# The 10 Player Races in Volo's Guide Revealed



## darjr (Nov 2, 2016)

wow! I think I'm going to go build a Kenku asap. But that lizard folk assassin is a classic.


----------



## MiraMels (Nov 2, 2016)

This list looks great!  My first is going to be an orc cleric of Luthic.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Nov 2, 2016)

Interesting. I did not know that 13=10.  

And since we already have Goliath, that would be 12 new races.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 2, 2016)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Interesting. I did not know that 13=10.
> 
> And since we already have Goliath, that would be 12 new races.




And Aasimar that is 11.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Nov 2, 2016)

Zardnaar said:


> And Aasimar that is 11.




11.5 then. The Aasimar in the DMG was only an example of how to build your own races. It needed fine tuning and was not a true ready-to-play race as listed without DM permission, otherwise it would have been legal for AL play without needing a special cert.


----------



## KahlessNestor (Nov 2, 2016)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> 11.5 then. The Aasimar in the DMG was only an example of how to build your own races. It needed fine tuning and was not a true ready-to-play race as listed without DM permission, otherwise it would have been legal for AL play without needing a special cert.



The reason they need a cert is not because it isn't ready to play, but because the DMG is not a legal AL rules source.  That's all. I'm betting the Volo version will be exactly the same.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## CrusaderX (Nov 2, 2016)

KahlessNestor said:


> The reason they need a cert is not because it isn't ready to play, but because the DMG is not a legal AL rules source.  That's all. I'm betting the Volo version will be exactly the same.




I'm betting it won't be.  Mike Mearls stated in a podcast months ago that they wanted to redesign the Aasimar because they weren't really satisfied with the DMG version.  Well, now is their chance for a redesign.


----------



## Charles Rampant (Nov 2, 2016)

This list is a touch disappointing, in that it doesn't have the Aaracocra, who I now believe will be the only EE race not updated/printed in a Hardback. We have Genasi in PotA, Svirfneblin (curse their impossible to pronounce name!) in SCAG and now Goliaths in VGtM.

Otherwise, these look fun. I would observe that it is a pretty unmonstrous list of monstrous race options; no Minotaurs or Elementals or whatever. Probably for the best, as the ECL rule setup seemed like a friggin' nightmare. 

I suspect that most tables will place soft bans of much of these races, in practice; Aasimar is one thing, but a Bugbear seems a hard sell if you're going for a campaign where the players interact with the King and spend all their time in Human towns and whatnot. Even in all the material that I've read for Waterdeep, I don't think that I saw an explicit mention of a Goblinoid or Orc NPC of any kind, beyond a vague mention that sometimes Orc tribes send delegations to Waterdeep to buy important supplies. Of course, this list does give some really solid options for a subversive 'Evil Races' game, which I'm sure was probably (part of) the intent.

Aasimar Paladins and Tabaxi Rogues will probably be hitting everyone's tables soon though!


----------



## gyor (Nov 2, 2016)

I don't think this list includes the table of races we heard about.

 But cool list. Nothing shocking, but a nice list.


----------



## Mecheon (Nov 2, 2016)

Entsuropi said:


> Svirfneblin (curse their impossible to pronounce name!)



Snerf-nibblin'


----------



## akr71 (Nov 2, 2016)

Entsuropi said:


> This list is a touch disappointing, in that it doesn't have the Aaracocra




Good!


----------



## Mercule (Nov 2, 2016)

I don't really know what to think. I love the idea of having official stats for hobgoblins and am warm to the other goblinoids and orcs. Unless the aasimar and goliath are substantively different from previous offerings, those feel like a cop out. The other races are "meh", to me.

Overall, the book doesn't have me excited. Between the Forgotten Realms ties and mixed bag of previews, I'll probably pass. Pity.


----------



## GreenTengu (Nov 2, 2016)

4/5ths of my top choices are there, the only one missing is Gith. But I guess it is best to hold off on them until they decide to tackle the topic of psionics.

And there are others that I know people want, but they are specifically Nentir vale Races or Eberron races or Dragonlance races or Dark Sun races.

The alternate version of the Gnoll presented in 4th edition can be considered Nentir vale Gnolls and be held off until then.

It does a bit feel like Saurials maybe would have been better for Forgotten Realms than Firbolg, Yuan-ti, or Kenku, but I guess dinosaurs aren't really in fashion right now like they were in the late 80s and early 90s.


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 2, 2016)

TheHobgoblin said:


> It does a bit feel like Saurials maybe would have been better for Forgotten Realms than Firbolg, Yuan-ti, or Kenku, but I guess dinosaurs aren't really in fashion right now like they were in the late 80s and early 90s.




Saurials also can't speak,so that's a big fat no on playing one in my games.


----------



## LordEntrails (Nov 2, 2016)

gyor said:


> I don't think this list includes the table of races we heard about.
> 
> But cool list. Nothing shocking, but a nice list.



You mean those lists of races based upon peoples speculations and desires? I'd pretty much consider this the offical list. I'm confident the FG version of Volo's is production ready, so I can't see this list changing. Therefore, since its the only "official" list that I've seen presented, I don't see how to argue it's incomplete.


----------



## gyor (Nov 2, 2016)

LordEntrails said:


> You mean those lists of races based upon peoples speculations and desires? I'd pretty much consider this the offical list. I'm confident the FG version of Volo's is production ready, so I can't see this list changing. Therefore, since its the only "official" list that I've seen presented, I don't see how to argue it's incomplete.




 We were told that there was a table of "quick races" during the D&D extralife podcast.


----------



## gyor (Nov 2, 2016)

Mercule said:


> I don't really know what to think. I love the idea of having official stats for hobgoblins and am warm to the other goblinoids and orcs. Unless the aasimar and goliath are substantively different from previous offerings, those feel like a cop out. The other races are "meh", to me.
> 
> Overall, the book doesn't have me excited. Between the Forgotten Realms ties and mixed bag of previews, I'll probably pass. Pity.




 I have a feeling the Aasimar will be, Mike Mearls wasn't satisified with the DMG Aasimar and there are tables for Angellic Guide Names and Angellic Guide Natures, revealed in Fantasy Grounds screen shots, so I think Angellic Guide might be a racial feature for Aasimar.

 Goliaths at least might get additional fluff.


----------



## flametitan (Nov 2, 2016)

Someone on reddit has the book.

Goliaths are the same, Aasimar have subraces now.

EDIT: forgot the link: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/5aqpe8/spoilers_just_picked_up_volos_guide_to_monsters/


----------



## Istbor (Nov 2, 2016)

Kenku, Lizardmen, Goblins.  I am excited.  Mostly about Lizardmen (they have a huge role in my homebrew campaign).  While I like Dragonborn too, Lizardmen just hold a special place in my heart as an important reptilian race.

And Kenku?  Who doesn't like little crow people? I typically add some sort of Skeksis looking thing 'cus bird people.  Perhaps I will simply substitute now with these little guys?[h=1][/h] race in there cus bird people


----------



## Shardstone (Nov 2, 2016)

Aasimar are SIGNIFICANTLY different here when compared to their DMG brothers.


----------



## Prakriti (Nov 2, 2016)

flametitan said:


> Someone on reddit has the book.
> 
> Goliaths are the same, Aasimar have subraces now.
> 
> EDIT: forgot the link: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/5aqpe8/spoilers_just_picked_up_volos_guide_to_monsters/



Edit: Only Aasimar have sub-races. No Goliath subraces. Nuts.

Also, sorry for the erroneous thread title, everyone. Apparently I don't know how to count.


----------



## tuxgeo (Nov 2, 2016)

flametitan said:


> Someone on reddit has the book.
> 
> Goliaths are the same, Aasimar have subraces now.
> 
> EDIT: forgot the link: https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/5aqpe8/spoilers_just_picked_up_volos_guide_to_monsters/




Also shown in that reddit thread is the Index, which includes: 
Abjurer, Archdruid, Bard, Boggle, Champion, Conjurer, Cow, Deinonychus, Diviner, Dolphin, Draegloth, Enchanter, Evoker, Firenewt, Flail snail, Illusionist, Kraken priest, Martial arts adept, Master thief, Meenlock, Necromancer, Sea spawn, Shadow mastiff, Shoosuva, Stegosaurus, Swashbuckler, Transmuter, War priest, Warlocks of three types of patron, *Warlord,* Wood woad, and Xvart. 

What? The Warlord is a monster but not a playable thing? 
Odd. At least they managed to include something called "Warlord" in the game, finally.


----------



## flametitan (Nov 2, 2016)

Warlord probably refers to someone like Genghis Khan rather than the 4e class.


----------



## gyor (Nov 2, 2016)

I like how there is an Aasimar for every alignment, Protector Aasimar for good, Scroug Aasimar for Nueutral, and Fallen Aasimar for evil. Not that I think alignment is a requirement for any if them, its just a flavour tendency.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 2, 2016)

Entsuropi said:


> This list is a touch disappointing, in that it doesn't have the Aaracocra, who I now believe will be the only EE race not updated/printed in a Hardback. We have Genasi in PotA, Svirfneblin (curse their impossible to pronounce name!) in SCAG and now Goliaths in VGtM.




I bet Aarakocra are coming in the as-yet-unnanounced _Rod of Seven Parts_ mega-adventure. Their MM fiction ties them in with the lore from that adventure (Wind Dukes and such) pretty nicely.


----------



## Charles Rampant (Nov 2, 2016)

I'm A Banana;[URL="tel:6935149" said:
			
		

> 6935149[/URL]]I bet Aarakocra are coming in the as-yet-unnanounced _Rod of Seven Parts_ mega-adventure. Their MM fiction ties them in with the lore from that adventure (Wind Dukes and such) pretty nicely.




That is very believable. I read the power score overview of that item and its previous appearances, and it does seem ripe for the big book treatment!


----------



## Henry (Nov 2, 2016)

Mecheon said:


> Snerf-nibblin'




I had some good advice on those - pronounce it kind of like the Swedish Chef from Muppets.

sVEER-fuh-NEBB-lin.

BorkBorkBork!


----------



## Lidgar (Nov 2, 2016)

tuxgeo said:


> Also shown in that reddit thread is the Index, which includes:
> *Abjurer*, *Archdruid*, Bard, Boggle, *Champion*, *Conjurer*, Cow, Deinonychus, *Diviner*, Dolphin, Draegloth, *Enchanter*, *Evoker*, Firenewt, Flail snail, *Illusionist*, Kraken priest, *Martial arts adept*, *Master thief*, Meenlock, *Necromancer*, Sea spawn, Shadow mastiff, Shoosuva, Stegosaurus, *Swashbuckler*, *Transmuter*, *War priest*, Warlocks of three types of patron, *Warlord,* Wood woad, and Xvart.




New NPC's?


----------



## QuietBrowser (Nov 2, 2016)

Further reddit spoilers have given us most of the ability traits for the Triton, and the complete writeups for Bugbears, Goblins, Hobgoblins and Kobolds. Bad news is, racial ability scores are back - Kobolds get -2 Strength, Orcs get -2 Intelligence.


----------



## gyor (Nov 2, 2016)

QuietBrowser said:


> Further reddit spoilers have given us most of the ability traits for the Triton, and the complete writeups for Bugbears, Goblins, Hobgoblins and Kobolds. Bad news is, racial ability scores are back - Kobolds get -2 Strength, Orcs get -2 Intelligence.




