# 2024 PHB Race discussion



## TerraDave (Aug 19, 2022)

We are having a TMI moment right now with D&D, so I thought it might help to create some more focused threads.

I will start: So they still seem to be calling them "races".


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 19, 2022)

Not to bump my own thread. But...

A few more observations:

Humans are the _two_ feat race now. Its just the starter feats, but still, this might be a good niche to have. 

On the other hand, the loss of the half-elf saddens me. I don't mind "your character can have any parents they want!". In fact I would like more nods to reskinning. But the half-elf as a thing is very D&D, and they have been a popular race option over the years.


----------



## cbwjm (Aug 19, 2022)

Pretty sure I mentioned it in the main plates thread, but I'm pretty sure that what I'll be doing is setting up some specific half races. I'll be taking the human and perhaps replacing the feat with an elf or orc ability to get that flavour. I find the whole, pick your parents and get the stats of one but mix your height/age based on both.


----------



## pukunui (Aug 19, 2022)

Yeah, I’ll miss the half-elf. They have always been my favorite race in D&D.

One thing I don’t like is that they’re keeping what amounts to cultural traits for some races but calling them divine gifts or whatever (e.g. The dwarf’s tool proficiencies - and in Spelljammer, the giff’s firearms proficiency).

The reason I don’t like this is because it doesn’t play well with settings where the gods either don’t exist or their existence is uncertain. How does one explain these divinely-inspired cultural traits in a setting like Eberron, for example?


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Aug 19, 2022)

One interesting note, they seem to have _dropped_ the average (without violence/disease/etc.) human lifespan a little bit. PHB humans are listed as living 100 years. Now their average is 80, same as dragonborn (which hasn't changed from the PHB.)


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Aug 19, 2022)

As seemingly the only person who liked the standard, non-variant human (basically if I rolled more than 4 odd numbers I played one) I miss that. I think 1st level feats are a really great idea _for intermediate or advanced players_. For brand new players making them delve straight into the whole complicated feat system just to play a human is... unfortunate.

But while I'll miss +1 to everything human option, I'll miss Half-Elves more. They've always been my favorite D&D race, and in 5e they are also mechanically perfect for my tastes.

I think the rest of my 5e characters will be Half-Elves so that I can get as much joy as I can out of them before I have to ask a DM to let me homebrew one at some future D&D table. Playing only Half-Elves won't be a major change for me, just now I'll be doing it with purpose.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 19, 2022)

pukunui said:


> One thing I don’t like is that they’re keeping what amounts to cultural traits for some races but calling them divine gifts or whatever (e.g. The dwarf’s tool proficiencies - and in Spelljammer, the giff’s firearms proficiency).
> 
> The reason I don’t like this is because it doesn’t play well with settings where the gods either don’t exist or their existence is uncertain. How does one explain these divinely-inspired cultural traits in a setting like Eberron, for example?




Would have preferred that it was an innate  part of the dwarven mind to be good at repetitive actions with handtools.

D&D shies too far away from races having special mental capacities.


----------



## ShadoWWW (Aug 19, 2022)

I don't like all but humans and halflings have darkvision.


----------



## Azzy (Aug 19, 2022)

I'm of mixed opinions here. I like it in concept, but a few things stick out at me.

I'm not a fan of dropping the half-elf and the half-orc. This approach would work better for me if you could mix and match the parental races' features. But I dunno.

I do like the new human.

I'm unconvinced about the ardlings. I rather that they had just moved aasimar to the PHB.

The dragonborn breath weapon not being the same as in Fizban's is perplexing. Especially not being able to use it as in place of one of your attacks if you have multiple attacks. I like that they get darkvision now, though.

Rip dwarven subraces. _le sigh_ Forge Wise is a bit forced as a racial (not cultural) trait. Otherwise, the new dwarf looks good.

Not sure how I feel about the elves. I positively hate wood elves losing Mask of the Wild. Why do high elves specify prestidigitation as their cantrip when you can just change it out after a long rest? I kind of prefer chooseing and wizard arcane cantrip and it not being replaceable. And misty step, really? Drow are fine. Curious why trance isn't the same as in Mordenkainen Presents.

They didn't get rid of rock gnomes. Missed opportunity. 

Halflings. Looks fine, I guess.

Orcs! Welcome aboard. Powerful build should be updated to match the Giff's Hippo Build.

I like the new tiefling options.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 19, 2022)

Aside from the Dragonborn (Fizban's version is way better), I like these.


----------



## Nikosandros (Aug 19, 2022)

I like the tremorsense give to dwarves, but I really like the stone cunning bonus to checks. It's not powerful at all, so it could live together with the new ability.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 19, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> As seemingly the only person who liked the standard, non-variant human (basically if I rolled more than 4 odd numbers I played one) I miss that. I think 1st level feats are a really great idea _for intermediate or advanced players_. For brand new players making them delve straight into the whole complicated feat system just to play a human is... unfortunate.
> 
> But while I'll miss +1 to everything human option, I'll miss Half-Elves more. They've always been my favorite D&D race, and in 5e they are also mechanically perfect for my tastes.
> 
> I think the rest of my 5e characters will be Half-Elves so that I can get as much joy as I can out of them before I have to ask a DM to let me homebrew one at some future D&D table. Playing only Half-Elves won't be a major change for me, just now I'll be doing it with purpose.



Pretty sure you’ll just be able to play a Half-Elf, from the 2014 PHB.

What bothers me about it is, it’s removing the long time we’ll known examples of mixed race heritages that become their own culture and people. Which is a very important thing, IRL. 

It makes me very uncomfortable, as a person from a mixed heritage and household.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 19, 2022)

I like the always on inspiration for humans.
I dislike the extra feat for humans and especially the default choice of skilled.
I think they should get something more unique.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 19, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I like the always on inspiration for humans.
> I dislike the extra feat for humans and especially the default choice of skilled.
> I think they should get something more unique.




I think they needed to do something for human--but the original did have a nice simple default, and then the option for the only feat at level 1 for a more advanced option--at tables with feats.

Skilled is probably as weak or weaker as a default--and the 2 feat one, while it opens up some interesting design space, feels like a pretty advanced option.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> I think they needed to do something for human--but the original did have a nice simple default, and then the option for the only feat at level 1 for a more advanced option--at tables with feats.
> 
> Skilled is probably as weak or weaker as a default--and the 2 feat one, while it opens up some interesting design space, feels like a pretty advanced option.




Humans:
Skilled; you gain two skills of your choice
Tools of the trade: gain 4 proficiencies of choice in any language, tool or weapon
Hidden talent: gain expertise in one skill or tool you are proficient.

maybe add the inspiration thing.

no feat.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Aug 19, 2022)

Azzy said:


> I'm unconvinced about the ardlings. I rather that they had just moved aasimar to the PHB.



Indeed, Ardlings are so not my jam, and there are so many more interesting things in this playtest document (for good or ill) that my eyes just gloss over them every time I read these materials. 

They really seem like what some other company would name their offbrand Aasimar to avoid infringing on WotC's IP. It all makes perfect sense, except for the part where this is D&D, and they can just use Aasimar.


----------



## Corinnguard (Aug 19, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Aside from the Dragonborn (Fizban's version is way better), I like these.



Both the UA and the Fizban's version are better.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 19, 2022)

They short-changed dragonborn badly (Fizban's FTW) and IMO nerfed halflings. The caster races get to cast more and I want a second pass on elves and tieflings. Humans get both a buff and a nerf  - both of which are good for game balance.

But my biggest problem is just how much darkvision there is. They made it so even more people got it which was ... not something that makes the game better.

As for the new races, orcs good and aardlings are almost perfectly hitting a certain target audience that's historically underserved. But I want back the half elves for both RP and mechanical reasons


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

Similarly, the Spelljammer astral elf is solid.

But the playtest elf is weaker than it.

The playtest high elf is actually slightly better than 2014, but it was so terrible to begin with.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

The "gods" flavor is overbearing. It even comes across triumphalist.

I require the topic of religion to be gentler and more inclusive.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 19, 2022)

I've been hoping for the removal of Half-Elf and Half-Orc for quite a while now, because quite frankly my experiences with them have been people taking these races purely for the game mechanics and the players couldn't give a rat's ass about the narrative and story about being a mixed race person.

So in my mind... these new rules are a good thing.  Because it's going to show us pretty clearly how many people _actually_ want to play with the narrative of being a mixed-heritage character when they won't be gaining any game rule bonuses for doing it.  If it ends up that most people end up just playing Elves and Orcs and don't bother with narratively creating Half-Elves and Half-Orcs... then my beliefs would be proven correct.

That being said... I certainly hope most DMs remember when the time comes that this whole game is being set up to allow for the 2014 material to still be used, so there would be absolutely no reason to not allow a player to use the Half-Elf or Half-Orc race write-ups in a 2024 game.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Similarly, the Spelljammer astral elf is solid.
> 
> But the playtest elf is weaker than it.
> 
> The playtest high elf is actually slightly better than 2014, but it was so terrible to begin with.



I don't get this at all.

The playtest High Elf looks great to me, and the idea that the PHB elf was "terrible" is absolutely wild. The Spelljammer Elf and various other Misty Step-alike spamming elves are more outright powerful but this is pretty solid.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I don't get this at all.
> 
> The playtest High Elf looks great to me, and the idea that the PHB elf was "terrible" is absolutely wild. The Spelljammer Elf and various other Misty Step-alike spamming elves are more outright powerful but this is pretty solid.



