, cuz we they are not evil for being "black" they are evil because they sided with the now huge spider deity that was very clearly evil. The black skin came till later.
I remember back when 2e came out and TSR was bowing to whims of fashion and dropped the 1/2 orc as a player option, renamed all the devils and demons and tried to convince the public that everyone was "dudley do-right", no one was bad. So in the name of diversity, we start everyone equal, here are some bonuses that you can put anywhere you want. I like differences, it is the things that make us different that make meeting people interesting.
I have been talking about this issue since playtest started, and i think an option heard by the dungeon dudes sounds nice: your race, background, and class all give a ability boost with each giving you 2 or 3 options to choose from (this assumes the premade backgrounds). I’d suggest a +2 or +1/+1 for each source with the point buy reduced by 2 or pre-made stat block being 14,13,13,12,10,8.
I definitely understand where you are coming from in this video. Initially I thought this was a really bad idea as well. However, I think it can work with refinement. To your point of racial stats giving a shared sense of what a race is, I would argue that the additional racial features define a race more than the ASI bonuses. How many races have +2 STR +1 CON? Sooo many it isn't anything special. How many +2 CHA races are there? Tons. But do you know what actually sets a race apart (besides appearance) racial features. Goliaths having cold resistance and the dmg negation already gives you a sense of their identity as a people - tough af. Lightfoot halflings being able to hide in other characters' spaces gives you the sense that they are easily overlooked. High elves getting a free cantrip speaks to their culture's focus on magic, tieflings getting fire resistance reveals their fiendish past, mountain dwarves having poison resistance and tool profs...etc.
WotC leaning into the subrace and racial features of different species would be far more powerful storytelling than some ASIs. I think some of the races still need subraces which are currently missing from the playtest, like dwarves and halflings, but I assume more is to come as it is refined.
Imo, removing it completely from race is a bad idea. Instead they should have split it, leave the +2 that define the race for the race and associate the +1 with the background. This way, you get both benefit.
I feel it would still really break immersion if you're halfling is naturally stronger than your goliath, in a game you can create a reason for this if you really wanted like *magic* but it shouldn't be a normal thing, for some races their stats are they're racial traits which makes sense if you're just bigger or smaller human
@@someoneindeed I mean, that can still happen??? Firstly, even without rolling if I want to make a halfling barb with 15 starting strength and someone wants to make a Goliath wizard with 8+2 STR that halfling is still naturally stronger. Second, these are rules for players not DMs, certainly DMs might apply them but there is nothing to stop the DM from giving all NPC Goliaths +2 STR on the commoner/guard/etc stat block to show their natural strength over humans. If anything that shows the inate difference of the PC even more.
I have a Goblin Barb PC that started with 20 STR in my game. He rolled 18 and I let the table use Tasha's rules. And guess what it is fine. Hilarious even. The Bard uses his STR as a con because everyone thinks they can beat him in an arm wrestling contest. Even without Tasha's he would have had 18 STR to start and 20 at lvl 4.
Half the fun of D&D is breaking the game.
@@Tourak That's fair. Though perhaps "suggested" +2s would work as well. Like for Goliaths you could have suggested +2 STR, +2 CON, or +2 WIS to help guide players when choosing a race with what the race typically is like. In this case strong, tough, survival based.
This way you have flexibility and something that defines the race as well.
@@nicsnort Yeah but that +2 is the addition of the natural strength, the rest is all based on background like if the halfling has been training their muscles all their life while the goliath was starving somewhere, of course you can choose not to follow the rules but it's atleast helpful for newer people to better understand each species, if it's not written how does a new dm know that goliaths are 2+ stronger, i always thought part of the fun was having to deal with the species natural strengths and weaknesses.
Of course breaking the game is fun but how can you break it if there's nothing to break.
What you have presented here is a fantastic and well thought out argument that has persuaded me quite a bit to change my stance on this. Thank you so much for this!
Ever since Tasha introduced the choose your stats thing, I felt like I had more options as a player to get the set up that I wanted. However, I had never once considered the impact in two areas:
1) Lore and a cohesive fantasy environment that can span across books and other media
2) The new player experience.
These are extremely important to consider when we are talking about longevity of a game and future content.
I remember when I first played D&D in 3.5 and felt completely overwhelmed as a new player trying to set up a character fast enough to not delay the game for other people in the party. Having these racial stats served as an easy guide to help me get started in a world where I knew nothing. It is so easy to forget when you have been playing for over a decade that newcomers do not have the knowledge that you do. I appreciate you reminding me of this fact.
Two more key take aways from the video that I find support this stance even more:
1) If you want to play something other than the prescribed stats, the only thing preventing you from doing so is a conversation with your DM. It really is that simple. Having a baseline in the book doesn't mean that you have to play that way. But it helps majorly for anyone who needs a starting place.
2) The easiest way to expand player choices and print more books is to add new classes. Brilliant! This is, simply put, the smartest idea I have heard in regards to this. I understand that balancing is made harder this way, but they already test things with UA, so I don't see an issue here. I would love to play a Shaman, or a maybe a true Necromancer rather than just flavoring wizards. There are tons of possibilities here and I would be buying books like crazy over this.
Anyway, sorry for the long comment, but I really cannot thank you enough for bringing such a good argument to the table. I was in the apathetic category to this, but I feel that it is more important than ever to voice my opinion now. I will be taking that survey for sure!
Thanks again!
I missed stat penalties from older editions. Dwarfs got a - to cha, because of their stubbornness and wars against orcs, goblins, and giants.
And to keep the penalty from crippling character options have it be a -1.
This was such a well done argument. I've been back and forth on my opinion on this matter. And this video has put it really well and made me think a lot.
I have made characters "off-type" and a lot of the fun has been trying to make it work, despite the optimal stat allocation. And ultimately they end up feeling like pretty powerful builds, as they tend more towards versatility.
Although I will say, I was (and am still) in favour of the move away from negative stats. I just don't think there's a need for mechanics that punish players for making a choice while creating their characters.
Negative stats were to stop overpowered characters or making for scope creep. If you give a race +2 overall, you need to give ALL races +2 overall. But if choosing a +2 stat means a -1 elsewhere, you only have to give an overall +1, or have a +2 stat confer a negative, but a +1/+1 race doesn't. So you choose to take +2 and accept a negative, or you choose a race that doesn't specialise as much and won't be "as powerful", but doesn't HAVE a weakness. New players choose +1 races. Those who already know the game and have already CHOSEN to specialise, choose a +2 in their best stat for the class because they don't plan on using the stat that has -1.