 Yeah that was a bad idea, where did you learn about the Kobolds -2?


----------



## QuietBrowser (Nov 2, 2016)

gyor said:


> Yeah that was a bad idea, where did you learn about the Kobolds -2?




The 5e D&D general thread on 4chan's /tg/ has been hosting leaked pictures of the book. A two-page spread showing the bottom 3/4s of the Triton and the entirety of the Bugbear, Goblin, Hobgoblin and Kobold entries is on there now.

Really don't approve of this backstep at ALL. I'll stick with my own kobolds before I take WotC's if this is going to be the damn material I've got to work with. :spit:


----------



## pukunui (Nov 2, 2016)

I, for one, am not too fussed about the ability score penalties. What I'm not so sure about are things like the bugbear's Long-Limbed trait. I realized they've worded it so it can't be used with opportunity attacks but still ... the idea just doesn't sit well with me. If one of my players wanted to play a bugbear, I'd be inclined to remove that trait.


----------



## bedir than (Nov 2, 2016)

QuietBrowser said:


> Further reddit spoilers have given us most of the ability traits for the Triton, and the complete writeups for Bugbears, Goblins, Hobgoblins and Kobolds. Bad news is, racial ability scores are back - Kobolds get -2 Strength, Orcs get -2 Intelligence.



That's not bad news


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 2, 2016)

pukunui said:


> I, for one, am not too fussed about the ability score penalties. What I'm not so sure about are things like the bugbear's Long-Limbed trait. I realized they've worded it so it can't be used with opportunity attacks but still ... the idea just doesn't sit well with me. If one of my players wanted to play a bugbear, I'd be inclined to remove that trait.





It has been hypothesized that there is a strict math behind the PC Ra e options; if so, it seems difficult to imagine how they could make Orcs, that weren't either just Half-Orcs or built entirely differently.  They trade 2 Int for Powerful Build and an attack ability (Aggressive, from the MM).  Seems fair.


----------



## pukunui (Nov 2, 2016)

[MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION]: What you say seems reasonable. Not sure how it relates to what I said, though ...


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 2, 2016)

Aw, no bullywugs?

So much for my froghemoth-riding bullywug druid concept.


----------



## gyor (Nov 2, 2016)

QuietBrowser said:


> The 5e D&D general thread on 4chan's /tg/ has been hosting leaked pictures of the book. A two-page spread showing the bottom 3/4s of the Triton and the entirety of the Bugbear, Goblin, Hobgoblin and Kobold entries is on there now.
> 
> Really don't approve of this backstep at ALL. I'll stick with my own kobolds before I take WotC's if this is going to be the damn material I've got to work with. :spit:




 Thanks I found the pic, although navigating that hole is as pleasant as stabbing a dagger into ones brain and swirlling it around for giggles. But thanks anyways.

 I first impression of the Kobold is by the gods I've never seen a race suck more.

 But I thought about it for a while and the Kobold's mastery of Advange helps make up for it. Pack tactics even helps make up for -2 strength in strength builds somewhat.

 You'll want some kind of pet, even if its just a familiar, to help make sure and ally is always around a target, so you have advantage. 

 A Kobold Arcane Trickster with a familiar would be cool. Or a Kobold BM Ranger.

 Hobgoblin is good for Gishy wizards, +2 Con, +1 Intelligence, prof in martial weapons & light armour. Take the warcaster feat and use a great sword. Plus they can get a bonus to certain rolls on a failure depending on how many people see it embarrass itself.

 Bugbear is basically a giant rogue, reach, surprise attack, powerful build, sneaky (free stealth prof), darkvision. 

 Goblin is good for Two Weapon fighter rangers, able to hide/disengage as a bonus action and deal level/damage 1st per short rest, darkvision. Fun bards too.

 Triton is aquamen.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 2, 2016)

pukunui said:


> [MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION]: What you say seems reasonable. Not sure how it relates to what I said, though ...





Just agreeing that attribute mali are not deal-breakers; once you get away from more standard options, some sort of disadvantage becomes inevitable (even Dwarves and Drow in the PHB have fairly serious drawbacks).


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 2, 2016)

gyor said:


> Thanks I found the pic, although navigating that hole is as pleasant as stabbing a dagger into ones brain and swirlling it around for giggles. But thanks anyways.
> 
> I first impression of the Kobold is by the gods I've never seen a race suck more.
> 
> ...





The Kobold and Orc disadvantages are jarring at first, but their advantages are pretty good, and fit in to stereotypical roles for those races pretty well; an Orc Wizard will remain an oddity, though still totally doable with the right rolls, but an Orc Fighter or Barbarian is king...


----------



## gyor (Nov 2, 2016)

I was put off by the Orc's minus 2, until I remembered that as long as you stay away from too many blaster spells and save or suck spells, then you could have a good Orc wizard, especially if you multiclass with Eldrich Knight with a couple of SCAG cantrips.

 Picture an Orc Necromancer/Eldrich Knight. Could work, if you chose your spells wisely.


----------



## flametitan (Nov 2, 2016)

Parmandur said:


> The Kobold and Orc disadvantages are jarring at first, but their advantages are pretty good, and fit in to stereotypical roles for those races pretty well; an Orc Wizard will remain an oddity, though still totally doable with the right rolls, but an Orc Fighter or Barbarian is king...




That's exactly the problem though. They're incredibly powerful with certain classes, and as a "penalty" are given negatives in stats that these builds often don't concern themselves with anyway. However, if you want to go against the grain, you'll have that much harder of a time doing so. Up to now 5e races never really punished you for weird combinations. If you wanted to be a Half-Orc or Goliath Wizard, you weren't exactly _rewarded_ for it, but you could keep up with the High Elf Wizard. But a full Orc wizard? Sorry, your abilities are neither useful for being a wizard, _and_ you take a penalty to your primary wizard stat.

I get you can avoid spells that require saves and attack rolls, but you still end up with the problem that you have to build a certain way to not be behind, rather than simply picking up the coolest sounding things.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Nov 2, 2016)

I think it was expected that races outside the main PHB races could in fact get ability penalties, though it's something that should be used sparingly.


----------



## gyor (Nov 2, 2016)

Its really just Orc Envokers/Enchanters and possibly illusionists that will suck. Focus on conjuration, necromancy, Aburation mustly plus green flame and Booming Blade spells and an Orc can rock as a Gish with minions.


----------



## Werebat (Nov 2, 2016)

Did they make the Orc a little more attractive (mechanically speaking) than its DMG iteration was?


----------



## GreenTengu (Nov 2, 2016)

gyor said:


> Hobgoblin is good for Gishy wizards, +2 Con, +1 Intelligence, prof in martial weapons & light armour. Take the warcaster feat and use a great sword. Plus they can get a bonus to certain rolls on a failure depending on how many people see it embarrass itself.
> 
> Bugbear is basically a giant rogue, reach, surprise attack, powerful build, sneaky (free stealth prof), darkvision.




Please don't tell me this is the list of everything.

So Hobgoblins get a +2 in the universally good attribute, +1 in the trashiest and.... crap proficiency that every single class in the game gets or cannot possibly take advantage of. And is expected to... fail in front of everyone.

Bugbears however get the bar none most powerful ability in all the game (reach), plus bonus damage, plus stealth proficiency?

So they made Hobgoblins completely suck to the point of being absolutely worthless and made Bugbears super overpowered combat monsters that pretty much assures that all races in this book will be banned the moment someone runs one and destroys the adventure.

The negative penalties on Orcs and Kobolds don't hurt them. There are literally only two classes in the game that are remotely negative affected by having an intelligence above 6 and, similarly, Strength is an utterly worthless stat unless you are a Paladin... and even then you can probably find a way to make a dex build that is nearly as good. Dexterity otherwise gets to substitute in for Strength in virtually all situations you would even be asked to make a Strength roll.


----------



## pukunui (Nov 2, 2016)

gyor said:


> Its really just Orc Envokers/Enchanters and possibly illusionists that will suck. Focus on conjuration, necromancy, Aburation mustly plus green flame and Booming Blade spells and an Orc can rock as a Gish with minions.



An orc necromancer actually sounds pretty cool.


----------



## turkeygiant (Nov 2, 2016)

I think something to remember is kobolds, orcs, and goblins are MONSTEROUS RACES, they aren't necessarily intended to fill the really versatile roles of traditional PC races. Yes you can play as these races, but the goal wasn't to make them playable as all classes, just those that fit their monsterous natures.


----------



## GreenTengu (Nov 3, 2016)

turkeygiant said:


> I think something to remember is kobolds, orcs, and goblins are MONSTEROUS RACES, they aren't necessarily intended to fill the really versatile roles of traditional PC races. Yes you can play as these races, but the goal wasn't to make them playable as all classes, just those that fit their monsterous natures.




If Dragonborn, Tiefling, Drow, Goliath, Firbolg, Lizardfolk, Triton, Tabaxi and Kenku are not "monsterous races", there really is no god damn excuse except incompetance and laziness.

So two weeks before the book is slated to be announced, we get absolute, indisputable confirmation from the final product that indeed the primary thing people wanted the book for was completely as shitily done as it possibly could have been. That once again it has fallen into the hands of someone who smugly thought he was being clever by intentionally doing the crappiest job possible.

I am guessing it probably mostly ties back to not wanting to make the PC stats too incongruity with the monster manual entry or some complete bullcrap like that. And so appearing in the Monster Manual decided that for another god damn edition they would be absolutely functionally unplayable... while anything that didn't get shoved into the Monster Manual first gets to start with a clean slate and actually designed with the slightest bit of intelligence and common sense.

It is a good thing the spoilers warned me now not to buy the god damn book. I just feel bad for anyone who was stupid enough to pre-order it.


----------



## GarrettKP (Nov 3, 2016)

The meaning of Monstrous here is "monster races that tend towards evil alignments." 

Bugbear, Hobgoblin, Goblin and Kobold are very unlikely adventurers when compared to Goliath, Tabaxi, Triton and Kenku. 

That being said I see no issue with the Hobgoblin statistics. They make great Wizards and decent melee characters. Not every race needs a bonus to the classes main stat to be effective despite what power gamers might want to think.

I mean, you're acting like they are Kobolds and only get one stat bonus alongside a negative.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 3, 2016)

gyor said:


> I was put off by the Orc's minus 2, until I remembered that as long as you stay away from too many blaster spells and save or suck spells, then you could have a good Orc wizard, especially if you multiclass with Eldrich Knight with a couple of SCAG cantrips.




Throg stick to Magic Missile.  Is magic; is missile. Is gut!


----------



## gyor (Nov 3, 2016)

pukunui said:


> An orc necromancer actually sounds pretty cool.




 Yeah, basically a wizard that can beat the snot out of in hand to hand combat and raise your corpse as a ghoul for one last defilement of your body. Necromancer/Eldrich Knight for a Death Knight feel. Focus the wizard spells mostly on Necromancy and Conjuration, with maybe a few choice illusion spells like mirror image, plus Green Flame Blade. Black plate Armour, with like skull ornaments of it and a massive black great sword.


----------



## Jester David (Nov 3, 2016)

Entsuropi said:


> Svirfneblin (curse their impossible to pronounce name!)



"svirf" like in "smurf" (likely the source) + neblin.
Simple.


----------



## bleezy (Nov 3, 2016)

It says right on the page that "some of these races are more or less powerful than the typical D&D races" and should be used with care.