The improved speed is powerful in my experience, and the 2014 wood elf is solid.

In comparison, the 2014 high elf merely got a cantrip. (Plus in those days, the high elf only got a +1 Intelligence, making it a mediocre Wizard, whose flavor the high elf was supposed to be good at.) Over all the 2014 high elf is an eyesore.

For the playtest. If I can choose between the Spelljammer astral elf versus the playtest high elf, there is no hesitation. The astral elf is superior.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 19, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I've been hoping for the removal of Half-Elf and Half-Orc for quite a while now, because quite frankly my experiences with them have been people taking these races purely for the game mechanics and the players couldn't give a rat's ass about the narrative and story about being a mixed race person.
> 
> So in my mind... these new rules are a good thing.  Because it's going to show us pretty clearly how many people _actually_ want to play with the narrative of being a mixed-heritage character when they won't be gaining any game rule bonuses for doing it.  If it ends up that most people end up just playing Elves and Orcs and don't bother with narratively creating Half-Elves and Half-Orcs... then my beliefs would be proven correct.
> 
> That being said... I certainly hope most DMs remember when the time comes that this whole game is being set up to allow for the 2014 material to still be used, so there would be absolutely no reason to not allow a player to use the Half-Elf or Half-Orc race write-ups in a 2024 game.



I gotta be honest, this sounds like a not-great attitude on your part.

In many settings, Half-Elves at the least aren't in the same situation as mixed-race people IRL. Hell in some you have some who are and some who aren't. Like, in Taladas, an Armach-Nesti Half-Elf is very much in that situation, but a Tamire Steppe Half-Elf isn't having the same experience at all, because he's part of a culture that's mostly Half-Elves (and a large and successful one). So this demand that every person playing a Half-Elf must be interested in that narrative seems strange and bordering on the repugnant. It's like demanding every Dwarf player be telling a story about hearth and family, or every Halfling has to be a story about how they left home and are unusual for adventuring. Like one-true-wayism for how you play a race, but only applied to certain ones.

As for people not bothering narratively creating X, well, I mean that doesn't really prove much, because a vast number of races are picked for more mechanical than thematic reasons, and this would make that obvious with those two races, but frankly the same thing is happening with every single race that isn't a total obvious screaming disaster, mechanically. And even with people picking races for RP reasons, many pick them to in fact play "against type" in my experience.

I mean, I know I'll still be playing Half-Elves because I just personally do not enjoy playing Elves, but mechanically I'll probably just use the Elf rules.

EDIT - I am definitely biased here to be clear - I've played Half-Elves more than any other race in D&D (Tieflings would be next) - but I felt Tanis in Dragonlance really basically did the whole "torn between two worlds" subplot absolutely to DEATH and the very last thing I wanted be was some Tanis-esque fart "trapped between two worlds" (and utterly cliched with it). Aragorn didn't help either (being in D&D terms basically a Half-Elf whereas Elrond Half-Elven is in D&D terms pretty clearly a solid Elf). Expecting people to be interested in playing that up is like expecting every Drow PC to basically be a variant on Drizzt, imho. I always pray for the precise opposite when I see a Drow PC at my table.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

The elf format needs to be as versatile and as reusable as possible, in order to prevent the future occurrence of 100+ elf subraces. Each choice in the 2024 Players Handbook for "elf" needs to be as saliently different from each other as possible, in order to reasonably represent more of the very many different kinds of elf.



With regard to flavor, not balance. I dont like darkvision on the high elf.

High elf: normal vision
Wood elf: darkvision
Drow elf: extended darkvision

Change Darkvision into a cantrip. Let any mage who wants it take it. Let anyone who doesnt want it, swap it for an other cantrip.

So, the wood elf gains the Darkvision cantrip. The drow elf gains the cantrip and spices it.

But give the high elf a different cantrip or something else.

Likewise, change Waterbreathing into a cantrip.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> For the playtest. If I can choose between the Spelljammer astral elf versus the playtest high elf, there is no hesitation. The astral elf is superior.



I guess I'm too much of a roleplayer lol, I could never see myself taking the Astral Elf given their ridiculous background and (to me) silly appearance (really not into the black sclera thing). Shadar-Kai maybe.


Yaarel said:


> With regard to flavor, not balance. I dont like darkvision on the high elf.
> 
> High elf: normal vision



High Elves exist in dozens of settings (literally) and in all of them they've had Infravision or Low-Light Vision, which in 5E is just Darkvision. In some cases significant parts of their lore rely on them having it (not all, I admit). How would that possibly make sense outside of a homebrew race for your own setting?


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I guess I'm too much of a roleplayer lol, I could never see myself taking the Astral Elf given their ridiculous background and (to me) silly appearance (really not into the black sclera thing). Shadar-Kai maybe.



As long as the Players Handbook doesnt keep on mentioning "black sclera" in almost every reference to the elf on every page, indirectly or directly, I can try to ignore that. I dont mind the 4e solid eyes. And if the solid eyes are like skyey lapis lazuli with starry gleams, that can be appealing.

In any case, I view the astral elf as solar, associating the sun. Indeed, a star is a sun. So I would be going for sun-related flavor for the elf.





Ruin Explorer said:


> High Elves exist in dozens of settings (literally) and in all of them they've had Infravision or Low-Light Vision, which in 5E is just Darkvision. In some cases significant parts of their lore rely on them having it (not all, I admit). How would that possibly make sense outside of a homebrew race for your own setting?



I get that. But.

I view the traditional high elf − 1e and 3e − as pretty much identical to the playtest wood elf anyway.

In order to minimize the design space as much as possible, the third elf needs to be able to reasonably represent the many other kinds of exotic elf. It helps if it lacks darkvision. A player who wants it can select it as a cantrip.

The three kinds of elves in the players handbook are occupying precious design space and must be as meaningfully different from each other as possible.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> In any case, I view the astral elf as solar, associating the sun. Indeed, a star is a sun. So I would be going for sun-related flavor for the elf.



Astral literally means _of the stars_, not of the sun (which would indeed be "solar"). So that is pretty wild. It's a bit like reading "Hill Dwarf" and thinking "So they live in the mountains".


Yaarel said:


> In order to minimize the design space as much as possible



This is not a goal WotC has. Very game design companies go for it, and even fewer successful ones. Maximalism sells a lot better than minimalism. Minimalists are profoundly unlikely to be willingly playing 5E, I would suggest.


----------



## Corinnguard (Aug 19, 2022)

One way to make the three kinds of elves in the PHB to be meaningfully different from each other is to turn some of their cultural fluff into cultural crunch. High Elf culture isn't the same as Wood Elf culture or even Dark Elf culture. This needs to be made more evident in D&D.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is not a goal WotC has. Very game design companies go for it, and even fewer successful ones. Maximalism sells a lot better than minimalism. Minimalists are profoundly unlikely to be willingly playing 5E, I would suggest.



The elves are a special case.

In D&D, the elves are inseparable from the D&D traditions. And. The elves are so diverse from each other. Many players have their favorite version of elf from somewhere in the 100+ elf traditions.

It helps more players, to make the Players Handbook elf race entry, as accommodating and as versatile as possible.

I want 2024 to both represent the D&D elf traditions and avoid unnecessarily more and more design space for each one.

So, the solution needs to be an elegant design, that is as simple as possible but not simpler, and that is minimal but versatile.





Ruin Explorer said:


> Astral literally means _of the stars_, not of the sun (which would indeed be "solar"). So that is pretty wild. It's a bit like reading "Hill Dwarf" and thinking "So they live in the mountains".



A hill is a small mountain. A star is actually a sun. Possibly, Spelljammer kept the traditional solar and lunar dragons but omitted the "star dragon" because it is, of course, solar.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

It occurs to me, the elf is almost the only race that requires subraces because there are so many different kinds of elf.

The other races have little or no need for subraces.

But the elf is a challenge to represent well.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> The "gods" flavor is overbearing. It even comes across triumphalist.
> 
> I require the topic of religion to be gentler and more inclusive.



You may be reading far too much of your own biases into all of this.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

I want the *2024 Players Handbook* to only list the *human race*, with a note to consult with the DM for other races that exist in the setting.

The Players Handbook should be as setting neutral as possible, except for popular notions about "medieval-esque" plus the existence of magic.

All worldbuilding needs to be in the *2024 DMs Guide*, relating to possible cosmologies, worlds, races, and cultures. Especially the Cleric class in the Players Handbook must not lock these assumptions in.

At the same time that the 2024 Players Handbook comes out, there needs to be a *2024 Forgotten Realms Adventurers Guide*. It spells out the cosmology of the multiverse, world of Toril, races, and cultures that are familiar to 2014 5e players now. So, this 2024 FRAG (heh) is a core rulebook, and is where to find the beloved races and cultures, including elves and dwarves, among others.

But the beauty of this corebook FRAG, is it becomes easy to swap in, instead, the Eberron Adventurers Guide, Astral Adventurers Guide, Dragonlance Adventurers Guide, and so on.

Each adventurers guide rewrites any races shared with other settings, so the descriptions exactly match who the races are within a particular setting.

Most importantly, it becomes easier for the DM to swap in a homebrew world. Perhaps the *homebrew "adventurers guide"* starts off local, with a few sheets of paper with brief notes describing the races who inhabit a particular town. Eventually by the time the players reach level 20, there can be a substantial amount of information about the cosmology and other parts of it.