@@markhackett2302 no your just a bigot
I really hate this soft era!
I like racial stats fine, but I agree background matters more.
I feel like nature should be +2, background should be +1 and class should give either a +1 or +2 additionally. This would give more so array and point buy would need to change slightly.
Point buy is kind of average but consistent. Rolling for stats is random but 20s happen.
Really it would make more sense to do away with A.S.I. at first level and just make initial scores a bit better. Let features and tool proficiencies be what defines a race or background. The Stone's Endurance or the Fey Ancestry should be the reason why you choose between a Goliath or an Elf, not which one has the score increase you want
In effect, that's what the playtest material is doing to race options. They're putting ASIs in backgrounds because players would freak out without those three points of adjustment to ability scores, but ignoring that for a moment the races are affected exactly as you describe.
They're also making custom backgrounds the default and the given options mere suggestions, so people are clearly expected to mix and match background-granted proficiencies and ASIs as they like. To get your version, they'd just have to move the ASIs again to be part of the "determine ability scores" section: roll, use, or build your array, assign scores, and add your bonus adjustments.
@@DaraelDraconis Then they NEED to make it so backgrounds aren't one note and ineffective. Or simply gross with how broken it is. Which also goes into the feats if the feats are lame then the backgrounds are gonna suffer. It's a domino effect... No worse it's Jenga, since you can remove only so much before it crashes and simply removing something too fast can ruin the whole thing.
@@ExeErdna have you looked at the relevant UA? They're doing a lot to level out backgrounds. Wealth from background is now always 50 GP, and you get Tasha/MotM-style ASIs (so +2/+1 or 3×+1), two skill proficiencies, one tool proficiency, one language, and they've replaced the variably-applicable features with a first-level feat (because they're putting level requirements on feats now). The language also suggests that players are expected to custom-build a background according to that template by default, and merely have the _option_ of picking up a predefined one instead.
@@DaraelDraconis two skills, 1 lang and tool is weak because it removes agency still. Some people don't want or need a tool. Some should have more langs or skills if they want. I read it and instantly choose to ignore it because it barely solves the problem.
@@ExeErdna if they allowed mixing and matching, that would introduce a lot of power disparity, because in general skill proficiencies are way more potent than tool proficiencies. A mix-and-match two between tool profs and languages could work, though.
Before you stands Aurrenak Truefinder, the remains of an ancient goliath, once a feral and competent warrior, 8 feet tall... is today a pitiful bent figure barely 7 feet tall and forced to by the weight of the years to walk leaning on a cane. However, although the years took away from Aurrenak's physique, they could not cloud his quick mind or dampen his determination to be the most powerful Goliath that ever lived. So as the years passed and he became slower, he also became more determined, he became more determined to find and study the runes carved by the ancients in caves already forgotten... as his strength diminished he became obsessed with unraveling the riddles of the runes .
After copying the last runes of the caves, in a simple rectangular wooden tablet and tying it with leather straps along with the other fifty that already hung from the ring that crowned his staff... he knew then that there was nothing left but the mountain could teach him. He said goodbye to his children, who had long been men, prayed in front of the tomb where his wife rested and began to descend the mountain, entering a new world, with the mission of finding new magic and carving it in the caves of the mountains. .
Respecting the general narrative of the world and the fiction of each race does not depend on where a +1 or +2 is found, but on whether the player is original when creating a background that is plausible for atypical scores and make it clear that he is an exception to the norm. I understand the point, believe me, but I think the answer lies in educating by example and not directly prohibiting. Perhaps an intermediate solution, which helps guide and maintain the general narrative, without penalizing atypical builds in excess, could be something like the following, an example of the Goliath:
+2 flex between constitution and strength granted by race (current +1 and +2)
+1 any granted per background
PS: Sorry for the strange choice of words and grammar, English is not my native language.
God, I remember the arena battle Mr.Rhexx videos. Been subscribed since then and was pleasantly pleased with the shift in content!
As a counter point to this, I find that basing ability score increases on backgrounds make more sense, it comes down to the idea of nature versus nurture, nature still has an aspect, such as tieflings having their infernal heritage or orcs being able to lift one size higher. The ability score increase makes more sense as an aspect of nurture as it ties in to getting ability score increases as you level up, you're nurturing a certain ability of yours. Further this could still work with lore because you can, using maybe a Goliath as an example from the video, a Goliath could be a laborer, a background from the provided list that would make sense in lore as a common background for them, and still have that fantasy, but that wizard Goliath likely wouldn't be as active as the rest of their clan and may be smarter or more cunning. To say that the scores generated via rolling or point buy is enough to say it fits into the back story while also saying that having the background improvement being unnecessary for improvements is a bit counter intuitive. I do think there are issues with with the play test, while it's a lot in context of recent uas, for what it needs to be, it's barebones. Just my thoughts on it.
I wouldn't bring sens in here it doesn't help your case. Let's have a potential strength comparison between someone that is over 7 feet tall, weighing over 300 pounds (so an average Goliath) and another person that is 3 feet tall and 40 pounds (so an average halfling). We are talking full blown gorilla against a chimpanzee in size. You can have the big guy never train a moment of his life and small one being an avid body builder, not getting out of the gym. Small guy still loses every time, there is no way of bridging the gap of someone being over twice as tall and nearly 8 times heavier. It is just an insane difference, like a small kid to a big adult. Weight categories in olimpic weightlifting are differentiated by 15 pounds. There would be over 17 weight classes between them, when olimpic competition recognizes only 10 in total. Big guy would just easily dominate any strength competition and the goliath trait only would somewhat help with lifting. Moving his leg when he's getting out of bed already shifts more mass then halfling weighs in total (as I calculated his leg would be around 60lbs). Just casually leaning against something with that size produces more force then the small guy pushing with all the possible might. It's just physics. I saw a small sample of that in my life, I'm a decently big guy (nowhere near goliath size still) that actually never really trained and I was able to easily throw up a school friend over my shoulder, just playing around on PE. He was was ripped like model and trained every other day. He was just a bit over a head shorter then me (so still way bigger then a halfling). He wasn't able to move me at all even when I did not resist. We are already stretching the suspension of disbelief like crazy allowing Halflings get to 20 strength (or more as barbarians). But ok, we are talking legendary heroes by this point, someone that breaks all the boundaries. Still there is no sens in taking away all of the influence of those scale of differences between species (because I agree it sounds more reasonable to call those species then race).