----------



## Curmudjinn (Nov 3, 2016)

TheHobgoblin said:


> If Dragonborn, Tiefling, Drow, Goliath, Firbolg, Lizardfolk, Triton, Tabaxi and Kenku are not "monsterous races", there really is no god damn excuse except incompetance and laziness.
> 
> So two weeks before the book is slated to be announced, we get absolute, indisputable confirmation from the final product that indeed the primary thing people wanted the book for was completely as shitily done as it possibly could have been. That once again it has fallen into the hands of someone who smugly thought he was being clever by intentionally doing the crappiest job possible.
> 
> ...




What the hell is the bad language for? If it isn't what you like, DON'T BUY IT and simply make your own version of those monsters. It is literally no sweat nor harm to you.

I could care less about monstrous races. I want things that better a campaign, like ecologies and details like that.


----------



## Zaukrie (Nov 3, 2016)

I for one think races and classes should have more penalties and niches....if everything is good at everything...what is the point? I realize most disagree


----------



## gyor (Nov 3, 2016)

The - modifiers were a bad idea, they will be wildly unpopular, but its far from crippling, no matter what your class.

 Pack tactics makes up for the -2 to strength. A Kobold Champion Fighter with a dex build and good team mates will be brutal. A Kobold BM Ranger with a Mastiff companion will both have pack tactics, weirdly poetic. Really the part that bugs me most about the Kobold is the flavour Coward, Beg, and Grovel, not the kind of ability that screams champion.


----------



## flametitan (Nov 3, 2016)

TheHobgoblin said:


> Please don't tell me this is the list of everything.
> 
> So Hobgoblins get a +2 in the universally good attribute, +1 in the trashiest and.... crap proficiency that every single class in the game gets or cannot possibly take advantage of. And is expected to... fail in front of everyone.




Honestly I rather enjoy the hobgoblin ability. An extra +3 (assuming the average party size is 4 people and that you have no NPC allies) to help guarantee that an attack lands or to avoid another effect that stacks with every other bonus is pretty decent, especially because it recharges fairly quickly.

The bugbear's traits are _amazing_ but they're worded very specifically. Long limbed does not allow for any opportunity attack cheese. The surprise attack damage is only once per combat, and like the Assassin's abilities, requires an extremely specific chain of events to go off before they trigger (You have to both surprise an opponent, and then you have to win the initiative bid). And it's only 7 damage to open a fight with. Sure, you'll take out something low level pretty quickly, but as monsters scale by HP, it does taper off unless you crit.

I will agree that the penalties to stats are unnecessary, but not because the chosen stats are "useless." Instead it's because it punishes players who want to be the heavy armoured Kobold or the Illusionist orc while doing nothing to "balance" their actual abilities when put onto their stereotypical class, upon which the orc is *loaded* (getting some abilities from the half-orc, which are already great STR fighters and then some more to help close the distance to the ranged attackers).

In fact, why does the kobold have a stat penalty at all? Looking at its abilities, sunlight sensitivity and pack tactics cancel each other out rather nicely, leaving it's only real ability being a 1/short rest ability that forces kobolds to be within melee weapon attack range. And if that seems strong enough to be penalized, don't forget that being small in 5e is almost all penalties too.


----------



## gyor (Nov 3, 2016)

Curmudjinn said:


> What the hell is the bad language for? If it isn't what you like, DON'T BUY IT and simply make your own version of those monsters. It is literally no sweat nor harm to you.
> 
> I could care less about monstrous races. I want things that better a campaign, like ecologies and details like that.




 You do realize that you swore (hell) when you gave him crap for swearing? 

 I don't blame him for being upset, they ignored the fans on this one, most of whom said no negative modifiers.

 That being said, its just two races, and neither negative modifier is crippling, there is no class they can't rock, abit as long as one avoids trap options. Not ideal, but not crippling either. Heck when playing to their wheel houses (Dex Rogues, Rangers, Fighters, Monks, Bladelocks, TWF/Archer builds for Kobolds, and Fighters, Rangers, Barbarians, Monks, Paladins for Orcs), both are very powerful.


----------



## pukunui (Nov 3, 2016)

gyor said:


> Really the part that bugs me most about the Kobold is the flavour Coward, Beg, and Grovel, not the kind of ability that screams champion.



Agreed. I even advocated for a name change for this one in my playtest feedback, but it looks like they ignored me ...


----------



## Jester David (Nov 3, 2016)

*Aasimar *Sounds like they want to redo them from the DMG. Makes sense: the DMG was a poor book to serve as a player reference product. Happier to have them given the full meal deal. I just hope they worked in a deva variant.
Already allowed at my table. 

*Bugbear *A surprise. They're sneaky CE brutes. Murderers and serial killers. Hard to picture them as Player Character material.  But I imagine the stealthy medium sized creature role is well served by them.
They're sociopaths!! Yeah... not at my table.

*Firbolg*This race does have some unfortunately changes to lore. It'd be nice if they kept the Celtic look with the big red beards to at least tie the visual similarities of the two races together. Hopefully there's more art in the book that offers and alternate take. Personally, I don't mind the slight lore tweak, as they could use a realignment to be closer to the mythological version. And more fey creatures are nice. 
I'll probably allow, if a player asks. The Feywild is open enough for there to be lots of places a firbolg could hail from.

*Goblin* Expected. People love their gobos. 
I'd probably allow. 

*Goliath* Sad. I liked having _Elemental Evil_ races remain there, to keep that product useful...
They don't really have a solid place in my world. So I wouldn't allow for that reason. Or I'd discourage/ ask for a great story hook.

*Hobgoblin* A bit of a surprise. But they fill a military/martial role that isn't served by most other PC races. They work for any mercenary race quite nicely. 
Would allow if the player had a good story.*

Kenku*Unexpected but hoped for. I love kenku as a ravenfolk. 
They don't have a strong presence in my current campaign setting sadly. So I won't push them towards my players like kobolds. But allowed. 

*Kobold*Expected. People love their kobos. 
Kobolds have a big presence in my world. Definitely allowed. 

*Lizardfolk*Not a huge surprise. 
Have a place in my world, and as a neutral race they're easier to work in than hobgoblins, orcs, etc. 
*
Orc*Expected. Warcraft and all. 
Would allow. 
*
Tabaxi*Huh... I knew they were bringing in "catfolk" so I was expecting that. As a _Monstrous Manual_ race - a book I have supreme nostolgia for - this is a bit of a surprise. And has some stronger ties to D&D history than generic "catfolk", while still allowing people to play catfolk. Okay, nice. I like when they go for a callback while also doing fan service rather than just inventing something. 
They don't really have a place in my world. I could work them in if a player had their heart on the race, but I'd prefer not to.

*Triton*An aquatic race does fill a pretty big niche in the player toolbox. Great for a lot of campaigns. 
But not mine. Not allowed: they're all dead. *

Yuan-ti Pureblood*Somewhat of a surprise. Like the bugbear they're a good human-ish stealthy race. For people who want to be a good rogue but not be a halfling. 
If the player had a solid hook, I'd allow it.


----------



## gyor (Nov 3, 2016)

Jester David said:


> *Aasimar *Sounds like they want to redo them from the DMG. Makes sense: the DMG was a poor book to serve as a player reference product. Happier to have them given the full meal deal. I just hope they worked in a deva variant.
> Already allowed at my table.
> 
> *Bugbear *A surprise. They're sneaky CE brutes. Murderers and serial killers. Hard to picture them as Player Character material.  But I imagine the stealthy medium sized creature role is well served by them.
> ...




 I could see human churches taking orphan Bugbears in and training them to be good/neutral Avenger Paladins, which the Bugbears would be da bomb at. Of course they're also the best race for assassins.

 And what makes you say Yuan Ti Purebloods are good at sneaking? They get +2 Charisma and +1 intelligence last time I heard and I haven't seen what features they get yet.


----------



## Jester David (Nov 3, 2016)

gyor said:


> And what makes you say Yuan Ti Purebloods are good at sneaking? They get +2 Charisma and +1 intelligence last time I heard and I haven't seen what features they get yet.



Where did you hear that? I only see the images above. Don't see any stats there...

But, with Cha, they do make a good deceptive/liar race, which makes sense. They're the snake oil salesmen of the D&D world.


----------



## gyor (Nov 3, 2016)

Jester David said:


> "svirf" like in "smurf" (likely the source) + neblin.
> Simple.




 Screw it, just say Deep Gnomes.


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 3, 2016)

turkeygiant said:


> I think something to remember is kobolds, orcs, and goblins are MONSTEROUS RACES, they aren't necessarily intended to fill the really versatile roles of traditional PC races. Yes you can play as these races, but the goal wasn't to make them playable as all classes, just those that fit their monsterous natures.




Quoted for truth.


----------



## GarrettKP (Nov 3, 2016)

Aasimar have 3 subraces: The Protector (+1 Wis, can grow Wings and deal extra Radiant damage with attacks), The Scourge (+1 Con) and The Fallen (+1 Str, can activate a fear Aura and deal extra Necrotic damage with attacks)

Base all Aasimar have +2 Charisma and have the other features that the DMG Aasimar had except the spellcasting and +1 Wis (Those were replaced by the subraces).


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 3, 2016)

TheHobgoblin said:


> It is a good thing the spoilers warned me now not to buy the god damn book. I just feel bad for anyone who was stupid enough to pre-order it.




I think all races should not neccesarily be good at all things, and have no problem with the orc as presented.  I like the fact that it inclined to a particular type of wizard.

And if I didn't like it, I would change the penalty for my game to something else, or negate it completely and game on. 

The previews have me even more stoked for the book.  

PS, I am not stupid.


----------



## gyor (Nov 3, 2016)

The reddit where some of these images come from, which is now closed.

 If you look at the Yuan Ti Pureblood in the MM, its even lots of caster/magic stuff. Like Animal Friendship at will (snakes only), and Poison Spray/Suggestion 3 times a day, magic resistance, poison immunity, darkvision.

 So if I had to guess, poison spray cantrip, animal friendship (snakes only) at will, suggestion 1/short rest, poison immunity, but I think the PC verison won't get magic resistance. Just a guess.


----------



## The Jenneral (Nov 3, 2016)

Why's the Kobold so garbage? Between sunlight sensitivity and the strength penalty I really don't see a scenario where I'd want to use one over a goblin (if I wanted a small monstrous race) or a dragonborn or lizardfolk (if I wanted to play a dragon or reptile). Plus, they should really get some kind of bonus to int for the inevitable artificer/inventor type class. Honestly, I really really hate to see stat penalties return. They're not 5e's style at all. Pretty disappointed with all of the "monstrous" PC races, actually. Kind of killed a lot of my hype for this. Still going to pick it up for the monster manual/monstrous arcana component, though.


----------



## gyor (Nov 3, 2016)

GarrettKP said:


> Aasimar have 3 subraces: The Protector (+1 Wis, can grow Wings and deal extra Radiant damage with attacks), The Scourge (+1 Con) and The Fallen (+1 Str, can activate a fear Aura and deal extra Necrotic damage with attacks)
> 
> Base all Aasimar have +2 Charisma and have the other features that the DMG Aasimar had except the spellcasting and +1 Wis (Those were replaced by the subraces).




 I think they still get the light cantrip, its Lesser Restoration and Daylight that got dumped, for the ability at 3rd level to transform into some kind of Angel form for 1 minute (basically Guardian Angel, Avenging Angel, and Fallen Angel kind flavour from the sounds of it).