Meanwhile the 2024 Players Handbook, just has humans, as an example of how a race works mechanically, and a few medievalesque multicultural backgrounds relating to the humans.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> You may be reading far too much of your own biases into all of this.



Many of the race descriptions mention "gods". The gods are inappropriate for settings that lack them.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Many of the race descriptions mention "gods". The gods are inappropriate for settings that lack them.



The D&D Multiverse is THE setting and it has gods.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> The D&D Multiverse is THE setting and it has gods.



D&D used to be about worldbuilding.


----------



## Osgood (Aug 19, 2022)

ShadoWWW said:


> I don't like all but humans and halflings have darkvision.



Ardlings don't have darkvision either.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> D&D used to be about worldbuilding.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

Osgood said:


> Ardlings don't have darkvision either.



Yeah, only races whose flavor requires Darkvision should have it.

No: human, halfling, ardling, gnome (!)
Depends: dragonborn, elf, orc
Yes: tiefling, dwarf

The dwarf personifies rock and dwells underground, darkvision can make sense.

The orc should probably have darkvision, but only if its flavor is a creature of the night.

The drow should definitely have darkvision. The wood elf, not really. But arguably, the wood elf is nocturnal (according to British folkbelief). The high elf? If it is the traditional high elf, it is identical to the ODD (One D&D) wood elf. If the high elf is supposed to represent other kinds of elf, then it probably should lack darkvision entirely.

The dragonborn is a dragon, whose connotations include the unblinking eye of a snake. This may or may not relate to darkvision.

There is zero reason why a gnome should have darkvision.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> D&D used to be about worldbuilding.



And then they started selling you Forgotten Realms supplements in the 90s.


----------



## Rune (Aug 19, 2022)

It took nearly fifty years, but D&D is finally treating half-elves _exactly_ the same way that Tolkien did!


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

@Aldarc

That feels too close to true to be funny.

The D&D Players Handbook designers are holding a gun to the head of D&D worldbuilders.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> That feels too close to true to be funny.
> 
> The D&D Players Handbook designers are holding a gun to the head of D&D worldbuilders.



Stop engaging in gross hyperbole. They are doing NOTHING of the sort.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Stop engaging in gross hyperbole. They are doing NOTHING of the sort.



They wrote "gods" in the human race entry.

As if to be human, one must be a polytheist.

The intellectual violence is a gross violation of reallife inclusivity.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice (Aug 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> D&D used to be about worldbuilding.



It still is, as long as those worlds are part of the One D&D Multiverse™. If you want your own unique setting it looks like you'll be working against many of the basic assumptions of the game, so it will take extra effort.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> They wrote "gods" in the human race entry.
> 
> As if to be human, one must be a polytheist.
> 
> The intellectual violence is a gross violation of reallife inclusivity.



They also wrote "orcs" in the orc race entry and my homebrew world doesn't have orcs! The horror! But that's WotC for you. They have all sorts of guns pointed at my head! Those monsters!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 19, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> the loss of the half-elf saddens me. I don't mind "your character can have any parents they want!". In fact I would like more nods to reskinning. But the half-elf as a thing is very D&D, and they have been a popular race option over the years.



the idea of having rules to cross any 2 races is amazing (and leads to nothing but joy) but taking the 2 cross races we had that HAD there own identity and abilities in 5e is annoying... half orcs are not orcs, and are losing there endurance.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 19, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> I like the tremorsense give to dwarves, but I really like the stone cunning bonus to checks. It's not powerful at all, so it could live together with the new ability.



i love tremor sense as a dwarven feature


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> the idea of having rules to cross any 2 races is amazing (and leads to nothing but joy) but taking the 2 cross races we had that HAD there own identity and abilities in 5e is annoying... half orcs are not orcs, and are losing there endurance.



If we get some racial (gene) pointbuy system like in PF1, we could create every custom race or half-breed combination.
Or quarter-breed; my mommy was a half orc-human, and daddy was half dwarf-bugbear


----------



## Nikosandros (Aug 19, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> i love tremor sense as a dwarven feature



As I do, but the previous power was nice, tematic and could easily remain together with the new one.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

why does dwarf has 30ft move speed?
and gnome too?

That should have been some penalty countered by more positive features.

I get the halfling 30ft as they are really nimble.

Also we have Squat nimbleness feat that corrects that issue and give proficiency and advantage vs grapple. Very good for a half feat.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I want the *2024 Players Handbook* to only list the *human race*, with a note to consult with the DM for other races that exist in the setting.
> 
> The Players Handbook should be as setting neutral as possible, except for popular notions about "medieval-esque" plus the existence of magic.
> 
> All worldbuilding needs to be in the *2024 DMs Guide*, relating to possible cosmologies, worlds, races, and cultures. Especially the Cleric class in the Players Handbook must not lock these assumptions in.



i mean at that point should not all classes be in the DMG 'ask your DM what classes exist in this world'


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> the idea of having rules to cross any 2 races is amazing (and leads to nothing but joy) but taking the 2 cross races we had that HAD there own identity and abilities in 5e is annoying... half orcs are not orcs, and are losing there endurance.



I am ok with removing the half-elf.

Mechanically the race was merely Charisma and ability versatility, plus skills.

Now, ability score improvements are obsolete.

If a player wants the magical aspects of the elf, then use the elf stats.

If one wants the skill versatility then use the human stats.

There is little or no loss of information by deleting the half elf.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> why does dwarf has 30ft move speed?
> and gnome too?
> 
> That should have been some penalty countered by more positive features.
> ...



I think we should just assume 1d&D will not put any negative on a playable race... so 30 is the lowest move you will see


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice (Aug 19, 2022)

I think the reason behind the Ardling is to let players play their favorite anthropomorphic animals without needing to populate every campaign with large numbers of animal people. By making them half-celestials it makes sense that there's a huge variety of Ardlings even when they are few in numbers.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> i mean at that point should not all classes be in the DMG 'ask your DM what classes exist in this world'



It is a thought. But the human can be any of these classes. So it is reasonable to include them in the 2024 Players Handbook.

Note, a separate setting adventurers guide might correlate certain class options with certain cultures of other races. For example, the high elves might especially be famous for their Bladesinger Wizards. Perhaps Gnomes or Dwarves are famous Artificers. But in these cases, the adventurers guide itself, will rewrite the flavors from the ground up according to the themes and tropes that are true for the particular setting.

In any case, minimizing race content for more page space for class content would be excellent.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Aug 19, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> I will start: So they still seem to be calling them "races".



I just.... like... how?! Wasn't that, it being so hard to play against type, and some super-specifics like 90% of the problem we've been trying to address with the whole 'change how we do 'races' in D&D' thing?


Benjamin Olson said:


> As seemingly the only person who liked the standard, non-variant human (basically if I rolled more than 4 odd numbers I played one) I miss that. I think 1st level feats are a really great idea _for intermediate or advanced players_. For brand new players making them delve straight into the whole complicated feat system just to play a human is... unfortunate.



In the survey, I will advocate for _a lot_ of language on how to deal with feat choices for beginning players. 


DEFCON 1 said:


> I've been hoping for the removal of Half-Elf and Half-Orc for quite a while now, because quite frankly my experiences with them have been people taking these races purely for the game mechanics and the players couldn't give a rat's ass about the narrative and story about being a mixed race person.



I suspect this might be a 5e-ism. 5e half-elves, with the 4 pluses (including a Cha boost) and universally-useful extra skills really lead them into great synergy with Cha-based classes (the other suddenly-really-good thing in 5e). Half-elves in 4e, 3e, and AD&D ranged from ho-hum to sub-par to 'good only because, like humans, they can be most classes.' Also back in the TSR days when elves were sometimes coded closer to what Eladrin are today, half-elves had more role to fill as having a foot in the mysterious world of the enigmatic and retreating elves, but still having a more relatable mindset. Since the mystery of elves has been significantly diluted, this might be less so. Still, I have a great fondness for half-elves, although I don't have a problem with the way they are done here.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> It is a thought. But the human can be any of these classes. So it is reasonable to include them in the 2024 Players Handbook.
> 
> Note, a separate setting adventurers guide might correlate certain class options with certain cultures of other races. For example, the high elves might especially be famous for their Bladesinger Wizards. Perhaps Gnomes or Dwarves are famous Artificers. But in these cases, the adventurers guide itself, will rewrite the flavors from the ground up according to the themes and tropes that are true for the particular setting.
> 
> In any case, minimizing race content for more page space for class content would be excellent.



I much prefer the PHB have all the main rules, including as many races and classes as can fit and just label them all building blocks for the DM


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> I think the reason behind the Ardling is to let players play their favorite anthropomorphic animals without needing to populate every campaign with large numbers of animal people. By making them half-celestials it makes sense that there's a huge variety of Ardlings even when they are few in numbers.



I think it is both. A counterpart to the tiefling, the video mentions awsimar, but also accommodates the flavor of many different kinds of "humanimals", like tabaxi, loxodon, kenku, leonel, aarakokra, yuan-ti, harengon, etcetera, even gnoll.


----------



## Charles Rampant (Aug 19, 2022)

As someone who habitually plays Half-Orcs (without ever having a conscious reason to do so - I just generally enjoy the race and like the opportunity to refer to both fantasy archetypes) I'm disappointed to see them disappear into a murky 'just reskin' approach. Half-Elves are in the same boat - admittedly a 5e powerpick, but also undeniably a long and storied race and one that fits with Tieflings into the sexy-cool-ones category that is always popular with players. I'm really not sure they'll make that removal stick.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I much prefer the PHB have all the main rules, including as many races and classes as can fit and just label them all building blocks for the DM



Having a corebook, *2024 Forgotten Realms Adventurers Guide*, as part of the corebook release, allows the designers to detail the multiverse cosmology and race flavors, in a way that keeps worldbuilding and other official settings easy to do.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Having a corebook, *2024 Forgotten Realms Adventurers Guide*, as part of the corebook release, allows the designers to detail the multiverse cosmology and race flavors, in a way that keeps worldbuilding and other official settings easy to do.