@@grzegorzlewandowski3859 someone in another comment actually made a great counter point to this kind of claim. The game is chance based, even without these changes, a halfling could still wrestle down a Goliath, hell I've had a wizard player in my game wrestle down a bugbear barbarian purely to prove a point. Mechanically, at the end of the day, everything Still comes down to the roll of a die, and this doesn't change it that much
@@williamnorman8872 And I mentioned about it in the end of the note. We're pushing suspension of disbelief heavily already, as your giving examples yourself. If you have something getting strained, so you go into absurdity it doesn't mean you should push more. Like a platform that is already cracking under tons put on it. You don't add another weight on and argument that there are hundreds there already. Those are part of the reason why you shouldn't. There is a rule in writing: more unbelievable elements you add into the story, the more grounded you must make everything else. It's not universal as all writing rules, but it has it's reasons. It can get harder to create something resonant and believable without sliding into pastiche of itself when you make everything around too implausible. As video mentioned bonuses now reinforce kinds of archetypes on characters. Usually Goliat will be big and strong and halfling will be agile and sneaky. It is bad because it limits effective character building choices and can get boring. Good that they are working on that problem, as it is a big one for the game, but this fix is simply creates more problems. So far those small bonuses limit some unintentionally silly teams with Halfling barbarian (str18) and wizard goliath (str 10) where halfling is obviously doing all the strength stuff. You can have that already, I allowed wild magic barbarian halfling at my table explained with the accident that caused the whole magic rage. With that change you will see it way more, often without taking the time to explain how. It will be less of an interesting exception and more of the norm, weakening fiction of the game more. Some people like their D&D silly and wacky, good for them, but I don't, I prefer it dramatic and epic and the game is slowly loosing me on those choices.
@@grzegorzlewandowski3859 there are still certain restrictions on those smaller races, they can't carry as much weight nor can they use heavy weapons. You won't see an 18 strength halfing carrying the same weight as an 18 strength Goliath. As it stood people were already doing this kind of thing pre Tasha, post Tasha it makes more sense to tie it to a background because by the rules of Tasha a halfing with plus 2 to strength means they had the bonus strength because they were a halfling, versus now having it because they have the training as a gladiator. Another problem with this video is that it doesn't go into how this makes backgrounds matter, most players treat their class and their race as their background and that's it, when it's the kind of thing that needs a bigger role in the character players will need to think more about how their character grew up and move past stereotypes of classes. This also goes hand in hand with the new lore they established, tieflings are no longer ostracized because of how many Tiefling players performed heroic deeds, as more variation becomes common there will be similar adaptations for all races.
@William Norman Other words for more variation here would be lesser diversification among races. They are on the path of making all races looking a bit more samy, unified. No races any longer are having any juicy in build themes, like ostricisation, or being treated as slaves, or having their god pushing them to bloodshed. Nothing with dramatic potential, or any edge to it. It's just taking away lore without giving something else for it. Tieflings are losing a part of their lore, being oppressed without a fault of their own. Which was actually why a lot of players I know picked them in the first place, as it's a popular choice for a brooding badass hurt by the world, which is pretty fun to play. What are they getting instead? As far as I know nothing, as that's what we're getting from lore now. less interesting things to inspire players. It's nice to say you have a lot of possibilities, but limitations, hooks, themes and frameworks simply add to creativity in a major way. Agreed that backgrounds are a great addition to 5e and would benefit from being built up more. Maybe take a hint from attribute generation of pathfinder 2e, where every step contributes to the attributes? Race would add few features, background would add some skills and little flavorful ability (which wizards seem to be moving away from, but I think they were fun). Starting feat is a big boost and a great idea, that actualy already makes background an important building block of a character. I already gave those in my games regularly for years and it adds a lot. As to carrying most people ignore those rules entirely either way, as calculating it is clunky and annoying bookkeeping ending up with still easily carrying anything you could possibly want either way. Characters are mules by default and then a bag of holding is a very popular item that most groups get. There isn't that much dramatic potential in carrying more. Even mentioned Halfling with 18 str could carry 270 pounds, nearly 7 times their weight, making ants proud. Why in all gods of Fearun would you ever need to carry more than THAT? You could have your own small-ish bear and just carry it around... somehow. Moving bonuses from Tasha rules, to background is better, but still not even close to what I would call good.
immersion breaking, I think every race would have exceptions but building a wrestler halfling tackling giants really kills the Roleplay element.
I am now going to roleplay a halfling that spent his entire life getting absolutely YOKED and becoming the one of the strongest humanoids to ever live, just to spite you
You can still do that even with the old rules though. So your point is kinda invalid?
Mmm... fair point. However, counterpoint: Honey Badgers. Small creatures need not equate to small, weak, and nimble, and I could absolutely envision a Halfling going on a rage-filled rampage. Even built a Path of the Beast Halfling based on a Wolverine, and no one in my group even batted an eye because "Tiny ball of condensed rage and fury" is in and of itself a fun archtype, and is not intrinsically tied to the stereotypes of a Halfling. If you think any of this broke the roleplaying element for me or any of the wonderful players I'm playing with on a regular basis... I think you may need to re-define what you think the roleplaying element is, and maybe understand that just because you might not think of something as an interesting or fun concept, does not inherently mean others can't take that same concept and run with it to great success.
People literally do this using the old rules though?
@@Korica its true but just giving a example
I love your content, have done for a long time. So it is with the greatest respect that I say, a lot of your arguments and the solutions you are proposing fall flat for me. I may put out my own video on the subject in the near future, but the gist of my arguments would be:
-The strongest member of any given race can and likely will far outperform the "typical member" of another. I understand that the typical member of a race will have a certain distribution of stats. But those rules apply to the general population or the monsters, NOT the player characters who are heroic examples of their race.
-Because of game balance, the final max anyone can get in their ability score is a 20, irrespective of their starting race. So if the end point is ultimately the same, then why restrict where players start as that seems unnecessarily punishing.