----------



## gyor (Nov 3, 2016)

GarrettKP said:


> Aasimar have 3 subraces: The Protector (+1 Wis, can grow Wings and deal extra Radiant damage with attacks), The Scourge (+1 Con) and The Fallen (+1 Str, can activate a fear Aura and deal extra Necrotic damage with attacks)
> 
> Base all Aasimar have +2 Charisma and have the other features that the DMG Aasimar had except the spellcasting and +1 Wis (Those were replaced by the subraces).




 I think they still get the light cantrip, its Lesser Restoration and Daylight that got dumped, for the ability at 3rd level to transform into some kind of Angel form for 1 minute (basically Guardian Angel, Avenging Angel, and Fallen Angel kind flavour from the sounds of it).


----------



## MiraMels (Nov 3, 2016)

They brought back racial stat penalties. _They brought back racial stat penalties?
_
I have to say, I am incredibly disappointed that they did this.  

Three foot tall, forty pound gnomes don't have racial stat penalties.


----------



## MiraMels (Nov 3, 2016)

Also, the Bugbear's Surprise Attack refers to a limit of "once per combat" which is the first time that a rule has referred to a "combat" as an explicit unit of gameplay?  I understand what they are going for, but I don't like the implication of making an explicit distinction between "combat" and "non-combat" phases of the game.  It feels too video game-y.


----------



## gyor (Nov 3, 2016)

I found someone offering vague feeling from the VGTM they got, they said the the Purebloods abilities were powerful, good for any charisma based class, which is Warlocks, Paladins, Sorcerors, Bards, Rogue Swashbuckler Class.


----------



## gyor (Nov 3, 2016)

I found someone offering vague feeling from the VGTM they got, they said the the Purebloods abilities were powerful, good for any charisma based class, which is Warlocks, Paladins, Sorcerors, Bards, Rogue Swashbuckler Class.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?505096-Optimizer-s-First-Thoughts-on-Races-in-Volo-s


----------



## Ancalagon (Nov 3, 2016)

Hmmmm... I'm getting rather curious about this book now.  I've had numerous goblins NPCs (and one PC!) goblins over my gaming career, and the kenku would fit right into my yoon-suin campaign.  A few others may work well too.

Cat people?  They can die in a fire


----------



## Prakriti (Nov 3, 2016)

MiraMels said:


> They brought back racial stat penalties. _They brought back racial stat penalties?
> _
> I have to say, I am incredibly disappointed that they did this.



I think it's just orcs, in which case, I approve. I didn't think they'd be able to make orcs distinctive enough from half-orcs, but they did. They gave them something no other race has. Instant distinction. I'm actually impressed.

Edit: Looks like Kobolds have a stat penalty too.


----------



## EthanSental (Nov 3, 2016)

So far every sneak peek I've seen has me more stoked for this books release.  Called my FLGS for a copy of the special edition cover if they get them in.


----------



## Banderhobb (Nov 3, 2016)

What's the lore on The Fallen, is it for Aasimar with fallen angel ancestors, or fallen Aasimar.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 3, 2016)

TheHobgoblin said:


> It is a good thing the spoilers warned me now not to buy the god damn book. I just feel bad for anyone who was stupid enough to pre-order it.




No need to feel bad for me.  I don't care at all about the PC options I was always in for the fluff and monsters.


----------



## dave2008 (Nov 3, 2016)

MiraMels said:


> They brought back racial stat penalties. _They brought back racial stat penalties?
> _
> I have to say, I am incredibly disappointed that they did this.
> 
> Three foot tall, forty pound gnomes don't have racial stat penalties.




Which is a mistake IMO.  I wish they would worry less about "balance" and just make the stats match the race.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Nov 3, 2016)

dave2008 said:


> No need to feel bad for me.  I don't care at all about the PC options I was always in for the fluff and monsters.




No need for him to feel bad for me either. I'm here for the fluff and monsters, and am quite happy with the PC options as well. In fact, I _like_ the hobgoblin racial write-up...


----------



## gyor (Nov 3, 2016)

Banderhobb said:


> What's the lore on The Fallen, is it for Aasimar with fallen angel ancestors, or fallen Aasimar.




 Both I think. From the one page example it sounds like to me some may be born descended from a Fallen /AasimarAngel/Celestial, but potentially become Scourage or Protector through good deeds with DM permission, and a Aasimar born as a Protector or Scourage can become a Fallen Aasimar through evil deeds with DM permission.


----------



## Dualazi (Nov 3, 2016)

Not at all a fan of stat penalties. Haven't had time to dive into the meat of the rest, but that one irks me on several fronts. First, I thought playtest and surveys found people generally didn't like them, so their inclusion is a little weird. Second, it heavily shunts players of said race into certain classes. While they can potentially buck the trend, it requires solid game knowledge to do so and is still genuinely sub-optimal, which I also thought 5th edition was trying to avoid. Lastly, it ticks me off simply from a design perspective, having all the races built with one list of assumptions and having new ones deviate from that doesn't make me hopeful for the quality of balance in future releases. Overall this kinda drives home my hunch the player section would be of little use, half of these I can likely find better made from 3rd party supplements like Kobold Press' _Southland Heroes_ or _Midgard Heroes_.

Then again, I might just be yelling at clouds. Guess we'll have to see.


----------



## One_Shots (Nov 3, 2016)

It looks like Wizards are going off the rails. If I hadn't already prepaid for a pre-order of the special cover version, I think I wouldn't have bought this judging by the information revealed so far. Lots of backwards moves lately, introducing concepts and rules design that they'd previously given very good reasons for not using.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 3, 2016)

Demetrios1453 said:


> No need for him to feel bad for me either. I'm here for the fluff and monsters, and am quite happy with the PC options as well. In fact, I _like_ the hobgoblin racial write-up...





The "Saving Face" power is fantastic, actually; the armor and weapon profs are actually quite useful, and the Hobgoblin is interestingly a prime Gish build option now.  Boni to Int and Str are great too, even for non-magical classes; a lot of Skills key off Int, so the Hobgoblin Rogue or Fighter will have good utility.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 3, 2016)

I think people are looking at this from a very skewed angle. 

First, the Monster races are presented to emulate the monster, not be balanced like the other races are. The way they are presented is a bit "caveat emptor", which is why they are put at the back of the book without full write ups. (The quick stats alluded to?)

Secondly, two races have penalties. Both are on the monster list. Both are also easily avoided. Orcs take a hit to Int; the most useless stat unless you are a wizard. Orcs can make good sorcerers, bards, warlocks, clerics, and druids. Likewise, a kobold is penalized Str, which means you... have to use ranged weapons or finesse weapons? A kobold picks a rapier over a longsword. Big whoop. The only loss I guess is two-hander kobolds and even then, being small forces them disadvantage anyway.

Oh, they are so limited; one optional race doesn't work for one class and the other optional race is bad at certain builds of melee types. 5e is dead to me!


----------



## TwoSix (Nov 3, 2016)

Remathilis said:


> Oh, they are so limited; one optional race doesn't work for one class and the other optional race is bad at certain builds of melee types. 5e is dead to me!



Seriously.  People's objections aren't coming from a practical angle, these objections are purely philosophical (WotC isn't following their previous build practices!  Noo!).  It's like a platonic ideal of pointless internet whining.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 3, 2016)

Remathilis said:


> I think people are looking at this from a very skewed angle.
> 
> First, the Monster races are presented to emulate the monster, not be balanced like the other races are. The way they are presented is a bit "caveat emptor", which is why they are put at the back of the book without full write ups. (The quick stats alluded to?)
> 
> ...





And both are still fully capable of fulfilling those roles, just not fully optimally.  Given that the Orc has all the Half-Orcs stuff, Powerful Build and a new attack ability...something has to give.


----------



## JonnyP71 (Nov 3, 2016)

I'm very much in favour of Stat penalties and racial limitations.  In my old school head, Dwarfs mistrust arcane magic and should have a charisma penalty, Halflings also have no affinity for magic and are weaker than humans, and so on...

I was looking forward to this book for the fluff - the information on monster ecology and society, lair info, and the like.  However the general buzz around new playable races puts me off it.  I will not play at a table with 'monster races', and I certainly will not DM one.  It's probably a good thing therefore that I won't be DMing a 5E campaign for the foreseeable future - hopefully by the time we return to 5E the excitement will have died down and the playable monster races will have faded away.

Tomorrow however, we start a new campaign.  It's 1E all the way , wonky xp tables, stat penalties, level limits and old style multiclassing.  Gaming as it should be.  Heaven.


----------



## Philth (Nov 3, 2016)

Outside of human, all the races can be considered monster races.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Nov 3, 2016)

TheHobgoblin said:


> If Dragonborn, Tiefling, Drow, Goliath, Firbolg, Lizardfolk, Triton, Tabaxi and Kenku are not "monsterous races", there really is no god damn excuse except incompetance and laziness.
> 
> So two weeks before the book is slated to be announced, we get absolute, indisputable confirmation from the final product that indeed the primary thing people wanted the book for was completely as shitily done as it possibly could have been. That once again it has fallen into the hands of someone who smugly thought he was being clever by intentionally doing the crappiest job possible.
> 
> ...




I'll be using these for PCs and my table priorities are not yours. That does not make me stupid and I reject your "feeling bad for me." I suggest you relax....a lot....and question the need for such unnecessary vitriole.


----------



## Zaukrie (Nov 3, 2016)

I too like racial limits....I, however, am not about every race and class being optimal. That's what makes there races different to me. I wish spellcaster issues were more specialized. I wish the distinction between different races and classes were much more wide. And, I am buying this for monsters, not player options...


----------



## Corwin (Nov 3, 2016)

I can finally recreate my ol' 2e character: Glink the Dreadful, Goblin Warlord (military designation, not class). There's already a riding lizard in 5e, so I've got everything I need now to renew my slow, yet inevitable, takeover of the realm!


----------



## Pauper (Nov 3, 2016)

The thing that amazes me, and I'll have to see if the lore in the book covers this, is that they've now made a bunch of playable versions of 'evil' monsters, despite making the explicit claim in the Player's Handbook that evil monsters are always drawn to evil:

"The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life."

The reference to orcs seems to be just an example; considering that now goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, and kenku are now playable along with orcs, it'll be interesting to see if these races are at least required to take personality traits that reflect their 'inborn' tendency to evil.

--
Pauper


----------



## gyor (Nov 3, 2016)

JonnyP71 said:


> I'm very much in favour of Stat penalties and racial limitations.  In my old school head, Dwarfs mistrust arcane magic and should have a charisma penalty, Halflings also have no affinity for magic and are weaker than humans, and so on...
> 
> I was looking forward to this book for the fluff - the information on monster ecology and society, lair info, and the like.  However the general buzz around new playable races puts me off it.  I will not play at a table with 'monster races', and I certainly will not DM one.  It's probably a good thing therefore that I won't be DMing a 5E campaign for the foreseeable future - hopefully by the time we return to 5E the excitement will have died down and the playable monster races will have faded away.
> 
> Tomorrow however, we start a new campaign.  It's 1E all the way , wonky xp tables, stat penalties, level limits and old style multiclassing.  Gaming as it should be.  Heaven.




 Its only a small part of the book and you can use the PC races as NPCs with NPC templates and even stuff like half dragon in the MM, instead of PC choices.