I disagree I don't want to have 3 core books let alone 4. I think the PHB should be all a new DM needs


----------



## akr71 (Aug 19, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> Pretty sure I mentioned it in the main plates thread, but I'm pretty sure that what I'll be doing is setting up some specific half races. I'll be taking the human and perhaps replacing the feat with an elf or orc ability to get that flavour. I find the whole, pick your parents and get the stats of one but mix your height/age based on both.



I was thinking of tagging racial features as major and minor. Choose major features from one parent and minor features from another. That's just off the top of my head - if it seems unbalanced then it might end up '2 from this list, 1 from that list' kinda thing.
If somebody really wants something 'out of the box' it can be discussed and I'll work with the player to come up with something balanced that still helps them realize their character concept.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think we should just assume 1d&D will not put any negative on a playable race... so 30 is the lowest move you will see



that small decrease is not really that negative,

I get ASI's as much derives from your primary/secondary ability but 5ft less speed to be such a hurdle?

also, stealth on halflings feel forced into one playstyle. What if you want heavy armor? racial almost wasted completely.

Maybe if ability was agile-athlete so you can pick one skill from; athletics, acrobatics, sleight of hand, stealth.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

akr71 said:


> I was thinking of tagging racial features as major and minor. Choose major features from one parent and minor features from another. That's just off the top of my head - if it seems unbalanced then it might end up '2 from this list, 1 from that list' kinda thing.
> If somebody really wants something 'out of the box' it can be discussed and I'll work with the player to come up with something balanced that still helps them realize their character concept.



Yup.

There are race traits that are worth about a feat. And other race features that are worth a half-feat. Some even about two proficiencies/cantrips (like 120 darkvision).

Demarcating the design space makes it easy for half-race players to use their background to pick up a trait from the other parent.


----------



## beancounter (Aug 19, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> We are having a TMI moment right now with D&D, so I thought it might help to create some more focused threads.
> 
> I will start: So they still seem to be calling them "races".



Yep, it bugs the Heck out of me. They are different species, not races.

You would think that they would have updated the term given their emphasis on avoiding offense.

OT rant: crystal, as in crystal dragon, is not a mineral (like amethyst or emerald). Crystals are the atomic structures within minerals. If WoTC wanted a dragon with white translucent scales, it would be more appropriate to call them either quartz or calcite dragons.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

beancounter said:


> OT rant: crystal, as in crystal dragon, is not a mineral (like amythyst or emerald). Crystals are the atomic structures within minerals. If WoTC wanted a dragon with white translucent scales, it would be more appropriate to call them either quartz or calcite dragons.



... Or gem dragons!

It is easy for the Players Handbook to represent gem dragons to some degree, by simply adding psychic and force damage types to the list of breath weapons.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

Unfortunately, it seems the ODD designers want to delete psionics from the edition.

Even where it is helpful: such as mind-affecting spells listed under the Psionic power source spell list.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 19, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> In many settings, Half-Elves at the least aren't in the same situation as mixed-race people IRL. Hell in some you have some who are and some who aren't. Like, in Taladas, an Armach-Nesti Half-Elf is very much in that situation, but a Tamire Steppe Half-Elf isn't having the same experience at all, because he's part of a culture that's mostly Half-Elves (and a large and successful one). So this demand that every person playing a Half-Elf must be interested in that narrative seems strange and bordering on the repugnant. It's like demanding every Dwarf player be telling a story about hearth and family, or every Halfling has to be a story about how they left home and are unusual for adventuring. Like one-true-wayism for how you play a race, but only applied to certain ones.



I understand what you are saying here, and concur to a certain extent.  I agree that not every half-elf character's backstory needs to go into the "torn between two worlds" trope.  But I think what I'm more getting to is this-- I've seen people thus far talk about how they don't like the removal of half-elves and half-orcs as set races because they now have to just take the mechanics of either human or elf (or human or orc) for their character while saying their character is a half-elf or half-orc.  Seems to me that being a half-elf isn't important... the all-important half-elf game mechanics are what are important.

If that's the case and the game mechanics of a race are what matters... then what's the point of having mixed race characters?  You could just make more races if players simply want more game mechanic options.  Or if you feel like the game needs mixed-race characters, then why are these two _the only_ mixed-race character options in the game?  Why are these two so special that they need to be called out when all the other mixed heritages are expected to just be represented by one or the other parent race (other than HE and HO being grandfathered in from editions past?)  To me... you either mechanically represent every racial combination by coming up with Multirace rules where a player does indeed pick and choose bits from both parent classes... or you just remove the mechanical differentiation altogether and have players play multiracial characters in their story without needing to give them their own mechanics.

I personally do not believe half-elves and half-orcs need their own independent racial write-up and mechanics while the mul (human/dwarf) and gnoblin (gnome/goblin) and any other parental pairing do not.  The game either should go all-in for mechanical representation for every combination, or none at all.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> why does dwarf has 30ft move speed?
> and gnome too?
> 
> That should have been some penalty countered by more positive features.
> ...



This might be the started-with-BX/BECMI* player in me talking, but I totally get this decision. Differing player character speed is an unnecessary annoyance with minimal benefit to the game and D&D movement is artificial enough anyways. AD&D 2e was probably the nadir, with dwarf/halfling/gnome being literally half as fast and human/elf/half-elf fighters not also being slowed simply by wearing plate (also the super-gamist 120 movement that was feet if underground and yard if outside). Regardless, how many groups have slapped their foreheads when that-one-person decides to play a dwarf/gnome/halfling, and thus the entire part moves at a different speed?
*where, IIRC, everyone had the same base speed 

None of this changes how you find the decision, and if it violates your verisimilitude for short races, I don't want to diminish that. I'm just saying I get the logic of it.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Unfortunately, it seems the ODD designers want to delete psionics from the edition.



Except they don't. They just don't think that psionics are a one-mechanical-size-fits-all thing so have the Psi Warrior and Soulknife done one way, the Aberrant Mind a second, and the College of Whispers bard a third.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 19, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I understand what you are saying here, and concur to a certain extent.  I agree that not every half-elf character's backstory needs to go into the "torn between two worlds" trope.  But I think what I'm more getting to is this-- I've seen people thus far talk about how they don't like the removal of half-elves and half-orcs as set races because they now have to just take the mechanics of either human or elf (or human or orc) for their character while saying their character is a half-elf or half-orc.  Seems to me that being a half-elf isn't important... the all-important half-elf game mechanics are what are important.



No they aren't. What's important is that the half-elf has its own identity (mechanical and otherwise) that is the offspring of its parents but not a carbon copy of either.

I forget where I saw the analogy, but the playtest version is as if Kermit and Miss Piggy had kids - and all of them are _either_ pigs _or _frogs. But there are no kids that are visibly the offspring of boht parents.


DEFCON 1 said:


> I personally do not believe half-elves and half-orcs need their own independent racial write-up and mechanics while the mul (human/dwarf) and gnoblin (gnome/goblin) and any other parental pairing do not.  The game either should go all-in for mechanical representation for every combination, or none at all.



Oh nonsense. The game can have some things without everything. I'd include half-elves as the most long standing without the baggage attached to half-orcs - and it covers most of the children of two worlds stories.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 19, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> I forget where I saw the analogy, but the playtest version is as if Kermit and Miss Piggy had kids - and all of them are _either_ pigs _or _frogs. But there are no kids that are visibly the offspring of boht parents.



Maybe that's for the best.



Spoiler


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

The mechanics of the human race are solid.

Resourceful is solid. Inspiration is an advantage that you can use whenever you want. There will be other ways to gain Inspiration according to the video, but the human has it more reliably. If the human gets it again, while still having it, the human can pass on the inspiration to an ally. The human flavor of being inspirational feels appropriate.

The Skilled feat is appalling, but the choice of feat is great.

Choice of skill is ok. But compared to other reallife animals, the human species is especially a tool user, so tool proficiency can work here too, or weapon proficiency. Skill is ok in the sense of cultural learning.

I like listing human first. The human race is a measure to help get a sense of nonhuman races.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Aug 19, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I've been hoping for the removal of Half-Elf and Half-Orc for quite a while now, because quite frankly my experiences with them have been people taking these races purely for the game mechanics and the players couldn't give a rat's ass about the narrative and story about being a mixed race person.
> 
> So in my mind... these new rules are a good thing.  Because it's going to show us pretty clearly how many people _actually_ want to play with the narrative of being a mixed-heritage character when they won't be gaining any game rule bonuses for doing it.  If it ends up that most people end up just playing Elves and Orcs and don't bother with narratively creating Half-Elves and Half-Orcs... then my beliefs would be proven correct.
> 
> That being said... I certainly hope most DMs remember when the time comes that this whole game is being set up to allow for the 2014 material to still be used, so there would be absolutely no reason to not allow a player to use the Half-Elf or Half-Orc race write-ups in a 2024 game.




 I like that it also expands the options to say half Tieflings-half Orcs, or Half Dragonborn-Half humans to explain Dragonborn with boobs LMFAO.