-You are looking at only one set of attributes which contribute to what players receive from racial options. Perhaps ASI was a bigger portion of the racial features in the past. But in the current game there are a lot of other features of a race which also inform the collective fantasy. Goliaths have resistance to cold and can shrug off damage, portraying their resilience. They have large builds so can carry more. Same with halflings, who have nimbleness to move past creatures and have stealth proficiency. The fantasy can be effectively conveyed in the races without limiting character options through ability scores. And these attributes DO inform class choices. A goliath is going to be a better melee fighter because they are more resilient. A halfling is going to be a better rogue because of their features. Players KNOW when they are playing against type because the lore and abilities inform them of what the typical example of those races are.
-Because of the above, pre-determined ability scores only serve to put points in places that players may not agree. Maybe they want to be a clumsy example of a halfling. Maybe they want to be a sickly or weak example of a Goliath. And they may have reasons for this. But by forcing them to keep the ability scores as suggested they are punished for wanting to mix and match their race and class when nothing in the rules prevents them from making these self-harming choices.
-Finally your point regarding giving more class options. In my experience of game design and homebrew creation, I can say with certainty that by including more class options the D&D game will drift closer to the overpowered player character choices offered in earlier additions. Each and every new class has to be weighed up very carefully to maintain game balance. Now, some of this can be alleviated by putting in multiclass restrictions (do not mix and match such and such classes), but this introduces complexities to the game which are perhaps not needed.
-Sub-classes on the other hand I can see more reason for, because they are locked behind the class then it's easier to maintain that balance. However the difficulty is that as sub classes provide more of the fantasy characters encounter in other classes, the niches those classes each fill will blur. Consequently you introduce significant overlap in the class experiences which will lead to problems between players at the table. Class niches help to maintain a good party balance and prevent two separate players competing for a particular party role. I think there's some opportunity to improve sub-class options appealing to certain ability score spreads, but they can't drift too far from the core class experience for these reasons.
aaaand that basically turned into the bones for a script for my video... whoops. Once again, I love your videos and your content and I look forward to the next one!
I agree with this so much. you covered all the criticisms i felt while listening to the video.
@@Kaemdar Thanks, I really appreciate hearing that! I've been reviewing the new playtest material on my channel and before now I didn't think I needed to cover the new ability score increases since I thought the d&d community were mostly united behind that change. But apparently not it seems!
I initially wrote quite the long reply, but in the end it all boils to this:
What is in the player handbook should be the lore accurate representation of the races in the world. Of course players can make whatever they want, and that should be addressed in the book with an alternate system as well, but losing these stat changes is a slight hit to the fantasy of the world that Wizards made.
At the end of the day, this is a world of magic, so anyone could realistically achieve any stats. While it would be strange for a non magically enhanced halfling to be stronger than a Goliath, yet also unable to carry as much weight because they lack a passive trait, it is still a thing that can occur later in the campaign anyway.
People should be allowed to play whatever they want, no matter how game beaking it would be to be able to cherry pick stats and traits, because once you sit down, you're in a world *you* made. With that said, Wizards need to not lose respect for one *they* made
@@randomcatname7792 I still fail to see that the collective lore loses anything by representing the differences through features rather than ASIs. If ASIs were all that were informing differences between races, you might have a point.
There was something like that in AD&D supplements. I wanted to play a troll sorcerer that used strength to cast, and there was a feat for it. My reasoning was that if my guy ate enough people with magic abilities, why would he not gain that power, or change at all? DM said no.
Yeah, something like that happened here as well. Basically a lot of unusual combinations that would be lore friendly, were at the mercy of DM and the rest of your group. I seriously hated that and always wanted more freedom.
i feel pathfinder does the race and class idea better, since most races get a bonus to a mental and a physical stat that are both +2, in return for a -2 penalty to a single ability score, which not only builds the race better lore wise in showing what the race is good and bad at, but they also have archetypes that are either for specific races that wouldn't normally play them and make it better for that race, or can change things in a way that makes it so so much better for say, a dwarf to play a wizard or a halfling to be a barbarian. Its honestly why me and my group switched to the system, they balance things out in a way that even suboptimal race and class combinations can be made to be at least function enough to keep up with the rest of the party, and if you have an idea for a character chances are you can make it in pathfinder, while in 5e half the time you need to use more homebrew than canon rules and mechanics for players and the DM to make things work. Which sure that isn't a bad thing for some groups, but pathfinder lets you do more with the actual system to where you dont need to make 80% of your mechanics homebrew just to make it work for everyone in the group.
They even do the whole stats tied to backgrounds better too in PF2e. I know in Pathfinder 2e you get stats tied to race/ancestry and background. You can literally be an orc wizard that's extremely buff or even an intelligent barbarian.
Just going to say that I agree completely. Taking away from the "collective fantasy" runs the risk of making the game and its lore a lot more generic. Fantasy is easy to make; making fantasy uniquely enjoyable is damn hard.
Which is why personally I cringed at seeing sign language added into the new stuff. For me it's like Candlekeep introducing wheelchair-accessible dungeons. Let alone that dungeons are supposed to be inhospitable towards everyone, but it severely limits creativity. Like for example, if you were so adamant in wanting to not be able to walk, you could flavor your walking with magic to have an innate minor levitation, or hire an artificer to make you a walking chair/suit. Hell, you could even have it so your PC is technically two, with a brutish race (like Orc, Minotaur, or even an Ogre) carries you around while you're giving out directions.
@@maxxor-overworldhero6730 The only sign language I've personally seen in D&D is using bird calls and hand signals to coordinate an ambush or a sneak attack or something along those lines. But it sounds like you are referring to like ASL. If that is the case, I think that is a strange fix for a problem in a world of magic.
A smarter way would be to give stat bonuses (and penalties) for race, class, background, and training.
If you're playing a half-orc wizard you would have...
Race (Half-Orc): +2 strength, +1 constitution, -1 intelligence.
Class (Wizard): +2 intelligence
Background (Orphan): +1 Charisma
Training (Student): +2 intelligence
You'd still be a worse wizard than a gnome, elf, human, or tiefling, but you'd now have a playable wizard by giving your hero the right build. Best of both worlds.
@@daniell1483 That's exactly what I'm referring to; they're calling it Common Sign Language.
There’s other things that add to that fantasy besides racial bonuses, and it’s not like the races don’t have things that make them unique.
Vanilla Dungeon Master's Guide had options for custom races with custom stat bonuses and features. It was popularized later in Tasha's.