----------



## JonnyP71 (Nov 3, 2016)

gyor said:


> Its only a small part of the book and you can use the PC races as NPCs with NPC templates and even stuff like half dragon in the MM, instead of PC choices.




That might turn me back in favour of buying a copy....

But as I won't be DMing 5E for a while, it can wait.  One of my group owns a FLGS, I can just picture him now wielding a copy as I arrive at his house to run their weekly game.... 

"Look what I got, and you can be monsters now!" he'll gleefully exclaim.

I'd post my likely reply, but the mods wouldn't approve of the language....


----------



## TwoSix (Nov 3, 2016)

JonnyP71 said:


> That might turn me back in favour of buying a copy....
> 
> But as I won't be DMing 5E for a while, it can wait.  One of my group owns a FLGS, I can just picture him now wielding a copy as I arrive at his house to run their weekly game....
> 
> ...



I'm sure if you edit out the profanity, it's similar to my response, which is "Yes!  I share in your excitement, this is going to be fantastic!"


----------



## JonnyP71 (Nov 3, 2016)

...the exact polar opposite...


(Maybe we should have a thread on here - "Tips for DMs to successfully fake enthusiasm when the players really want to use a game system or subject matter which does not appeal to you.")


----------



## MiraMels (Nov 3, 2016)

Remathilis said:


> I think people are looking at this from a very skewed angle.
> 
> First, the Monster races are presented to emulate the monster, not be balanced like the other races are. The way they are presented is a bit "caveat emptor", which is why they are put at the back of the book without full write ups. (The quick stats alluded to?)
> 
> ...




I mean, I get that what they were going for was a direct translation of the monster stat block.  Something that approaches appropriate abilities for player characters, while preserving as many of the Monster Manual features as possible.  

I am disappointed in that decision.  I understand why it was made, but I'd have greatly preferred an adaptation instead. 

I don't want to play the generic Monster Manual orc.  I want to play an orc who is also a PC (with everything that entails, given the cultural values of the setting and the usual work of PCs in the world**).  I want racial traits that do more to situate my orc in the world, not racial traits that simply tell me how my orc performs in battle.  

**To give a brief example from the Player's Handbook, drow PCs are not class-locked based on gender, and have explicitly left Underdark Drow Society.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Nov 3, 2016)

gyor said:


> Both I think. From the one page example it sounds like to me some may be born descended from a Fallen /AasimarAngel/Celestial, but potentially become Scourage or Protector through good deeds with DM permission, and a Aasimar born as a Protector or Scourage can become a Fallen Aasimar through evil deeds with DM permission.




I interpreted that one page a bit differently, as only evil Aasimar can be Fallen and if your Aasimar becomes evil during a campaign it automatically stops being Protector or Scourge and becomes Fallen. No choice for the player.

Edit: just looked at the leaked pages again. It is the sidebar that I was remembering where it said the DM can change the character's subrace on an alignment shift, not that it was automatic.


----------



## One_Shots (Nov 4, 2016)

Remathilis said:


> First, the Monster races are presented to emulate the monster, not be balanced like the other races are. The way they are presented is a bit "caveat emptor", which is why they are put at the back of the book without full write ups. (The quick stats alluded to?)



First, if that were true then we wouldn't have gotten the abhorrent mess that is the firbolg because there would have been no reason not to build it to represent what it has been since its inception, instead of the monstrosity of terrible that it now is.

Secondly, basing design on feels instead of balance is the exact reason why 3e and 4e were abandoned for 5e. All the design and development and playtesting that made this a successful edition is now being ignored for... why? There's not even a good reason for it. This is just sloppy and quite frankly a spit in the face to everyone who contributed to the success of this edition by playtesting and engaging in creative discussions for years.

The very design principles that made 5e the most successful edition to date, are now being thrown out.


----------



## gyor (Nov 4, 2016)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> I interpreted that one page a bit differently, as only evil Aasimar can be Fallen and if your Aasimar becomes evil during a campaign it automatically stops being Protector or Scourge and becomes Fallen. No choice for the player.
> 
> Edit: just looked at the leaked pages again. It is the sidebar that I was remembering where it said the DM can change the character's subrace on an alignment shift, not that it was automatic.




 Yeah they can also be turned out into a Fallen Aasimar at a young age through the touch of dark powers, so that gives loopholes for none evil Fallen Aasimar.


----------



## gyor (Nov 4, 2016)

Pauper said:


> The thing that amazes me, and I'll have to see if the lore in the book covers this, is that they've now made a bunch of playable versions of 'evil' monsters, despite making the explicit claim in the Player's Handbook that evil monsters are always drawn to evil:
> 
> "The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh, and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life."
> 
> ...




 Kenku aren't evil, just Chaotic Neutral normally. Your thinking of Kobolds and Purebloods.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 4, 2016)

One_Shots said:


> Secondly, basing design on feels instead of balance is the exact reason why 3e and 4e were abandoned for 5e. All the design and development and playtesting that made this a successful edition is now being ignored for... why? There's not even a good reason for it. This is just sloppy and quite frankly a spit in the face to everyone who contributed to the success of this edition by playtesting and engaging in creative discussions for years.




I'm sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying that 5e is successful because it stopped the slavish devotion to Perfect Balance that made 3e and 4e tick, or are you saying 3e and 4e put "feels" first and balance last. If its the latter, that may be the lousiest observation I've seen on this board.


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 4, 2016)

Philth said:


> Outside of human, all the races can be considered monster races.




Thus they let their anger and fury take from them the sense of humanity, and demonstrated that no beast is more savage than man when possessed with power answerable to his rage.
— Plutarch, "The Life of Cicero"


----------



## gyor (Nov 4, 2016)

"The way they are presented is a bit "caveat emptor", which is why they are put at the back of the book without full write ups. (The quick stats alluded to?)"

 They aren't in the back of the book, they're crunch is near the end of the races chapter and they're fluff is in Chapter 1, it'd be redundant to write it up twice. Ironically the Monster Races get more lore and fluff then the "None Monster Races", which get a trickle by comparison.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Nov 4, 2016)

One_Shots said:


> First, if that were true then we wouldn't have gotten the abhorrent mess that is the firbolg because there would have been no reason not to build it to represent what it has been since its inception, instead of the monstrosity of terrible that it now is.




I think the Firbolg is cool.


----------



## unknowable (Nov 4, 2016)

One_Shots said:


> First, if that were true then we wouldn't have gotten the abhorrent mess that is the firbolg because there would have been no reason not to build it to represent what it has been since its inception, instead of the monstrosity of terrible that it now is.
> 
> Secondly, basing design on feels instead of balance is the exact reason why 3e and 4e were abandoned for 5e. All the design and development and playtesting that made this a successful edition is now being ignored for... why? There's not even a good reason for it. This is just sloppy and quite frankly a spit in the face to everyone who contributed to the success of this edition by playtesting and engaging in creative discussions for years.
> 
> The very design principles that made 5e the most successful edition to date, are now being thrown out.




Oh you mean that these MINOR changes will alter bounded accuracy limits and majorly change class balance, feat balance and the revamped spellcaster balance systems that are BAKED into the system?

No? 

Then it is fine, it may not be for everyone but the concept is to make these rarer and DM approve only races a bit different. 

Racial variants like this aren't going to upset the balanced concept of the game. Because of bounded accuracy it doesn't even limit class builds in the same way that 3.5 did or earlier did. 

Heck even without ability modifiers there are races that just do worse at certain class jobs as it is. Sneaking rogues being anything other than a lightfoot halfling for instance. 

And then we have kobolds... who cares about a strength deficit... They are small and cannot use heavy weapons without a feat anyway, might as well go with the large variety of finesse or ranged weapons if you aren't building a spellcaster. 

Again, these are optional races at GM discretion, not mandatory core races.
Heck even the PHB lists a bunch of uncommon races as ones that need GM approval.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Nov 4, 2016)

MonsterEnvy said:


> I think the Firbolg is cool.




Same here - I'm itching to play a firbolg druid now.

Yes, they changed the concept of the race a bit and took a foot off their average height, but those are hardly major changes compared to some with the game over the years. Back in 1st Edition days, who would have imagined drow as a basic player race and 20th-level halfling barbarians or dwarf wizards?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 4, 2016)

bedir than said:


> That's not bad news



You're right. "Bad" is too mild a word. 

For my group, the book might as well not have movie or or orc playable stats. Those stats are only usable for building NPCs using PC mechanics. Your group differs, and that's fine, but that Wild a deviation from the rest of the system is an _awful_ sign, IMO.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Nov 4, 2016)

I can see why certain people are upset about score penalties, they would not have been my first design choice, but I'd be willing to give it a try.

Too bad all the leaked stuff got taken down before I could look at it though, a lot of this stuff sounds really interesting.


----------



## QuietBrowser (Nov 4, 2016)

Chaosmancer said:


> I can see why certain people are upset about score penalties, they would not have been my first design choice, but I'd be willing to give it a try.
> 
> Too bad all the leaked stuff got taken down before I could look at it though, a lot of this stuff sounds really interesting.



If you check out 4chan /tg/, there's pretty much a link of all the leaks in every single 5e D&D thread. I also hear that the crunch may be on 1d4chan's article for D&D 5e.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Nov 4, 2016)

Demetrios1453 said:


> Same here - I'm itching to play a firbolg druid now.




I scanned your comment way too quickly. At first glance, I thought you said firbolg druid cow.   lol

Though considering the number of bovines in the book, maybe they are hinting at druids shape-shifting into cows.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Nov 4, 2016)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> I scanned your comment way too quickly. At first glance, I thought you said firbolg druid cow.   lol
> 
> Though considering the number of bovines in the book, maybe they are hinting at druids shape-shifting into cows.




I'm sure the aurochs will actually be a fairly scary bovine, but other than that, they probably over-did the cow angle. I guess they had to balance all the exotic dinosaurs with something utterly (or is that "udderly"?  ) mundane?


----------



## Mecheon (Nov 4, 2016)

I'm just disappointed they didn't add Bonnacons

I mean, if you're going to have all of those cows, why not just go for it and add the cow that fires flaming poo?


----------



## Pauper (Nov 4, 2016)

gyor said:


> Kenku aren't evil, just Chaotic Neutral normally. Your thinking of Kobolds and Purebloods.




Nope -- seems they arbitrarily changed the race for 5e.

When kenku were introduced back in the original Fiend Folio, they worshipped Pazuzu, the demon lord that, at that time, ruled the top layer of the Abyss. Later, in Greyhawk, they were associated with Vecna after his ascension to divinity. They've been evil for a long time, but apparently not anymore.

Guess that answers my question about kenku -- but still curious what they'll do with the still-evil 5e races.

--
Pauper


----------



## Mecheon (Nov 4, 2016)

Kenku dropped the Evil part as early as 2E. They've been neutral for a long time now


----------



## Belltent (Nov 4, 2016)

Is anybody else a little underwhelmed with the mechanics here? Lizardfolk's stats and abilities seem to be at odds with each other, kenku don't do much, and tabaxi seem objectively worse than half elves. Feels like it goes aasimar, tritons, and then a huuuuge gap and then the rest of the races.


----------



## Beleriphon (Nov 4, 2016)

I really like the bugbear option. Having just caught up on Girl Genius I plan on running my bugbear like a Jäegermonster. Probably most like Dimo, if only because he's hilarious.