----------



## jmartkdr2 (Aug 19, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I understand what you are saying here, and concur to a certain extent.  I agree that not every half-elf character's backstory needs to go into the "torn between two worlds" trope.  But I think what I'm more getting to is this-- I've seen people thus far talk about how they don't like the removal of half-elves and half-orcs as set races because they now have to just take the mechanics of either human or elf (or human or orc) for their character while saying their character is a half-elf or half-orc.  Seems to me that being a half-elf isn't important... the all-important half-elf game mechanics are what are important.
> 
> If that's the case and the game mechanics of a race are what matters... then what's the point of having mixed race characters?  You could just make more races if players simply want more game mechanic options.  Or if you feel like the game needs mixed-race characters, then why are these two _the only_ mixed-race character options in the game?  Why are these two so special that they need to be called out when all the other mixed heritages are expected to just be represented by one or the other parent race (other than HE and HO being grandfathered in from editions past?)  To me... you either mechanically represent every racial combination by coming up with Multirace rules where a player does indeed pick and choose bits from both parent classes... or you just remove the mechanical differentiation altogether and have players play multiracial characters in their story without needing to give them their own mechanics.
> 
> ...



The answer here is “Tradition!” 

Which isn’t the worst reason to do something if it isn’t harmful.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Aug 19, 2022)

Having seen Abyssal Tieflings and Killer Space Clowns, does anyone else want to play an Abyssal Tiefling descended from Killer Space Clowns, think a mix between Joker and Harliquin, from Clownspace? Fluff it's Poison spray cantrip as poison squirting flower gag.


----------



## Corinnguard (Aug 19, 2022)

jmartkdr2 said:


> The answer here is “Tradition!”
> 
> Which isn’t the worst reason to do something if it isn’t harmful.



More like a form of game inertia.   Half-Elves and Half-Orcs have been a part of D&D since the very beginning of D&D. So it's hard to imagine a D&D without them as they currently are.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 19, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Oh nonsense. The game can have some things without everything. I'd include half-elves as the most long standing without the baggage attached to half-orcs - and it covers most of the children of two worlds stories.





jmartkdr2 said:


> The answer here is “Tradition!”
> 
> Which isn’t the worst reason to do something if it isn’t harmful.



Folks who like Half-Elves and Half-Orcs have had their needs filled for decades now.  Which is fine... I don't begrudge them for it.  But I'm also quite happy to see things change a bit so that my way of thinking will have its time in the sun.  And for those that still want the full race write-ups for the HE and HO... the game will allow the 2014 versions to still be played.  So we both can have what we want to a certain extent.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 19, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> I like that it also expands the options to say half Tieflings-half Orcs, or Half Dragonborn-Half humans to explain Dragonborn with boobs LMFAO.



I've always explained that by saying that Dragonborn women carry two eggs...


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 19, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Having seen Abyssal Tieflings and Killer Space Clowns, does anyone else want to play an Abyssal Tiefling descended from Killer Space Clowns, think a mix between Joker and Harliquin, from Clownspace? Fluff it's Poison spray cantrip as poison squirting flower gag.



Over many years of DMing/Storyteller'ing etc. I have found "My character is based on the Joker" to be one of the most ultra-reliable "Red Flags" for PCs/players who are going to cause A Problem. I'm just saying...


----------



## Corinnguard (Aug 19, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I've always explained that by saying that Dragonborn women carry two eggs...



The best explanation for why the 4e Dragonborn female had boobs is that they are monotremes. Egg-laying mammals like the Echidna and the Platypus.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Aug 19, 2022)

Btw the Ardlings fluff basically confirms the return of celestial Guardianals & Archons in either Planescape or One D&D.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Aug 19, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Btw the Ardlings fluff basically confirms the return of celestial Guardianals & Archons in either Planescape or One D&D.




 I've heard it suggested that the Ardling is actually intended for Planescape, snuck in to the One D&D UA, just like Owlings were snuck into the Witchlight UA, even though they were for Strixhaven.

 I don't know if it's true, but given the Ardling is designed to mirror Tieflings so much, I'm skeptical.

 Still given Glitchlings are "not" Rogue Modrons and Ardlings are "not" Aasimar, I can't preclude it either.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Aug 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Unfortunately, it seems the ODD designers want to delete psionics from the edition.
> 
> Even where it is helpful: such as mind-affecting spells listed under the Psionic power source spell list.



Based on one preview?

Though realistically, psionics haven't been part of the core game (meaning, PHB and DMG) for a very, very long time (and even when they were in 1E, it was a completely optional system that Gygax didn't even really want in there.)

There have already been multiple attempts to add psionics to 5E. No reason they won't try again. But they probably need their own UA playtest (again)_ after _the 2024 rules have been released. I'd still like to see them introduced with a 5E Dark Sun setting, but usable independently.

So, thinking psionics should be in the 2024 PHB is not a reasonable expectation to me.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Aug 19, 2022)

akr71 said:


> I was thinking of tagging racial features as major and minor. Choose major features from one parent and minor features from another. That's just off the top of my head - if it seems unbalanced then it might end up '2 from this list, 1 from that list' kinda thing.
> If somebody really wants something 'out of the box' it can be discussed and I'll work with the player to come up with something balanced that still helps them realize their character concept.



I was thinking of something similar, but more limited. 

My thought: When picking a half-race, choose your expression (RAW, e.g., a half-elf chooses the human or elven racial traits.)

Then, you may optionally choose _one_ special trait to swap with another special trait of your other parental race. They should be of roughly equivalent utility/power (DM's call). For example, a half-elf using human traits could gain elven Darkvision in exchange for giving up the human Versatile trait.

I might even specify which traits are swappable. For instance, it doesn't quite seem right to have lineages/legacies swappable.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 19, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> Based on one preview?
> 
> Though realistically, psionics haven't been part of the core game (meaning, PHB and DMG) for a very, very long time (and even when they were in 1E, it was a completely optional system that Gygax didn't even really want in there.)
> 
> ...



The thing is, if psionics isnt built into the core system itself, it will be redundant as well as unable to do things it should do, and never happen well.


----------



## MatthewJHanson (Aug 19, 2022)

I feel like the "dwarves are good at smithing because god(s) made them that way" is more actually problematic than "all dwarves come from a smithing culture." 

In real life, when certain skills or traits have be ascribed to groups of people because "god(s) made them that way" it usually has not turned out well.


----------



## Scribe (Aug 19, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> D&D used to be about worldbuilding.



They want D&D to be about The One Brand, now.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 19, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> I've heard it suggested that the Ardling is actually intended for Planescape, snuck in to the One D&D UA, just like Owlings were snuck into the Witchlight UA, even though they were for Strixhaven.
> 
> I don't know if it's true, but given the Ardling is designed to mirror Tieflings so much, I'm skeptical.
> 
> Still given Glitchlings are "not" Rogue Modrons and Ardlings are "not" Aasimar, I can't preclude it either.



It will almost certainly be in planescape, but maybe also phb.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Aug 19, 2022)

Some thoughts:

*CHILDREN OF DIFFERENT HUMANOID KINDS*

In principle, I don't have an issue getting rid of Half-Elf and Half-Orc, but this seem like a clunky solution. The way Level Up handles this is a lot more elegant.

*HUMAN*

Why are you here human, don't you know your ABCs?

*ARDLING*

That name. If they're the Teifling's opposite number, maybe they should call them Hochlings. 

Mostly flavor issues with this one. Give the option of dialing the zoomorphic appearance traits up and down to taste. Also, why wings? Maybe I want my monkey Ardling to fly on a tiny little cloud!

*DRAGONBORN*

Seems a bit of a nerf from what was in Fizban's.

*DWARF*

Seems pretty good, except Forge Wise. If you need a "a god did it" to explain why this is there, time to go back to the drawing board.

*ELF*

Elves gonna elf.

*GNOME*

Forest Gnome's speak with animals ability is no longer at will, but the silly small or smaller beast restriction is gone. Proficency bonus uses per long rest, plus added to your spell list. I like it. If they added _Fade Away _I think this would be solid.

Rock gnome's get the Mending cantrip and can put any Prestidigitation effect into their contraptions. These are long standing house rules we've had, so kudos.

*HALFLING*

These are here.

*ORC*

I think these are unchanged from Mordenkainen's.

*TIEFLING*

Glad to see some of the pre-4E diversity returning to these guys.


----------



## Galandris (Aug 20, 2022)

pukunui said:


> One thing I don’t like is that they’re keeping what amounts to cultural traits for some races but calling them divine gifts or whatever (e.g. The dwarf’s tool proficiencies - and in Spelljammer, the giff’s firearms proficiency).






Twiggly the Gnome said:


> *DWARF*
> 
> Seems pretty good, except Forge Wise. If you need a "a god did it" to explain why this is there, time to go back to the drawing board.




The problem is they obviously didn't want to make it a cultural trait (it would be part of the background) but part of the racial identify of all dwarves, including those that were raised totally outside of the dwarven society. So, even if all of them are focussed on a few tools, if you're taken in at birth by a stepfather who raises you in a culture where the tools are unknown, it's difficult to explain how you can innately use these tools proficiently without using genetic memory (too scifi) or "ingrained by your creator god".