Gotta say, you make a great point about initial stat allocation being representative of backstory elements. Rock on
i'm a 3.5 forever DM, to i like the neg aspects that come with each race, it really seem like they took the flaws(feat) and reworking them into the new edition.
This is a solid argument, and I do like the idea of adding new classes and subclasses to allow for players to fill the role (martial, caster, etc) they want to in a way that leans into the lore of the world and its mechanics rather than forcing the player to work around them.
But I think there's a distinction being overlooked here between D&D as a high fantasy role playing platform, and Faerun as a campaign setting. I think part of what wotc is trying to do with oneD&D is try to make those two things less tightly coupled, so that it's easier to play a D&D-style game using this system in a setting that doesn't have to align with the tropes and assumptions of Faerun; it opens the play space up to a much wider breadth of ideas and stories, which I for one am excited for.
P.S. long time fan of the channel, always look forward to new videos ☺
Yeah if they want to take the PHB into a more general way, then it would make sense why they are doing this. I just hope it doesn't cause too much conflict with their other content.
Exactly this.
But scrolling through the comments here, most players seem to think it will be impossible to play typical races/characters according to the fantasy setting. I really dont want to use that term, but there are a LOT of gatekeepers in this comment section...
@@Randleray I think it will make new DM more confuse since tropes are there for a reason. You can say it allowed people to create any world they want, but players will act base on tropes unless every time we play we have to read all the DM notes about his/her world. This just make things more confusing.
@@ninjadejedi Sorry, but I still dont see the problem with what you say in regards to the new system.
With One DND you still can very well play the well known tropes. What the new system enhances is the part where DMs are good to go and create just new worlds from the get go without having to homwbrew first to fit certain parts within char creation... As I said before, the new system does not take away anything but 2-3 points of ASI for the first 3 lvls. After lvl 5 latest the differences between the party in terms of Sats get very small - if you dont play with a bunch of min-maxer...
@@Randleray They're not gatekeeping anything the fact these changes need to happen doesn't prove that future players will be happy either. Yet if it's making current players unhappy that's a problem. That's a paradox either work with people that cared for decades, or appeal to people that never cared and might not even stay. The problem is some players want to do too much and don't know how to limit themselves. Like they min/max the V-Human crossbowman battlemaster. Or they want to play a Gnome Wiz with high str for the lulz. Both can be problematic to the players around them and the DM.
Basically to make "faerun" some blank sheet of paper is ironic since they're gonna have to build a culture for people to interact with and newer DM's and players NEED structure until they get comfortable with systems. New people getting into One are not gonna have a Critical Role experience. They need years before that happens.
pathfinder had a book where each race had a special sub class unique to that race and I loved it.
What I like in PF2e is that the Rogues get to change their key ability depending on their subclass. Either Dex, Str, Int or Cha. They are also other classes that works like but to a lesser extent.
Also every stats starts at 10 and your initial ability increases not only from your background but also from your race (most of the time half of that increase is chosen freely but it also comes with a malus) AND your class.
Well worded, well reasoned, well done. This is a valuable contribution to the overall discussion.
I've been longing for a shaman class too! Shaman and witch are two big fantasy archetypes that are really missing from D&D. You can kind of find ways to make them work with multiclassing and choosing the right subclass, but nothing feels quite right.
There's many classes that dnd doesn't have like alchemist for example or classes that have different functions like commander class that can give out different buffs to teams or make rts like elements a class trait, or maybe a handiman that doesnt neccecarlly fit in to a fighter category and more of a roleplay focused class that helps out team by carrying extra items, polishing or fixing their weapons, helping out wizzards by chanting spells to increase casting speed or multicast, making duets with a bard for increased efficincy and the party generarly figuring out the right time and place to use and receive his needs and keep him/her safe as he is an important member( this class is based on a manga called handyman saito, i suggest everyone to check it out)
Yeah, I've been wanting a Witch class for so long too
What do you mean by a witch class? Isn't that technically the warlock? I mean, the word "warlock" is often used to describe a male witch, and the Fiend parton is almost exactly what people thought witches were during real life witch hunts.
@@TheHornedKing Warlock is certainly the closest to what I want. But my idea of a witch would combine the healing magic of the celestial patron, the ritual focus of the tome pact, the familiar of the chain pact, and a bit of potion brewing as well. They also probably wouldn't be much of a blaster so removing eldritch blast and the hadar spells in favor for more information gathering spells. That's what I imagine the base class being like.
Shaman was a class back in 4e (players handbook 2 if I recall) and Witch was an option for Wizards in Heroes of the Feywild.
Honestly, everything you guys are wanting was published as a class/build back in 4e. It's crazy how much 5e stripped from the game and never put back in.
Thank you Rhexx. You just said exactly what I think and was unable to express. I can't agree more with your point.
(I started watching you channel with the Skyrim Loreplay lol)
+5 +4 +3 +2 -2 to whatever you want and +2 +1 race bonus is a better way to build your character stats, it is simpler and let people see how much or how little your race changes about your life.
That's spicy! yet does that mean they only pick up feats on those select levels instead of upping stats?
I loved this video. It expressed what I was feeling about these changes but could not find the words for.
The thing with me is that sometimes I like having characters that have a little bit of a handicap. I use standard array I put my highest that in the desired stat. In fact I made a goliath bard. Long story short he saw very nimble halfling take down an opponent larger than him using primarily acrobatics and sword skill and wanted to learn. He kept his base 2 in strength which ultimately gave him the stat of 10 because I use Standard array because I also thought you know being raised to Goliath he’s gonna have a base amount of strength he’s just putting more into being more dexterous. Yes he may not have been perfectly built compared to the rest of the party but I still loved him. I wish to play him again in the future.
Aye, "I want extra classes" is just an "I want the BEST", removing the effects of choosing from the game. The Paladin example wasn't "I want the BEST cleric", the spells didn't depend on Wisdom, so you could be "All right as a Cleric" and still have good spells, just not as many as if you were casting from STR for the same spells. The paladin, after all, COULD have their spell stat based on STR and therefore be "the best cleric" too. Keeping the wisdom stat as the source of casting but allowing SPELLS to be better with Strength or Constitution or some other stat, or none at all, makes the CHOICE to be a Paladin rather than a Fighter/Cleric dual class have an effect. And it didn't require a change to either racial bonuses or spellcasting class source.
Fold paladin into cleric, fold ranger into druid. Increase cleric or druid spell repertoire, allowing paladins to choose spells that don't depend on Wisdom score, but also allowing non-Wisdom build races to be "Cleric" without needing a new class for them.