----------



## Cahlwyn (Nov 4, 2016)

Remathilis said:


> I think people are looking at this from a very skewed angle.
> 
> Oh, they are so limited; one optional race doesn't work for one class and the other optional race is bad at certain builds of melee types. 5e is dead to me!




Seriously! I had given up on forums and stuff years ago after the "norms" invaded the internet and our hobby and the internet has turned into a whiny cesspool. I finally decide to come back looking for chat, see a thread with new info on the newest product, and I see this infantile hyperbole bullshtacka! Whiny little babies and that is being kind.


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 4, 2016)

Pauper said:


> Nope -- seems they arbitrarily changed the race for 5e.
> 
> When kenku were introduced back in the original Fiend Folio, they worshipped Pazuzu, the demon lord that, at that time, ruled the top layer of the Abyss. Later, in Greyhawk, they were associated with Vecna after his ascension to divinity. They've been evil for a long time, but apparently not anymore.
> 
> ...




I'm looking at my Fiend Folio, and Kenku are neutral and no mention of Pazuzu. (pg 56.)  It even says they tend to annoy versus kill.


----------



## Pauper (Nov 4, 2016)

SkidAce said:


> I'm looking at my Fiend Folio, and Kenku are neutral and no mention of Pazuzu.




Guess that's what I get for trusting Wikipedia.



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Most kenku worship the demon prince Pazuzu, though Quorlinn is worshipped by those not so disposed toward evil. Kenku clerics usually venerate Vecna.




Their alignment is also listed as 'usually neutral evil', though I can imagine that's a Third Edition-era designation.

--
Pauper


----------



## TwoSix (Nov 4, 2016)

Pauper said:


> Their alignment is also listed as 'usually neutral evil', though I can imagine that's a Third Edition-era designation.



It's almost like many of these race concepts are amorphous at best, and quite amenable to being stretched into new concepts without breaking D&D.  Almost.


----------



## MiraMels (Nov 4, 2016)

Pauper said:


> Nope -- seems they arbitrarily changed the race for 5e.
> 
> When kenku were introduced back in the original Fiend Folio, they worshipped Pazuzu, the demon lord that, at that time, ruled the top layer of the Abyss. Later, in Greyhawk, they were associated with Vecna after his ascension to divinity. They've been evil for a long time, but apparently not anymore.
> 
> ...




What are they going to do about the still-evil races?

Same thing they did with the Drow and the Duergar, I figure.  This isn't the first time that 'evil races' have been offered as a player race option in 5th editon's history.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Nov 4, 2016)

MiraMels said:


> I don't want to play the generic Monster Manual orc.  I want to play an orc who is also a PC (with everything that entails, given the cultural values of the setting and the usual work of PCs in the world**).  I want racial traits that do more to situate my orc in the world, not racial traits that simply tell me how my orc performs in battle.




As a DM, I look forward to more monstrous (N)PCs with class levels. It just seems more fair, somehow, to hit the PCs with a goblin sorcerer who casts Fireball and then hides in the darkness with Nimble Escape--it seems more fair to do that when goblin sorcerers are explicitly an option that they already knew about and had available to them. Sure, I could have fiated in exactly such an NPC before and said, "And BTW, he retains his Nimble Escape feature and gets a +2 to Dex", but it would feel kind of cheap, you know? But NPCs who play by the same rules as PCs don't make me feel bad _at all_ when they stomp the PCs. That Scro Eldritch Knight you challenged to single combat just knocked you down and Action Surged for a total of five greataxe attacks to the face at advantage, doing 100 HP of damage before you even got to act? Tough cookies, you knew he was 11th-13th level when you challenged him.

Fairness consists in not doing arbitrary things to the PCs, and telegraphing threats to the players before implementing those threats. Having specific rules for monstrous (N)PCs can only be a boon in that endeavor.

I share your distaste for the bugbear's "per-combat" mechanic, though. I'll just make that "once per minute" and call it good.


----------



## flametitan (Nov 4, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> I share your distaste for the bugbear's "per-combat" mechanic, though. I'll just make that "once per minute" and call it good.



It could've just been worded more like the Assassin's abilities, which also trigger in similar conditions (requiring you to hit a surprised combatant). After that just limit it to once on your turn and you'd achieve basically the same thing as what 1/combat was going for.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 4, 2016)

MiraMels said:


> What are they going to do about the still-evil races?
> 
> Same thing they did with the Drow and the Duergar, I figure.  This isn't the first time that 'evil races' have been offered as a player race option in 5th editon's history.




If they'd step away from condemning or applauding entire races on a 9-alignment-system and actually explained what makes them tend towards being "bad beings" we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.  The problem becomes that D&D classifies _races_ by what are typically *social*, *cultural*, and *religious*​ traditions.  The idea that any creature short of a demon or angel is "born evil" is poisonous to gaming.


----------



## bedir than (Nov 4, 2016)

doctorbadwolf said:


> You're right. "Bad" is too mild a word.
> 
> For my group, the book might as well not have movie or or orc playable stats. Those stats are only usable for building NPCs using PC mechanics. Your group differs, and that's fine, but that Wild a deviation from the rest of the system is an _awful_ sign, IMO.




I find the choice to have no negatives on any PC horrible design. Some races are not "average" at some things. Making them so places balance higher than verisimilitude. I'd rather it be just a neg-1 because that's a mild nudge that does not implicitly take away a bonus or add a full die modification.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 4, 2016)

bedir than said:


> I find the choice to have no negatives on any PC horrible design. Some races are not "average" at some things. Making them so places balance higher than verisimilitude. I'd rather it be just a neg-1 because that's a mild nudge that does not implicitly take away a bonus or add a full die modification.




I'm gonna be "that guy" and suggest that racial stat bonuses, plus or minus, should be removed entirely.  I will further posit that if a race cannot be creatively represented by interesting and fun racial features, that race should be reevaluated until it can either be suchly represented or is scrapped as a player race.  

And this may just be me, but for all the optimizing I do, a unique and interesting race will still catch my eye faster than a +2 in the appropriate check-box.


----------



## flametitan (Nov 4, 2016)

My disagreement with the negatives in ability scores is mainly that it doesn't really _add_ anything interesting. Do you really _benefit_ from making kobolds worse at being a heavy armour user than even races with no benefit to STR? It doesn't hurt the game as a whole per se, especially if you're just playing the stereotypical, but it is annoying when you want to go against the grain and make something out there. Does an Orc Evocation Wizard _need_ to be worse than a Mountain Dwarf Evocation Wizard, never mind a High Elf Evocation Wizard? Not really, I don't see it as adding to the game for them to be worse at it, but it can _add_ to someone's fun to know that they aren't penalized for wanting an "out there" build like that.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Nov 4, 2016)

flametitan said:


> My disagreement with the negatives in ability scores is mainly that it doesn't really _add_ anything interesting. Do you really _benefit_ from making kobolds worse at being a heavy armour user than even races with no benefit to STR? It doesn't hurt the game as a whole per se, especially if you're just playing the stereotypical, but it is annoying when you want to go against the grain and make something out there. Does an Orc Evocation Wizard _need_ to be worse than a Mountain Dwarf Evocation Wizard, never mind a High Elf Evocation Wizard? Not really, I don't see it as adding to the game for them to be worse at it, but it can _add_ to someone's fun to know that they aren't penalized for wanting an "out there" build like that.




That's viewing it through a gamist lens. From a different angle, it adds something important: it means that kobolds are weaker than humans, which makes sense given their small size and therefore aids suspension of disbelief. This is going to be especially important at tables where the point-buy variant is mandatory, such as AL, because without the kobold modifier, most kobold wizards will wind up with the exact same strength (8) as most human wizards, which makes zero sense. Does anyone really believe that kobolds and humans should both be equally capable of lugging around 120 lb. worth of equipment?

Ability score prerequisites might be a good idea, too. Such as "you cannot be an orc unless your Str, after modifiers, is at least 12," given that all the other orcs in the MM have Str 16. And there's probably a good reason why there aren't any kobold archmages. You could add in rules like "kobolds cannot have more than 7 levels total of spellcasting ability." That explains why there are tons of kobold witch-doctors out there casting Heat Metal and Hold Person spells on the low-level PCs, but also why none of those witch doctors seem to turn into archmages.

Now get off my lawn, y'all. ;-)


----------



## flametitan (Nov 4, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> That's viewing it through a gamist lens. From a different angle, it adds something important: it means that kobolds are weaker than humans, which makes sense given their small size and therefore aids suspension of disbelief. This is going to be especially important at tables where the point-buy variant is mandatory, such as AL, because without the kobold modifier, most kobold wizards will wind up with the exact same strength (8) as most human wizards, which makes zero sense. Does anyone really believe that kobolds and humans should both be equally capable of lugging around 120 lb. worth of equipment?
> 
> Ability score prerequisites might be a good idea, too. Such as "you cannot be an orc unless your Str, after modifiers, is at least 12," given that all the other orcs in the MM have Str 16. And there's probably a good reason why there aren't any kobold archmages. You could add in rules like "kobolds cannot have more than 7 levels total of spellcasting ability." That explains why there are tons of kobold witch-doctors out there casting Heat Metal and Hold Person spells on the low-level PCs, but also why none of those witch doctors seem to turn into archmages.
> 
> Now get off my lawn, y'all. ;-)




I'll counter your perspective with an anecdote about the perspective I first entered the game through. I didn't really _care_ about versmilitude when I first picked up the rules. I just wanted to find something that was cool to play as for when I got a chance to join a group. I didn't know every spell in the PHB, I didn't even possess a PHB! All I knew was that wizards required high INT. You know what I saw? The Mountain Dwarf. It's key ability was that it could wear armour. Armour, something wizards lacked proficiency in.

_Yes,_ I thought. _I can be a dwarf wizard and wear armour. That sounds _so_ cool. If I pick up the criminal background, I can also get thieves' tools. That would allow me to do most things competently._

I didn't care that it lacked an INT bonus, but I would've scrapped the idea immediately if it had an arbitrary INT penalty or limits on how much of a wizard it could be. What good is an oddball idea if you were just going to be punished for it? But it didn't have any of those, and I was so happy to play a Mountain Dwarf Wizard for my first character. Of course, this was right before the Elemental Evil season, and the group I was in immediately showed itself to be slightly creepy, so I never got to play Urist McLightningfist for more than a handful of sessions, but it was _fun_.

That's the angle I'm coming from. I want people to be encouraged to do strange things, and not penalized for it, because that's how I got my start in the game, was with an oddball idea. Versmilitude comes second to fun.

EDIT: Besides, Halflings and gnomes aren't _significantly_ larger than kobolds, but they don't get an STR penalty.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 4, 2016)

flametitan said:


> My disagreement with the negatives in ability scores is mainly that it doesn't really _add_ anything interesting. Do you really _benefit_ from making kobolds worse at being a heavy armour user than even races with no benefit to STR? It doesn't hurt the game as a whole per se, especially if you're just playing the stereotypical, but it is annoying when you want to go against the grain and make something out there. Does an Orc Evocation Wizard _need_ to be worse than a Mountain Dwarf Evocation Wizard, never mind a High Elf Evocation Wizard? Not really, I don't see it as adding to the game for them to be worse at it, but it can _add_ to someone's fun to know that they aren't penalized for wanting an "out there" build like that.