@Twiggly: what would you propose to explain how heroes coming from a specific race but raised in a place where jewelry, masonry, smithery or tinkering are unknown can spontaneously develop the knowledge to be proficient with said tool without ressorting to "a wizard, sorry, a god did it)". I am sure it's possible to do better, but nothing springs immediately to my mind.





pukunui said:


> The reason I don’t like this is because it doesn’t play well with settings where the gods either don’t exist or their existence is uncertain. How does one explain these divinely-inspired cultural traits in a setting like Eberron, for example?




Yes, that's a problem that stems directly from the solution they devised.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 20, 2022)

pukunui said:


> Yeah, I’ll miss the half-elf. They have always been my favorite race in D&D.
> 
> One thing I don’t like is that they’re keeping what amounts to cultural traits for some races but calling them divine gifts or whatever (e.g. The dwarf’s tool proficiencies - and in Spelljammer, the giff’s firearms proficiency).
> 
> The reason I don’t like this is because it doesn’t play well with settings where the gods either don’t exist or their existence is uncertain. How does one explain these divinely-inspired cultural traits in a setting like Eberron, for example?



They're trying to walk a fine line between races keeping certain archtypical elements (giff and guns, dwarves and crafts, elves and magic, halflings and stealth) and the disassociation of culture to race. Ergo, you get a lot of "a wizard/demon/God did it" explanations for ribbon features.

That said, Eberron isn't as big a plot hole as it seems. The majority of races don't have clear origins beyond where they race first appeared, but creation stories are few and far between. Maybe dwarves were blessed by Onatar. Maybe it's a side effect of Daelkyr intervention. Maybe the dwarves don't know and don't want to find out. 

(As a side note: the changes to races between MotM and 1D&D is going to force a revised Eberron book. If for nothing else to address warforged vs autognome and dragonmarks as subrace).


----------



## Kobold Stew (Aug 20, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> I've heard it suggested that the Ardling is actually intended for Planescape, snuck in to the One D&D UA, just like Owlings were snuck into the Witchlight UA, even though they were for Strixhaven.



That would make sense, and I hope you (and the voices you have heard) are correct. 

It would seem a weird choice to add a race without any precedent, and with some kind of flight, in 1D&D.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Aug 20, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> My thought: When picking a half-race, choose your expression (RAW, e.g., a half-elf chooses the human or elven racial traits.)
> 
> Then, you may optionally choose _one_ special trait to swap with another special trait of your other parental race. They should be of roughly equivalent utility/power (DM's call). For example, a half-elf using human traits could gain elven Darkvision in exchange for giving up the human Versatile trait.
> 
> I might even specify which traits are swappable. For instance, it doesn't quite seem right to have lineages/legacies swappable.



This would be an interesting approach, esp. with the swappable aspect identified explicitly. This could be easily done, maybe in a separate section like the multiclassing rules in the current PHB.

You could have a table listing the specific features that are gained/lost with mixed parentage: FOR EXAMPLE:

Human -- Versatile (but must take Skilled feat)
Ardling -- Clelestial Legacy
Dragonborn -- Draconic Ancestry and Breath Weapon
Dwarf -- Dwarven Toughness and Darkvision
Elf -- Elven Lineage
Gnome -- Gnomish Cunning
Halfling -- Luck
Orc -- Relentless Endurance
Tiefling -- Fiendish Legacy

So, to use an example of my best friend Rick's halforc/halfling chracter when we were 14, he could be small sized [i.e. building off the halfling], with Brave, Halfling Nimbleness, Naturally Stealthy, and the Orc's Relentless Endurance. (Or he could be medium sized [i.e. based on the orc], with Darkvision, Powerful Build, Adrenaline Rush, and the halfling ability Lucky.).

[[ps -- to be clear: the proposed list is to show ease of implementation, not to be dogmatic about specific traits represented.]]


----------



## Micah Sweet (Aug 20, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> The "gods" flavor is overbearing. It even comes across triumphalist.
> 
> I require the topic of religion to be gentler and more inclusive.



All those gods are part of their IP.  Leveraging that IP to get people to buy anything pretty with the right name on it is WotC's entire business strategy.  I'm not surprised they doubled-down on it.

Sorry, but there's money to be made.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Aug 20, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I want the *2024 Players Handbook* to only list the *human race*, with a note to consult with the DM for other races that exist in the setting.
> 
> The Players Handbook should be as setting neutral as possible, except for popular notions about "medieval-esque" plus the existence of magic.
> 
> ...



Do you really think any of that is going to happen?


----------



## Micah Sweet (Aug 20, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> D&D used to be about worldbuilding.



True, and I do miss that emphasis.  But the game also always had an implied setting that has a lot more to it than you're advocating for here.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Aug 20, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> I just.... like... how?! Wasn't that, it being so hard to play against type, and some super-specifics like 90% of the problem we've been trying to address with the whole 'change how we do 'races' in D&D' thing?
> 
> In the survey, I will advocate for _a lot_ of language on how to deal with feat choices for beginning players.
> 
> I suspect this might be a 5e-ism. 5e half-elves, with the 4 pluses (including a Cha boost) and universally-useful extra skills really lead them into great synergy with Cha-based classes (the other suddenly-really-good thing in 5e). Half-elves in 4e, 3e, and AD&D ranged from ho-hum to sub-par to 'good only because, like humans, they can be most classes.' Also back in the TSR days when elves were sometimes coded closer to what Eladrin are today, half-elves had more role to fill as having a foot in the mysterious world of the enigmatic and retreating elves, but still having a more relatable mindset. Since the mystery of elves has been significantly diluted, this might be less so. Still, I have a great fondness for half-elves, although I don't have a problem with the way they are done here.



I doubt you would have seen so many half-elves in Critical Role if the rules for them worked like this.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Aug 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> that small decrease is not really that negative,
> 
> I get ASI's as much derives from your primary/secondary ability but 5ft less speed to be such a hurdle?
> 
> ...



WotC thinks new players don't want their choices to have any downsides whatsoever, even minor ones.  Apparently, it "feels bad" for there to be consequences to your actions.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 20, 2022)

pukunui said:


> Yeah, I’ll miss the half-elf. They have always been my favorite race in D&D.
> 
> One thing I don’t like is that they’re keeping what amounts to cultural traits for some races but calling them divine gifts or whatever (e.g. The dwarf’s tool proficiencies - and in Spelljammer, the giff’s firearms proficiency).
> 
> The reason I don’t like this is because it doesn’t play well with settings where the gods either don’t exist or their existence is uncertain. How does one explain these divinely-inspired cultural traits in a setting like Eberron, for example?



I don’t mind the prevalence of gods, but I do think “dwarves all know how to use these tools because the gods did it” feels like a cop-out. It’s still a cultural trait, it’s just attributing the universality of it to divine will, which is… not better… like “oh, this group of people don’t all share this cultural trait because of genetics. They all share it because _god made them that way._ Yikes.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Aug 20, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> They're trying to walk a fine line between races keeping certain archtypical elements (giff and guns, dwarves and crafts, elves and magic, halflings and stealth) and the disassociation of culture to race. Ergo, you get a lot of "a wizard/demon/God did it" explanations for ribbon features.
> 
> That said, Eberron isn't as big a plot hole as it seems. The majority of races don't have clear origins beyond where they race first appeared, but creation stories are few and far between. Maybe dwarves were blessed by Onatar. Maybe it's a side effect of Daelkyr intervention. Maybe the dwarves don't know and don't want to find out.
> 
> (As a side note: the changes to races between MotM and 1D&D is going to force a revised Eberron book. If for nothing else to address warforged vs autognome and dragonmarks as subrace).



If they had used the Level Up solution, none of this would be a problem.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 20, 2022)

If type is now a major aspect, why wasn't Warforged added to the base race list in the UA.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 21, 2022)

*In regards to Orcs and Eberron: *I hope that going forward for Eberron, this means that House Tharashk and the Mark of Finding (human & half-orcs) will be expanded to Orcs in One D&D. Even if it would be a retcon, I suspect that Keith Baker would be open for it.


----------



## ClockworkNinja (Aug 21, 2022)

I want to suggest a minor change to dragonborn: the breath weapon tends to be a bit situational and doesn't scale well at higher levels, but what if each element had a minor utility rider? 
E.G.: a red dragonborn could light a candle with her nose and a silver one could extinguish it, a copper dragonborn could melt things like a lock or rope by drooling on them, Green could clear foliage or insects, and Bronze could... idk, provide a light source? taze people? I'm open to suggestions.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 21, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> I want the *2024 Players Handbook* to only list the *human race*, with a note to consult with the DM for other races that exist in the setting.
> 
> The Players Handbook should be as setting neutral as possible, except for popular notions about "medieval-esque" plus the existence of magic.



Three things. 

First, the inclusion of other races in the PHB does not remove setting neutrality from the PHB.  The PHB is not a setting. It's simply a tool to be used when creating a setting or using an official setting.

Second, the PHB already does this.  On page 6 is says...

"Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created.* Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game*."

So don't assume all the PHB races are in the DM's world.

Third, there's no way in hell they are going to remove the races from the PHB.  They would either need to put them in the DMG or another separate book and that's just silly.  The vast majority of settings have all or most of those races in them, so putting them in the player's book makes the most sense.


Yaarel said:


> Most importantly, it becomes easier for the DM to swap in a homebrew world. Perhaps the *homebrew "adventurers guide"* starts off local, with a few sheets of paper with brief notes describing the races who inhabit a particular town. Eventually by the time the players reach level 20, there can be a substantial amount of information about the cosmology and other parts of it.