I'm currently playing a Tiefling Rune-Knight. So my strength isn't on par with the Barbarian or Blood Hunter but I have the second highest Charisma after the Warlock.
My own thoughts align pretty closely... One thing to consider: the reason certain stats are seemingly "locked" from casting is to mitigate the risk of imbalanced mono-stat builds.
My own suggestion is to keep racial modifiers, but add optional background modifiers - each background giving a +1 and -1, with the caveat that the background modifier can't increase the base stats (including racial modifiers) beyond 16. This would give that extra nudge for power players that can bring a character up to even footing with races that have preferable ability modifiers.
For my own table, however, I don't do anything like that. A single ability score modifier bonus is not that big a deal with how DCs scale. I make an insane amount of homebrew options available at my tables, having adapted every single playable race option from past editions for 5e (including cleanup of 5e race options), so my players are spoiled for choice as it is. (That said, I'm still doing some playtesting and balancing of things, so I'm not ready to share it all just yet, but perhaps once Wizards has moved on to their next edition I'll release it.)
Mono-stat builds already exist. It's called full casters, MAD is basically what really holds back the Ranger, Monk, and to a lesser extent the Barbarian. Paladin only escapes it because it can just ignore it's casting stat by focusing on Smiting.
Meh for almost forty years Ive basically let my players chose their method for stats. But I generously have my method for what I call "your fave character in a novel" rolling. 6d4 any ones reroll. Makes superheroes everytime. Players love it and I just up the challenges. Easy peasy. No complaints multiple editions and games(rifts DnD ,pathfinder etc etc). Shrug... If your DM is shit it's going to suck. Stats are quite literally less than 1% of the game. Ppl want to be powerful. Pretty normal human desire. Just let em have it. To be honest even back in 2nd edition we had rules for zeroing out plus/minus from races. Krynn taladas expansion set... And many others. This is an old ass rule heh.
(on edit sorry to disappoint rhexx but they've never had cohesion between supplements in any edition. Not once... Sorry guys. Been around since Gary ,it's always been a clusterfuck.)
One hand makes sense. One would think a Dwarven king or member of the royal family raised by a generation of royalty would be quite diplomatic (higher Charisma or intellectual) vs one that stays in the mines digging for ores.
Then again taking key traits away that are inate to a set race takes away some of their specialties as a race as a whole.
On the orcs bit, then you have the differnt settings. Orc in most settings, what most of us think of. Eboron: some of the nicest people you will ever meet
Well, back ground stats really come into play with a good DM. Much of it comes down to creativity. Considering the Tiefling, most places in Faerun do not react well to them. For me I still use the old +\- system. Trade offs. Dwarves are strong and tough but tend to be jerks. Getting rid of what makes the different races different…. Well then everyone is just an exotic looking version of each other. The idea of certain races just being better at some things than each other is part of what makes D&D what it is.
This comes back to the general disrespect for what came before. Cannon is a good thing. It gives us a firm bedrock to stand on. Personally I think they have gone way to willy nilly with spell casting. It used to be one had to have enough lore to attune magic items.
Disrespect for _which_ thing that came before? _Which_ cannon?
Forgotten Realms? Greyhawk? Dragonlance? Dark Sun? Spelljammer? Planescape? Ravenloft? Eberron? Ravnica?
Each and every one is different and unique, with its own takes on the races.
Loads of people are saying this is getting rid of what makes the different races different, but I just don't agree: if they were removing racial _traits_ that might be the case, but those are sticking around and frankly have _way_ more variety to them than can be represented by a mere total +3 across six numerical scores.
In D&D compendium (not AD&D basis, based on the original blue book D&D), I remove ranks for non-human demi races, and then add power to 1st Level Elf/Dwarf/Halfling plus some reason to still "advance". This means an Elf is "Wizard and Fighter", and OP at 1st level, with the human who CHOSE Wizard beating the Elf at name level and getting ahead, it means that a Dwarf is "fighter with fighter", so OP at first level, with the human who chose a fighter beating the Dwarf at name level, and Halfling "Thief and Fighter", with it being OP at 1st level, but a human who CHOSE thief beating them at being a thief at name level. This makes a low level expectation from players decide to play mostly demihumans, but it still has the triune and they only choose Human if they want to be the party medic. But if they want it to keep going past mid level Expert, they might choose humans for the role, being more flexible, or expecting the same character to survive to name level and beyond. But, since there is a benefit to being a demihuman above name level, it still has a point afterward. E.g. Halflings in my campaign, get a 5% chance of avoiding ALL hostile magic, negating it for them, and at VERY high levels, that chance goes to 10% then 15%, and a 15% is not able to be relied on, but it IS powerful. Dwarves get to ignore magic, CON bonus levels, if it kills them, and high level dwarves get natural damage reduction and AC bonuses at very high levels because of their affinity to stone (and those bonuses help them as a fighter), and Elves get a lot of bonus spells, just none above 7th level, but they DO get bonus spell like powers at higher levels that can be used in melee without causing problems, unlike spells.
The powers are a reason to PLAY a high level demihuman and help them in their role assigned, it is just that humans CAN out-power them at high levels, and that persuit of raw power is why humans RISK low level play where they are vastly worse, but still "own the planet".
Stat increases being able to go anywhere has already been printed. It's part of customizing your origin. One part of it is that you can change your stat increases to anywhere you'd like them.
Personally I really like this, as I used to confine the races and classes who's stat increases are helpful. But now I can change it so that the stat increases are always helpful or if I don't want it that way, increase the traditionally stats.
Yeah I found that quite odd too. It seems like Rhexx hasn't been playing since like, before Xanathar's. He seems to ignore any developments in the last few years, both in the games themselves and in the wider community.
What I suggested in the survey is that they give sidenotes for the races that inform the players on how to build the traditional forgotten realms races. For example, the typical rock gnome would have the crafter background with some specific stat bonuses. Removing the racial stats completely does dissociate it greatly from any known setting.
It is indeed a content problem. However, it is important to remember that the "collective fantasy" is really based on a single setting; In Eberron, for example, there is a whole orc civilizations with spiritual traditions, that play an important role in protecting the world through some of the most ancient druidic magic in Khorvaire... and yet you can hardly get the correct bonuses to play one effectively as an Orc, even with the standard array. Also, the more meaningful racial traits are maintained and enhanced in the new version... with simple sidenotes, as mentionned, teh change would be a superb win-win scenario.