Sure, it adds something, for sure in the case of Orcs: the Orc has every single ability and trait of Half-Orcs, PLUS Powerful Build, PLUS the Aggressive combat ability.  Without some drawback, they are out of balance mathematically with the PHB races.  Kobold, slightly less clear, bit looks right.


----------



## Jester David (Nov 4, 2016)

flametitan said:


> I'll counter your perspective with an anecdote about the perspective I first entered the game through. I didn't really _care_ about versmilitude when I first picked up the rules. I just wanted to find something that was cool to play as for when I got a chance to join a group. I didn't know every spell in the PHB, I didn't even possess a PHB! All I knew was that wizards required high INT. You know what I saw? The Mountain Dwarf. It's key ability was that it could wear armour. Armour, something wizards lacked proficiency in.
> 
> _Yes,_ I thought. _I can be a dwarf wizard and wear armour. That sounds _so_ cool. If I pick up the criminal background, I can also get thieves' tools. That would allow me to do most things competently._
> 
> ...



I agree with this wholeheartedly... for core/PHB races. 
I think secondary races in splatbooks can conform to type a little more.


----------



## Jester David (Nov 4, 2016)

Goliaths

I wonder if it's inclusion has to Grog and Critical Role: getting Goliaths into a physical book available in stores.


----------



## gyor (Nov 4, 2016)

Parmandur said:


> Sure, it adds something, for sure in the case of Orcs: the Orc has every single ability and trait of Half-Orcs, PLUS Powerful Build, PLUS the Aggressive combat ability.  Without some drawback, they are out of balance mathematically with the PHB races.  Kobold, slightly less clear, bit looks right.




 No they don't. They get Menacing, Darkvision, Aggressive (as a bonus you can move towards an enemy), and Powerful Build, that's it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 4, 2016)

Jester David said:


> I agree with this wholeheartedly... for core/PHB races.
> I think secondary races in spkatbooks can conform to type a little more.



Why? What's the difference? 
Many should Orc wizards be penalized? Especially in a point but game, it severely limited what he done with the race, and adds a needless complication. 
Made you going to suggest that it's fine is "secondary" options are less well made?


----------



## flametitan (Nov 4, 2016)

Jester David said:


> I agree with this wholeheartedly... for core/PHB races.
> I think secondary races in spkatbooks can conform to type a little more.




I disagree.There's no reason to, as _somebody_'s still going to want to play something that breaks the mould, regardless of it it's splat or core. The easiest way to make an interesting character is to have a type, and then play against it. Discouraging playing against type is discouraging what are potentially really interesting characters.



Parmandur said:


> Sure, it adds something, for sure in the case of Orcs: the Orc has every single ability and trait of Half-Orcs, PLUS Powerful Build, PLUS the Aggressive combat ability. Without some drawback, they are out of balance mathematically with the PHB races. Kobold, slightly less clear, bit looks right.




I've been hearing mixed responses. Sometimes I'm hearing that it *only* gets aggressive, powerful build, and Intimidation; sometimes I'm hearing it gets everything.

In either case, the answer is _not_ to reduce INT. In the former, it's an arbitrary penalty. In the latter, it does _absolutely nothing_ to "balance" it. Why? Because it's bonuses are geared towards being a big dumb barbarian anyway. You don't _care_ about INT if you're playing a big dumb barbarian, and you get bonuses to make you that much better at being a big dumb barbarian than anyone else. However, if you _don't_ play the big dumb barbarian, you don't benefit from these abilities, *and* you miss out on the ability scores you so need. It does _nothing_ to hurt you, unless you don't play to type.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 4, 2016)

flametitan said:


> I disagree.There's no reason to, as _somebody_'s still going to want to play something that breaks the mould, regardless of it it's splat or core. The easiest way to make an interesting character is to have a type, and then play against it. Discouraging playing against type is discouraging what are potentially really interesting characters.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Yes, Orcs are geared to be the best at being dumb Barbarians/Fighters, and even an exceptional smart Orc Wizard (16 Int is good enough for first level, 14 is fine), still has barbarian-ness baked in: just as the Bugbear has Assassin baked in, the Goblin Rogue, the High Elf has Bladesinger, the Aasamir has Paladin, etc etc...but the Orc is way way better than the normal best Barbarian, theHalf-Orc so needs broader balancing.

As races get more afield, I expect to see more of that: more specialization, but fringe concepts still easily doable.

Actually, playing a full Orc Wizard sounds fun now...


----------



## Azzy (Nov 4, 2016)

I'm going to go against the grain here and, instead of being either offended or pleased by the ability penalties, I'm going to say that I'm emphatically ambivalent about it.


----------



## Jester David (Nov 4, 2016)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Why? What's the difference?
> Many should Orc wizards be penalized? Especially in a point but game, it severely limited what he done with the race, and adds a needless complication.
> Made you going to suggest that it's fine is "secondary" options are less well made?





flametitan said:


> I disagree.There's no reason to, as _somebody_'s still going to want to play something that breaks the mould, regardless of it it's splat or core. The easiest way to make an interesting character is to have a type, and then play against it. Discouraging playing against type is discouraging what are potentially really interesting characters.



Monstrous races should be encouraged to play the "less civilized" classes. They have to be less diverse and flexible. Otherwise why are they monsters? 
But orc barbarian shouldn't be better than other barbarians. Because that's broken. So you have to go the other way.

I also find playing too far off type becomes silly or a lazy way of making the character be special. It's making a pink ninja: you want all the coolness that comes from being a ninja, but you want to stand out. 

You can still play that orc wizard, it's just not optimal. It's not like orc warlocks and sorcerers aren't an option. It's not like your kobold fighter can't focus on finesse weapons.


----------



## flametitan (Nov 4, 2016)

Parmandur said:


> Yes, Orcs are geared to be the best at being dumb Barbarians/Fighters, and even an exceptional smart Orc Wizard (16 Int is good enough for first level, 14 is fine), still has barbarian-ness baked in: just as the Bugbear has Assassin baked in, the Goblin Rogue, the High Elf has Bladesinger, the Aasamir has Paladin, etc etc...but the Orc is way way better than the normal best Barbarian, theHalf-Orc so needs broader balancing.
> 
> As races get more afield, I expect to see more of that: more specialization, but fringe concepts still easily doable.
> 
> Actually, playing a full Orc Wizard sounds fun now...




If your race has too much, then you pare down the list until it's more manageable. Done. Your race is now both better balanced and not something that penalizes playing against type.

And the Orc (which incidentally doesn't have those barbarian features anyway) if it did have the Half Orc abilities, would actually be _better_ at being a barbarian than other classes, as the features are mostly tied to being a melee fighter and are added on _top_ of what you normally get for being a melee fighter. Compared to a Mountain dwarf, whose type is also melee warrior, but explicitly has to get an even larger bump to STR than most races do because its abilities are mostly useless for melee types. Or the High Elf, whose extra cantrip is more useful for those with no access to magic than it is for magical types who likely already have lots of cantrips.

And where are you getting that 14 from? That 14 you want to be a competent evocation wizard is physically _impossible_ using 27 point buy (15-2=13), and while not unlikely from rolling is not a guarantee either.


----------



## TwoSix (Nov 4, 2016)

flametitan said:


> I disagree.There's no reason to, as _somebody_'s still going to want to play something that breaks the mould, regardless of it it's splat or core. The easiest way to make an interesting character is to have a type, and then play against it. Discouraging playing against type is discouraging what are potentially really interesting characters.



Most of the people I know who like to play "against type" characters view playing with mechanical penalties as a badge of honor.  The orc having a -2 Int would only make them MORE interested in playing an orc wizard, not less.  

That being said, I don't think it's a coincidence the only negative stats are Intelligence and Strength, the two stats that have the least number of builds dependent on them.  Barbarians and paladins are the most Str-oriented classes, and they're both viable with Dex-focused builds.  And wizards are quite viable even with lower Int with good spell choices.  I don't think we're going to see any -Con or -Dex races.

And let's be honest, it's not like they threw those adjustments in just before the printing deadline.  It's also an experiment to see how stretching the design guidelines will be received in the community.


----------



## gyor (Nov 4, 2016)

The penalties are a bad idea, but they have alot less impact and are less of a problem in 5e thanks to bounded accuracy and a few other things.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 4, 2016)

Can someone post a summary of the Bugbear, or link to somewhere I can find it?

EDIT: Nevermind I think I found it.

BUGBEAR TRAITS 
Your bugbear character has the following racial traits. 
*Ability Score Increase.* Your Strength score increases by 2 and your Dexterity score increases by 1. 
*Age*. Bugbears reach adulthood at age 16 and live up to 80 years. 
*Alignment*. Bugbears endure a harsh existence that demands each of them to remain self-sufficient, even at the expense of their fellows. They tend to be chaotic evil. 
*Size*. Bugbears are between 6 and 8 feet tall and weigh between 250 and 350 pounds. Your size is Medium. 
*Speed*. Your base walking speed is 30 feet. 
*Darkvision*. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern color in darkness, only shades of gray. 
*Long-Limbed*. When you make a melee attack on your turn, your reach for it is 5 feet greater than normal. 
*Powerful Build*. You count as one size larger when determining your carrying capacity and the weight you can push, drag, or lift. 
*Sneaky*. You are proficient in the Stealth skill. 
*Surprise Attack*. If you surprise a creature and hit it with an attack on your first turn in combat, the attack deals an extra 2d6 damage to it. You can use this trait only once per combat. 
*Languages*. You can speak, read, and write Common and Goblin.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 4, 2016)

flametitan said:


> If your race has too much, then you pare down the list until it's more manageable. Done. Your race is now both better balanced and not something that penalizes playing against type.
> 
> And the Orc (which incidentally doesn't have those barbarian features anyway) if it did have the Half Orc abilities, would actually be _better_ at being a barbarian than other classes, as the features are mostly tied to being a melee fighter and are added on _top_ of what you normally get for being a melee fighter. Compared to a Mountain dwarf, whose type is also melee warrior, but explicitly has to get an even larger bump to STR than most races do because its abilities are mostly useless for melee types. Or the High Elf, whose extra cantrip is more useful for those with no access to magic than it is for magical types who likely already have lots of cantrips.
> 
> And where are you getting that 14 from? That 14 you want to be a competent evocation wizard is physically _impossible_ using 27 point buy (15-2=13), and while not unlikely from rolling is not a guarantee either.





Point-buy is an optional rule, like multi-classing or feats, that I happily ignore the existence of; I would not consider playing in a point-buy game, nor allow it at my table, and it doesn't seem to really enter into balance considerations on WotC end.  So, roll a 16 or better, perfectly acceptable Orc Wizard.  I actually think an Abjurer would be fun...

Cutting features is one way to go, probably best for core races; bit, as you go further afield, that gets bland if followed overly closely.  Personally, I'm a bit disappointed ed they didn't take this opportunity to try Large race rules out, which would certainly necessitate some drawback of other.


----------



## flametitan (Nov 4, 2016)

TwoSix said:


> And let's be honest, it's not like they threw those adjustments in just before the printing deadline.  It's also an experiment to see how stretching the design guidelines will be received in the community.




It might not harm the finnesse users, but it does have an impact on somebody who wants to use heavy armour, or heavy use of spells that require saves or attacks (like most offensive spells).

If it's an experiment it should have been in an Unearthed Arcana article, not a published product.