It's hard to get easier than the current super, incredibly, amazingly easy that we have.  I mean, you just do it and it's done.  Then you inform the players and they follow the setting limitations you've set forth.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 21, 2022)

pukunui said:


> Yeah, I’ll miss the half-elf. They have always been my favorite race in D&D.



I will too as it is my second favorite after human


pukunui said:


> One thing I don’t like is that they’re keeping what amounts to cultural traits for some races but calling them divine gifts or whatever (e.g. The dwarf’s tool proficiencies - and in Spelljammer, the giff’s firearms proficiency).
> 
> The reason I don’t like this is because it doesn’t play well with settings where the gods either don’t exist or their existence is uncertain. How does one explain these divinely-inspired cultural traits in a setting like Eberron, for example?



Not just that.  What, if the in DMs homebrew setting, Dwarves are horse nomads,  inhabit swamps/bayous, or whatever, and those abilities don't fit?


----------



## cbwjm (Aug 21, 2022)

Greg K said:


> I will too as it is my second favorite after human
> 
> Not just that.  What, if the in DMs homebrew setting, Dwarves are horse nomads,  inhabit swamps/bayous, or whatever, and those abilities don't fit?



That's when you sort out your dwarf homebrew.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 21, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> That would make sense, and I hope you (and the voices you have heard) are correct.
> 
> It would seem a weird choice to add a race without any precedent, and with some kind of flight, in 1D&D.



Yeah, you can't take anything you see in a UA at face value. 

The dragonborn (for example) could be yet-another-update to the race, a cut-and-paste error (wrong version), a "let's see who's paying attention...", or any number of things.

The missing half elf/orc could be "let's see how much the audience freaks out about this!" with the full expectation that it's not going to fly.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 21, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> That's when you sort out your dwarf homebrew.



Done it  for enough editions, but  it still doesn't change the lame decision that resulted in this version of the playtest dwarf which would require me to house rule (if I decide to embrace 5.5 rather than use 5.0 or jump to another system)


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 21, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> They wrote "gods" in the human race entry.
> 
> As if to be human, one must be a polytheist.
> 
> The intellectual violence is a gross violation of reallife inclusivity.



No.  It's written as if some humans worship gods. We know from the DMG that not all humans do and the DM decides what religious methods exist in his setting.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 21, 2022)

Greg K said:


> Done it  for enough editions, but  it still doesn't change the lame decision that resulted in this version of the playtest dwarf which would require me to house rule (if I decide to embrace 5.5 rather than use 5.0 or jump to another system)



Wait... you don't like the playtest Dwarf!? That seems to me to be one that would be somewhat universally loved.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 21, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Wait... you don't like the playtest Dwarf!? That seems to me to be one that would be somewhat universally loved.



What is your basis for stating it is universally loved? Or were you being facetious?


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 21, 2022)

Greg K said:


> What is your basis for stating it is universally loved? Or were you being facetious?



No, I wasn't. Purely anecdotally everyone I've spoken to has liked it (mostly based on the tremorsense and the fusion of hill and mountain subtypes). What don't you like about it? (Honest question with no plan to argue with you about it - you are perfectly within your right to not like it - I just want to know why!)

EDIT: For the record, I'd like to point out that I didn't say that it IS universally loved, just that it _seemed to me_ that it would be. (And only "somewhat")


----------



## Greg K (Aug 21, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> No, I wasn't. Purely anecdotally everyone I've spoken to has liked it (mostly based on the tremorsense and the fusion of hill and mountain subtypes). What don't you like about it? (Honest question with no plan to argue with you about it - you are perfectly within your right to not like it - I just want to know why!)
> 
> EDIT: For the record, I'd like to point out that I didn't say that it IS universally loved, just that it _seemed to me_ that it would be. (And only "somewhat")



I love tremorsense being in the game. I just don't like it for dwarves as it does not fit my idea of dwarves and I have seen mixed reactions to its inclusion.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 21, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> No, I wasn't. Purely anecdotally everyone I've spoken to has liked it (mostly based on the tremorsense and the fusion of hill and mountain subtypes). What don't you like about it? (Honest question with no plan to argue with you about it - you are perfectly within your right to not like it - I just want to know why!)
> 
> EDIT: For the record, I'd like to point out that I didn't say that it IS universally loved, just that it _seemed to me_ that it would be. (And only "somewhat")



I like the tremorsense ability. I do not like it for stonecunning.  That has always meant something very different in D&D and I don't like that change.  I would rather see forgewise leave, a new ability to tremorsense given, and stonecunning to be a more traditional version.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 21, 2022)

Greg K said:


> I love tremorsense being in the game. I just don't like it for dwarves as it does not fit my idea of dwarves and I have seen mixed reactions to its inclusion.



I don't mind it for dwarves. They are in tune with the stone and I can see it in a limited manner like it is presented. I just don't like it as stonecunning.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 21, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I don't mind it for dwarves. They are in tune with the stone and I can see it in a limited manner like it is presented. I just don't like it as stonecunning.



I don't like it being applied to all dwarves as there are multiple "universes" and dwarves are not associated with earth in all of them (I have seen third party and homebrew campaigns where they do not dwell underground).  It is also why I do not like stone cunning as a default ability- it is cultural for them living underground, but again there are campaigns in which dwarves do not live underground or associated with mining (plus, I don't see why it could not apply to humans (or characters of any race) with a mining background).


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 21, 2022)

Greg K said:


> I don't like it being applied to all dwarves as there are multiple "universes" and dwarves are not associated with earth in all of them (I have seen third party and homebrew campaigns where they do not dwell underground).  It is also why I do not like stone cunning as a default ability- it is cultural for them living underground, but again there are campaigns in which dwarves do not live underground or associated with mining (plus, I don't see why it could not apply to humans (or characters of any race) with a mining background).



Settings change things. If there's a universe/setting/crystal sphere/elephants on the back of a turtle swimming through space where dwarves aren't associated with stone, they should be given setting specific abilities.  The vast majority of the time they are stoneworkers and the default set up should be created with that in mind.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 21, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Settings change things. If there's a universe/setting/crystal sphere/elephants on the back of a turtle swimming through space where dwarves aren't associated with stone, they should be given setting specific abilities.  The vast majority of the time they are stoneworkers and the default set up should be created with that in mind.



I think the game should remove anything non-biological from race.  Then have a choice of environments/cultures.  An underground or mining culture or background could have stonecunning as part of it and then note that under dwarves that the underground environment/culture or mining background is common for dwarves in many settings so ask your DM if this is the player is required to take it.  Also, it makes it easier  to have dwarves raised among another race or culture.

Then again, we are getting into what I consider a  missed opportunity by the designers when it comes to races and cultures.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 21, 2022)

Greg K said:


> I think the game should remove anything non-biological from race.  Then have a choice of environments/cultures.  An underground or mining culture or background could have stonecunning as part of it and then note that under dwarves that the underground environment/culture or mining background is common for dwarves in many settings so ask your DM if this is the player is required to take it.  Also, it makes it easier for dwarves raised among another race or culture.



I think stonecunning and the tremorsense are biological, though.  They're the product of a race living primarily in mountains and working with stone for millennia, since their creation.  Excepting setting specific changes of course.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 21, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I think stonecunning and the tremorsense are biological, though.  They're the product of a race living primarily in mountains and working with stone for millennia, since their creation.  Excepting setting specific changes of course.



Whereas I have never felt stonecunning was biological, but something culturally learned . Meanwhile, tremorsense feels, to me, as something being thrown in out of nowhere by the designers (as I don't recall it ever being part of dwarves in any edition although I could be wrong for 4e as I only own PHB2).


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 22, 2022)

Greg K said:


> Whereas I have never felt stonecunning was biological, but something culturally learned . Meanwhile, tremorsense feels, to me, as something being thrown in out of nowhere by the designers (as I don't recall it ever being part of dwarves in any edition although I could be wrong for 4e as I only own PHB2).




You're not wrong. The closest equivalent would be back when they could sense secret doors (some of the fluff was due to just being able to tell that there was space behind that wall).


----------



## Scribe (Aug 22, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t mind the prevalence of gods, but I do think “dwarves all know how to use these tools because the gods did it” feels like a cop-out. It’s still a cultural trait, it’s just attributing the universality of it to divine will, which is… not better… like “oh, this group of people don’t all share this cultural trait because of genetics. They all share it because _god made them that way._ Yikes.



I had been wondering about this, and I'm pretty surprised to see stuff like this and the Giff gun origin, still remain.


----------



## cbwjm (Aug 22, 2022)

Scribe said:


> I had been wondering about this, and I'm pretty surprised to see stuff like this and the Giff gun origin, still remain.



I just reread the giff, having just glossed over it when I first got the spelljammer books, and it's traits are actually pretty boring. Add some damage, gods gave you gun mastery, and hippo build. Of those, the most interesting to me is hippo build. That bonus damage isn't really all that interest and like many, I find the gods gave this to you a poor way to still give proficiencies without calling them proficiencies. It does have some good benefits if you have a gun, but still isn't that interesting.

I don't know what I'd have given Giff otherwise, but I'd keep the gun fiction as just the gift gravitating to classes that have martial weapon proficiency rather than any other special benefit.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 22, 2022)

Scribe said:


> I had been wondering about this, and I'm pretty surprised to see stuff like this and the Giff gun origin, still remain.



There is only so much you can do with biology without being overpowered, and the alternative is to give every race free magic (which is already prevalent to the point of being nonspecial) or magic-like abilities. I mean, Elves can trance and get free proficiencies because they're dipping into "ancestral memories", and nobody blinked an eye (that I'm aware of).