I have changed backgrounds in my game to give you another +2 and +1 and have lowered my standard array by 3 respectively. It has a slight scaling problem but I have been dming for 35+ years since 2nd edition. It gives my players the ability to have an 18 at lvl 1 but that is just an adjustment of +1 or roughly a 5% increase in chance.
Mr Rhexx, I appreciate the time and research you do to bring the lore full about. I use your videos to refresh myself on the history from all the editions. I have worked on my world for 20+ years and am constantly changing with the editions but fighting to keep the old mythos. Thank you for doing what you do and doing in such a clear concise and educated manner.
As much as I do love the freedom of it, I do feel like it does make races less distinct.
This is especially important in an era where we are seeing alien species, fantasy races, and even just people of different things like cultures and time periods, are being turned into just normal modern, urban, middle class humans in cosplay, rather than distinct people.
I think the main point of even having a playabke race is that an adventurer is the exception to the rule. Generally a race will have certain bonuses which will be present in monster stat blocks. The adventurer PC is an anomoly. The NPC's and the masses dont use the same rules as what you find for character creation
5:41
I know I may be an outlier here, but what me, my friends, and many other friendly dms allow us to move our race stats around if we have a good reason for it and for an in-game reason.
I played a Goliath Artificer who was born weaker than the others. But to make up for it, he used his smarts to make inventions and eventually harnessed how to make magic. Now instead of being a hunter/strong fighter for his tribe, he is more of a wise advisor that also comes up with plans/tactics.
I've even had him forget who he was and try to find his tribe, confused as to why most of them weren't as smart as him.
We find it allows for more variety without worrying about the stats races give you, but use those stats as the norm for most of the races/their lore. We think of these individuals as outliers of their race, but that also allows for funny moments as players, for npcs, or even for the players if they meet an npc that's a tad bit out of the ordinary
I agree with what you said MrRhexxx and also love the idea on how you build a character with your stats and background. Love your videos, keep up the good work
The joke is "Don't hit me, I'm a mage! I have, like, 1 hp total!"
It sounds like Wizards of the Coast are looking to streamline the races for more flexibility, I can see this appealing to someone new to the world who wants to play an Elf Berserker lets say. It does flatten it though because now there are no differences, it's the little ups and downs that make the world.
That joke has never been true for 5e though. Any Wizard who isn't intentionally building poorly will have high Con, probably ResCon and/or Warcaster, and maybe an armor dip for better AC than the martials.
@@epicazeroth + the spell "Mage Armor"
well, goliaths still have traits that make them functionally stronger than other races. if their Powerful Build trait stays with these new rules, then a 8 str goliath wizard would be able too push/drag/lift (pdl) 480 pounds. you would need to be a a 16 str char in any other phb race to be able to do this. anothe way of putting this: a barbarian without the PB trait is able to pdl at most 720 pounds (24 str); a goliath only needs a 12 str to do the exact same thing.
It doesnt make them functionally stronger than other races, it only makes them a really crappy version of a large creature that can squeeze through small spaces but has no combat benefits in exchange (no treatment as large for grapple, shove and swallow/trample special attacks and checks, no ability to use heavy and/or oversized weapons, not even the ability to jump better). A 8 str goliath wizard still gets outgrappled and pushed around on average by a commoner tasha kobolds tiny noodle arms.
And hell the carry capacity doesnt even come into play for non-heavy armor characters by 5e default rules/unless the table uses variant encumbrance (doubly so if because wizard has tensers disk and with full default gear and 2 treasure hoards of cash that aint pure copper evenly divided by the party can still carry the non-euclidean 1/4ths filled PHB barrel).
@@ANDELE3025 yea, it's just a flavor trait. if you want to make it stronger in combat, choose asi's, class and skills around that. i was talking about the rp section of the game, and responding to the whole question raised around there being nothing in goliath that represented them being a almost large race.
@@bernardofabrica But thats the point, it doesnt represent them as the large race. It gives the character a very shitty haversack without any of the fantasy of being the "almost half-giants but not".
@@ANDELE3025 if the weakest member of your race is able to carry as much as one of the top percentiles of another races, i think that says a lot. might not be able to use a sword as good, but being strong is not enough for that, you still need some training, some background in that.
@@bernardofabrica Untrue. The weakest living goliath has 10% the non-class based strength of other races strongest members.
And according to tashas the same arm strength as any gnome or kobold or fairy.
I couldn’t agree more with what you said about collective fantasy being drastically harmed by removing racial stats. I loved your example about Bryan. You are so right. Your next T-shirt needs to be a “Remember Bryan!” T-shirt. I am going right to the survey.
There is nothing wrong with having a lower than average bonus to your stats. It adds so much more in flavor in return. That moment when the bad guy is expecting a twig of a high elf wizard and the goliath wizard walks in using his staff to smash the totem creating an antimagic field is a reward all its own. You are trading single focus for a more split utility benefit where you have lower highs, but higher lows.
I''m all for it. D&D has basically always been at war with itself, being half somewhat engaging storytelling and creativity, and half min-maxing and treating the majority of creatures in this case and creative world as bags of experience points. I hate the idea of how every single creature of a species, no matter how vast, ancient, widespread and intelligent they are behave exactly the same, except for humans inexplicably.
Anything that encourages players to take the road less travelled and not just follow the usual metas is a good thing in my book. Sure, it might not be logical that a halfling can be as physically strong as a goliath, but it's not as though a couple points of stat modifier made a real difference. A goliath can easily roll low for strength or hit points, and the halfling in the party might do the opposite. It's a small price to pay to let the creatures of the world actually be people with their own ideas and agency, rather than collections of occasionally subverted cliches.
Yes! is it subversion if everything is subverted? No, it becomes an expectation making every "race" a welp the our world is mixed and I'm like no it isn't. People in their own nations have their own customs, cultures and nuances. You cannot and should not apply "America" to a world where Dragon can burn your village because of some people robbed it. I like tasha's rules because it makes sense individuals would stand out. Yet the modern sense they gutted so much culture. It's basically saying people outside the country MUST act like us because "we act like us so they must to" ignoring this is how fights start.