----------



## Scribe (Aug 22, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> There is only so much you can do with biology without being overpowered, and the alternative is to give every race free magic (which is already prevalent to the point of being nonspecial) or magic-like abilities. I mean, Elves can trance and get free proficiencies because they're dipping into "ancestral memories", and nobody blinked an eye (that I'm aware of).



For what its worth, I have zero issue with the various races have distinct biological differences from ASI to special rules, but if people thought there was a problem, 'a god did it' is not a fix. 

I get it, the cultural angle seemed weird when it was "well my realm isnt Forgotten Realms"...

Looking at the packet, either its about Planescape, or that 'new modern setting' is simply going to be "The D&D Multiverse." and so is that how they are going to get away with it?

Look at the Human entry, or Tiefling for example. Seems pretty 'everyone is like this' to me.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 22, 2022)

Scribe said:


> I had been wondering about this, and I'm pretty surprised to see stuff like this and the Giff gun origin, still remain.



Well I’ll definitely be expressing my distaste for it in the survey. We’ll see what happens thereafter.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 22, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> There is only so much you can do with biology without being overpowered, and the alternative is to give every race free magic (which is already prevalent to the point of being nonspecial) or magic-like abilities. I mean, Elves can trance and get free proficiencies because they're dipping into "ancestral memories", and nobody blinked an eye (that I'm aware of).



Oh there was blinking. Definitely blinking, and maybe more than that.


----------



## Branduil (Aug 24, 2022)

I just want to point out that Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are not "removed from the game." Even only using these rules, you can still play them, and in fact you can play with other varieties of mixed heritage as well. I think this is one of the good changes in the rules, in terms of not making specific forms of mixed heritage somehow distinct from others. 

Now, to get to the big problem here, as others pointed out, "the gods did it" is NOT a solution to racial essentialism, and in fact arguably makes it worse. "All Elves are trained in longswords as babies" is very stupid worldbuilding, but not necessarily racist. "The gods make all dwarves good stonecutters," OTOH, is at the very least, creating the potential for racist tropes to further permeate D&D fiction. They basically made the worst choice possible in trying to have their cake and eat it too, now not only are cultural traits universal, but they're divinely mandated! Horrible stuff, and I hope they listen sincerely to feedback on this.

What they should do, IMO, is separate the cultural traits entirely and put them into Background. Eliminate lineages entirely and change them into "Cultures" that any race can choose. Now obviously there can be some traits that come from the racial background: senses, appearance, dragonbreath, lifespan, trance, etc. but racial attributes should be limited solely to the physical. Now if you want to run a game where a human grows up in an Elven culture but some Elves think he's an inferior Elf, that's your choice, but that shouldn't be the position_ endorsed by the game's creators. _


----------



## AnotherGuy (Aug 24, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I think stonecunning and the tremorsense are biological, though.  They're the product of a race living primarily in mountains and working with stone for millennia, since their creation.  Excepting setting specific changes of course.



I'm not sold on every dwarf gaining tremorsense.


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 24, 2022)

Mostly the updates proposals I've seen so far from the UA as a whole do nothing for me either good or bad, they feel like changes for the sake of changes. I mean, if I were to join the hobby in 2024, I think the Races chapter of the PHB would be completely fine for me, but at the same time I still don't see any reason to update from the 2014 races.

For example, I don't care for half-races. I never liked them but if you want to play one, suit yourself, just don't pretend that because you _can_ be a half-goliah-half-dragonborn then it means it's actually a thing in the world at large. For me the only exception has been usually half-orcs which I sometimes have used to represent "WoW-style orcs" as opposed to "LotR-style orcs", and actually prefer to narrate them as completely different species. The proposed system is a good thing for those who wish to have lots of combinations and want official rules about mixing any two races; at the same time it's a nail in the coffin for anyone who'd like unique features for half-races.

I do agree with the OP that at least they could try to replace "Races" with a more friendly term such as "Creatures" or "Folks". At the same time I'd rather keep "Races" than using the irritating "Ancestry" or "Lineage".


----------



## Mind of tempest (Aug 24, 2022)

honestly I am fairly content with everything other than the dragonborn who need to be buffed back in line with fizbans.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 24, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> honestly I am fairly content with everything other than the dragonborn who need to be buffed back in line with fizbans.



To buff the dragonborn might mean that all ODD races are buffed along with it.

I am ok with that.

The races need to be a satisfying amount of design space.


----------



## Maxperson (Aug 24, 2022)

AnotherGuy said:


> I'm not sold on every dwarf gaining tremorsense.



That's fair.  It's something new for dwarves that will appeal to some and not others.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 24, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> WotC thinks new players don't want their choices to have any downsides whatsoever, even minor ones.  Apparently, it "feels bad" for there to be consequences to your actions.



Why should there be negative consequences built into the rules for a legal and normal rules option? 

Beyond that, penalties feel more restrictive narratively than bonuses, it’s easier for most people to ignore a bonus that doesn’t quite fit the concept than to do the same with a penalty. 

But beyond even all that, why do you constantly trash on wizards in every thread about D&D? 

I was very disappointed when I read level up. I really wanted it to be something I’d like and use in my games. But there are a lot of things I don’t like about it, it changed some stuff just to change something, seemingly, and the way it adds complexity feels like needless complication, to me, as often as it feels like good complexity. I also have bumped heads with Morrus so much he put me on his ignore list, usually about how he runs the site. 

But I don’t go into every thread about it and crap on him, enworld, or level up. 

I get that D&D has moved in directions that you don’t like, and that’s a bummer. It doesn’t justify crapping on what other people like _constantly, _nor (again _constantly_) making snide comments toward the character of the company and thus the people who make up the company, in every single thread about the game. 

Please. When you aren’t doing this I often enjoy your contributions to threads. Please figure out a way to keep the vitriol regarding wizards and the future of D&D to yourself.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 24, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> If they had used the Level Up solution, none of this would be a problem.



And I and many others would look at it and walk away from the game entirely.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 24, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> *In regards to Orcs and Eberron: *I hope that going forward for Eberron, this means that House Tharashk and the Mark of Finding (human & half-orcs) will be expanded to Orcs in One D&D. Even if it would be a retcon, I suspect that Keith Baker would be open for it.



Mechanically, you just use the mark of finding half Orc writeup, regardless of where on the spectrum between mostly human to mostly orcish you are.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 24, 2022)

Scribe said:


> I had been wondering about this, and I'm pretty surprised to see stuff like this and the Giff gun origin, still remain.



I’m not, they’ve been presenting supernatural and biological as equivalent for some time, in races. The races are all constructed by their gods, apparently, so it makes sense that divine gifts would essentially be biological.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Aug 24, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Why should there be negative consequences built into the rules for a legal and normal rules option?
> 
> Beyond that, penalties feel more restrictive narratively than bonuses, it’s easier for most people to ignore a bonus that doesn’t quite fit the concept than to do the same with a penalty.
> 
> ...



I would really like to do what you ask.  The problem is that I have very limited opportunity to engage with D&D socially; I don't game as much as I'd like, and almost everyone I game with is just less invested in the hobby than I am.  The internet is my only outlet, and almost all the conversation is about new stuff and how great it is that the game is moving away from what I enjoy.  It just makes me sad.

And as for WotC, I have been emotionally invested in D&D for over 30 years, and overall enjoyed the TSR version more than any of WotC's.  5e is actually my favorite rule set, but for everything else about the game I prefer the TSR way.  In the last few years, WotC has been explicitly moving away, in the rules, from the only thing about them I really loved.  My players don't care about any of this stuff, so I really feel all alone.  There's no point in getting mad at WotC about it, it won't change anything.  But I'm still mad.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Aug 24, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I would really like to do what you ask.  The problem is that I have very limited opportunity to engage with D&D socially; I don't game as much as I'd like, and almost everyone I game with is just less invested in the hobby than I am.  The internet is my only outlet, and almost all the conversation is about new stuff and how great it is that the game is moving away from what I enjoy.  It just makes me sad.
> 
> And as for WotC, I have been emotionally invested in D&D for over 30 years, and overall enjoyed the TSR version more than any of WotC's.  5e is actually my favorite rule set, but for everything else about the game I prefer the TSR way.  In the last few years, WotC has been explicitly moving away, in the rules, from the only thing about them I really loved.  My players don't care about any of this stuff, so I really feel all alone.  There's no point in getting mad at WotC about it, it won't change anything.  But I'm still mad.



I definitely get that. I felt similarly when the Next playtest was announced. 4e was the first D&D i unambiguously enjoyed and didn’t feel any great need to change anything about, and the virulent _hatred _that wizards caved to really bothered me. 

But there is a lot of the D&D community that is engaged with putting old school ethos into 5e mechanical structures, updating old lore, etc. 

Perhaps if you start some threads with those goals in mind, many of us here will be able to help you feel engaged with the hobby again in a way that is positive. 

I know that I love to tinker with both the mechanics and discuss more in depth lore, I just don’t want the books to get more complex or more lore heavy, because the way they are doing things leaves the game more open for me to tailor it _exactly_ to what I want from it. 

Maybe the community can engage with you on making _your_ D&D, rather than bringing others down?


----------



## MockingBird (Aug 24, 2022)

I definitely will request the ardlings be removed, I will request half-elf be added back. I don't really like their mix and match suggestions.


----------



## d24454_modern (Aug 27, 2022)

I like dropping the Half races because it feels like they should be templates anyways.


----------