@@ExeErdna I could buy this if humans in D&D had any sort of traits or cultures, but they don't. They have all of them. They can believe in anything and do anything like you know... actual people in an actual world. In way, way too much fantasy and sci-f, all non-human races are just one dimensional versions of humans. Even in make believe worlds, we can't resist making ourselves inferior and everyone different inferior.
@@ExeErdna the thing is those the race stats aren't about the individual person, the stats you roll are. The racial modifiers are about what the race is good at and brings to those stats from birth, while the ones you roll are from your experiences as a person and a product of whatever path that character took for their life
@@zavexcapricious2519 I know that already the problem is how some people ignore that for their power fantasy. They forget they can have both...
@@scwh3181 That's because humans are the expectation when I really do think they're a minority in some spheres where other races have their cultures all across the world.
To me humans are the 1 note characters because they do everything well. Everybody else has a niche or few where they shine. Humans are like "I guess I'm just good at this one thing" Which is good in a game yet not really when talking culture unless you bring up how people REALLY act. They clique up and exclude people they see as lesser.
Yes, more Classes and Sub Classes should be the default of Splatbooks. But being able to pick you bonus stats is too good to let it pass.
My hot take is that linking your stat bonus to Background is even worse than linking it to your race. Instead of having the Goliath Fighter, we will get the myriad of Miner Fighter which make it even worse.
How is that different than the current system, Rogue Criminal/Spy is a popular combination? Also in the OneD&D the premade backgrounds like Miner are for people that don't want to make many decisions, with the custom background being the default.
@@stephenlucas8836 Rouge Criminal is more basic than Human Fighter.
@@alberthcuayla1587 exactly, even before the oneD&D change.
Why not just have +10 to all stats? Same logic
I was trying to make all these same points to someone just the other day. Thank you for explaining things much more clearly than I do.
You have laid this all out perfectly.
Races matter, because they help build the world. And I love seeing a halfling barbarian. Yes you'll end up being more dexterous than other barbarians, and have lower strength and con. But does that matter? Story is so much more important than mechanics.
How many people in the world are naturally dumb, but they refuse to give up, study hard and end up with STEM field degrees at high paying jobs.
How many people are there in the world who aren't genetically gifted at a sport, but they become one of the top players to have ever played?
Isn't the story of overcoming your weakness so much more interesting than having no weakness in the first place?
I think the boat has already sailed on that. 5E already has races/classes which are objectively stronger or weaker, to the point it is noticeable. I know. I love draconic sorcerer, but more for lore/flavor, since it is one of the weakest sorcerers. So, unless that is also a problem, I don’t see why playing a slightly suboptimal race/class combination.
Yeah I'm prepping a half orc artificer just for the story I have in mind there's always ways for a smart player to be effective
honestly for me, 5e felt gutted and shallow from the original playtesting and its only gotten worse from there.
people might have complained that 4e "made everyone the same" (not that it actually did), but at least it was sort of balanced and you could play pretty much whatever you wanted and feel like you were contributing rather than being a pointless drag and having a bad time.
How is a Goliath that rolled 6,6,6, for INT any worse a wizard than an Elf that rolled 6,5,5 for INT that they then get +2 on for a racial bonus? It is MORE COMMON to roll a 16 than to roll an 18, but it can still happen, so in what way can a Goliath Wizard with 18 Int be any less powerful than an Elven Wizard with 18 Int?
@@markhackett2302 because that 18 then could have been starting with a 20. And that’s just for rolling stats.
@@markhackett2302 Yes, if you don't roll but rather do point-buy or the standard array then you aren't getting an 18 without a racial buff. Not that this matters to me as I don't mind playing slightly suboptimal characters that are more fun.
I agree with that honestly when I first started playing D&D 5e I wanted to play a half orc shaman but there wasn’t one so I ended up playing bear totem barbarian instead but we do need more classes in D&D and we have to make sure those new classes get more support for example look what they did to the artificor it only has 4 subclasses and they didn’t even try to give it a new one in a book design for space🤔
I like the idea of keeping the main stat tied to races but allowing the secondary +1 to be floating. All goliaths get +2 strength but can reassign that +1 to whatever. It allows more flexibility while still adhering to the collective fantasy.
i think reducing the stats from +2 to +1 for race stats with +2 optional stats might work better, that way you could change the character to suit your purpose. class would still get major stats, option minor and option extra increases per level.
Or... You could take out ASI and really evolve the Race as you level up to 20.
Why is Race at lv1 the same at lv20? Shouldn't the Dragonborne gain dragon wings at lv15, instead of breather hot air???
Personally... OneDnD is playing it safe as a TTRPG.
As for ASI in Backgrounds?... +3 and -2, +2, and +1 in two Stats are the general idea.
Still, Backgrounds can be so much more in depth as the players level to 20.
As for Classes?... ASI and Feats should be on the Character Level. Each Character Level will off +1 ASI or access to a Leveled Up Feat/New Feat.
Then Classes should start merging their subclasses. Multiclassing is proof of that future. Let Fighter/Fighter and Fighter/Wizard exist. Let one Class get access to its own multiple different subclass abilities at the current levels. And more.
(Using the 5e skeleton. OneDnD should have been so much more. But I'm afraid any major design at the foundation is not possible.)
i have to say i agree with everything you said... in fact we need more class variety in general either to be caster using strength or to seek other magical paths instead of elements or pure energy
At my table I tend to use the optional rules in Tasha’s for assigning racial stat points where you get a plus 2 to one stat and a plus 1 to one stat as for me it is easier that way, but I do use the original racial stats as a guide for establishing how certain races interact with my world and it allows the player to feel like their orc wizard, for example, is even more special or interesting as they are an outlier to the established orcs of my world. This opens up a plethora of role play opportunities as the play begins to establish how an orc became a wizard. So I thinking keeping racial stats as the default is better not just for player but for game masters as well as it can help with world building and in my personal experience players tend to what to be the exception to the normal and racial stats establish that norm for the player to subvert with the game masters permission of course.
Having a set of clear rules really helps me (a new player) getting hold of the world. Orcs are strong, halflings agile, Elfs tall and intelligent, Dwarves small and bulky. It makes sense. Everyone will use the same rules in their head to represent a character and that really helps communicating and playing a game
Some excellent points in this video. One argument to be made in favor of the new rule set is adventurers are not the norm in Forgotten Realms. So the collective lore would stand and the caster Goliath would be an outlier. I’m not sure I fully agree with this argument either. Just looking at different angles.