Jester David said:


> I also find playing too far off type becomes silly or a lazy way of making the character be special. It's making a pink ninja: you want all the coolness that comes from being a ninja, but you want to stand out.
> 
> You can still play that orc wizard, it's just not optimal. It's not like orc warlocks and sorcerers aren't an option. It's not like your kobold fighter can't focus on finesse weapons.




You can also have silly or lazy characters that do play to type, however. Neither of them specifically are bad, so why should one be discouraged over the other?

And it's not the viability I'm concerned about, (that much. It does admittedly bother me how many points you have to invest for a mere +1 in a point buy system). It's the _perception_. Inexperienced players aren't going to look at an orc and say "it won't be optimal, but it can work," they're going to look at it and say "Ew, it makes a terrible wizard. Pass." I'm arguing that players shouldn't need system familiarity to play against type. It should be an option right out of the box.




Parmandur said:


> Point-buy is an optional rule, like multi-classing or feats, that I happily ignore the existence of; I would not consider playing in a point-buy game, nor allow it at my table, and it doesn't seem to really enter into balance considerations on WotC end. So, roll a 16 or better, perfectly acceptable Orc Wizard. I actually think an Abjurer would be fun...




1) it's as optional as feats or multiclassing, and you see people talk about them like they were the default.

2) It's the default for AL, which while wotc doesn't design for, is an important consideration.

3) As soon as you leave ENworld, you start to see a lot more communities that either disparage or outright ban rolling for stats. If anything the more popular belief is that wotc balanced the game for point buy/fixed stats, and rolling was merely kept for tradition.

In the end, no. Point Buy is an important factor into the way the game works, and should be accounted for when designing races/classes.




> Cutting features is one way to go, probably best for core races; bit, as you go further afield, that gets bland if followed overly closely. Personally, I'm a bit disappointed ed they didn't take this opportunity to try Large race rules out, which would certainly necessitate some drawback of other.




I never advocated for never making new features. just keep them _reasonable_. I've never seen this "add level to damage" before as a feature, and I like it. There's no reason new features entirely can't be explored before "add piles and piles of features, but then add all these drawbacks that probably don't matter anyway" should be accounted for.


----------



## gyor (Nov 4, 2016)

Bugbears get Darkvision, Surprise Attack (2D6 bonus damage once per combat when attacking when you surprise an enemy), sneaky (stealth prof), Long Limbed (+5' reach), Powerful Build. Basically big assassins. +2 Strength and +1 Dex. Makes good Assassins, Shadow Monks, and Unusually stealthy Paladins, Barbarians, and Fighters. Probably amoung the most versitile races, along with Aasimar, except that they're not getting the most out of them if you focus on range attacks.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 4, 2016)

gyor said:


> Bugbears get Darkvision, Surprise Attack (2D6 bonus damage once per combat when attacking when you surprise an enemy), sneaky (stealth prof), Long Limbed (+5' reach), Powerful Build. Basically big assassins. +2 Strength and +1 Dex. Makes good Assassins, Shadow Monks, and Unusually stealthy Paladins, Barbarians, and Fighters. Probably amoung the most versitile races, along with Aasimar, except that they're not getting the most out of them if you focus on range attacks.




We've had a bugbear ranger since the playtest and wanted to see if he would like to switch from the bugbear we made up (roughly based on the MM) or this one.


----------



## gyor (Nov 4, 2016)

Orcs actually make good Avengers more then Barbarians, which oddly fits with the more religious shift in 5e.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Nov 4, 2016)

flametitan said:


> It could've just been worded more like the Assassin's abilities, which also trigger in similar conditions (requiring you to hit a surprised combatant). After that just limit it to once on your turn and you'd achieve basically the same thing as what 1/combat was going for.




The assassin's ability is already borderline problematic though--it could probably benefit from a rewrite itself. 1/minute is more elegant and doesn't rely on arbitrary distinctions between combat/non-combat.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 4, 2016)

flametitan said:


> It might not harm the finnesse users, but it does have an impact on somebody who wants to use heavy armour, or heavy use of spells that require saves or attacks (like most offensive spells).
> 
> If it's an experiment it should have been in an Unearthed Arcana article, not a published product.
> 
> ...





1.) Eh, maybe, maybe not; the forums are weird.

2.) I presume that makes if a feature, preventing the Moonsea from being overrun with Orc Wizards.

3.) Once you get away from the Internet, in my experience, people ignore the point bit option entirely.  I presume rolling was kept as the default because people prefer it by and large, just like people like the option of having feats or mixing Xlasses.


----------



## flametitan (Nov 4, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> The assassin's ability is already borderline problematic though--it could probably benefit from a rewrite itself. 1/minute is more elegant and doesn't rely on arbitrary distinctions between combat/non-combat.




1/minute seems more elegant, but it's also a break from the more traditional short/long rest paradigm, while basing it off the assassination feature explains it neatly by tying it to a condition limited to the beginning of combat.

The only "problem" with the assassination feature is the weird timing of when surprise ends and what that means if it ends before any of the attackers get to go. If anything people are looking for a rewrite to the surprise rules rather than the assassin.


----------



## Jester David (Nov 4, 2016)

flametitan said:


> It might not harm the finnesse users, but it does have an impact on somebody who wants to use heavy armour, or heavy use of spells that require saves or attacks (like most offensive spells).



So will being a hafling barbarian trying to wield greatswords.

How much is the impact anyway? Oh yeah, 5%. They'll miss 5% more and enemies will save that 5% more. Hardly game breaking. Especially if the other abilities make up for that. 



flametitan said:


> If it's an experiment it should have been in an Unearthed Arcana article, not a published product.



Negative ability score modifiers were part of a survey some time ago. 



flametitan said:


> You can also have silly or lazy characters that do play to type, however. Neither of them specifically are bad, so why should one be discouraged over the other?



Again, to encourage people to play to type. 

People's first thought when they see the orc shouldn't be "I want to play the wizard!" You play one of the other ten classes instead. Or, again, roll a sorcerer or warlock, which fit the flavour so much better.



flametitan said:


> And it's not the viability I'm concerned about, (that much. It does admittedly bother me how many points you have to invest for a mere +1 in a point buy system). It's the _perception_. Inexperienced players aren't going to look at an orc and say "it won't be optimal, but it can work," they're going to look at it and say "Ew, it makes a terrible wizard. Pass."



Inexperienced players aren't likely going to be looking in accessories. 
Inexperienced players are also a very small minority that don't exist for long. They have a tendency to quickly become experienced players. 

Not what I'd use for the baseline. 
(But, if they're _really_ inexperienced, they won't realize it's inoptimal.



flametitan said:


> I'm arguing that players shouldn't need system familiarity to play against type. It should be an option right out of the box.



And I'm disagreeing... for accessories.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Nov 4, 2016)

flametitan said:


> I'll counter your perspective with an anecdote about the perspective I first entered the game through. I didn't really _care_ about versmilitude when I first picked up the rules. I just wanted to find something that was cool to play as for when I got a chance to join a group. I didn't know every spell in the PHB, I didn't even possess a PHB! All I knew was that wizards required high INT. You know what I saw? The Mountain Dwarf. It's key ability was that it could wear armour. Armour, something wizards lacked proficiency in.
> 
> _Yes,_ I thought. _I can be a dwarf wizard and wear armour. That sounds _so_ cool. If I pick up the criminal background, I can also get thieves' tools. That would allow me to do most things competently._
> 
> ...




Your anecdote suggests that you ought to be 100% okay with kobolds being penalized on Str, because you were motivated by a synergy (wizards + armor + background = awesome and versatile!) whereas kobolds and GWM already have an anti-synergy: they get disadvantage with heavy weapons for being small. How is that not a more severe "penalty" than -2 Str?

As an aside: when I'm in the mood to play a strange and quirky character, a stat penalty wouldn't dissuade me from anything. An Orc wizard with -2 to Int actually becomes _more_ interesting from a challenge perspective if he has an Int penalty. Obviously he's not interesting when I'm in the mood to play a maximally-effective character, but in my book it doesn't count as a "strange thing" in the first place if you're not willingly accepting some kind of "penalties", even if it's just opportunity cost. It's kind of like how I'd like to give that crippled old cranky Str 6 Barbarian from the other thread a shot. A Barbarian with Str 15 instead of 17 due to lack of racial Str bonus isn't interesting, but playing Old Man Henderson as a Str 6 Barbarian--now _that_ is "strange and interesting" to me.

In any case, I understand your point. It doesn't add anything that you personally find interesting. It adds something that other people find interesting, though, me among them.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Nov 4, 2016)

flametitan said:


> *And where are you getting that 14 from?* That 14 you want to be a competent evocation wizard is physically _impossible_ using 27 point buy (15-2=13), and while *not unlikely from rolling* is not a guarantee either.




I think you just answered your own question there. The majority of rolled characters (55% or so) will have at least one 16 or higher.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 5, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> I think you just answered your own question there. The majority of rolled characters (55% or so) will have at least one 16 or higher.





Yeah, they will be exceptional, but totally fine.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Nov 5, 2016)

Hemlock said:


> The assassin's ability is already borderline  problematic though--it could probably benefit from a rewrite itself.  1/minute is more elegant and doesn't rely on arbitrary distinctions  between combat/non-combat.




Perhaps this is me being  slightly dense... but the ability is to deal extra damage correct? When  are you dealing damage, from surprise, where you wouldn't call it  combat?

And, if you are in an incredibly long combat, or  war/siege situation, how does it make more sense that every 10 rounds  they are suddenly sneaky damage dealers again? Plus, in my experience,  with those scenarios you either don't have a lot of hiding, or you break  it into smaller combats, which would refresh the ability....


So...  is this just an "I don't like the word choice here" type of situation,  because it seems that in practice it will work perfectly fine as  written?


----------



## MiraMels (Nov 5, 2016)

Chaosmancer said:


> Perhaps this is me being  slightly dense... but the ability is to deal extra damage correct? When  are you dealing damage, from surprise, where you wouldn't call it  combat?
> 
> And, if you are in an incredibly long combat, or  war/siege situation, how does it make more sense that every 10 rounds  they are suddenly sneaky damage dealers again? Plus, in my experience,  with those scenarios you either don't have a lot of hiding, or you break  it into smaller combats, which would refresh the ability....
> 
> ...




It's okay, the concerns that I (and others) have raised about the wording can easily be read as trifling over semantics.  I'll try to explain better. 

The issue isn't that I'm envisioning use of the Surprise Attack ability in a situation that you wouldn't consider to be 'combat', or even that I want to have it happen multiple times in a particularly drawn out scene. 

The issue is that this game isn't Dragon Age.  This isn't a video game.  I don't want to canonize a 'combat'/'non-combat' dichotomy within the rules through the creation of features and abilities that reference 'combat' as a game-state.  Combat is not a game-state in 5th edition, it is a thing that frequently occurs during the course of gameplay (it's one of the three pillars of gameplay!).  But this isn't a video game, so DMs don't need rigidly defined game-states in order to interpret the rules and apply them to gameplay.  

Basically, it'd be weird if a race or class had a feature that could only be used "once per social interaction".  It's just as weird to have something limited to "once per combat".


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 5, 2016)

MiraMels said:


> Basically, it'd be weird if a race or class had a feature that could only be used "once per social interaction".  It's just as weird to have something limited to "once per combat".




Is it? I mean, I can see real-world circumstances that would best be described as "once per combat." Effectively, a trick or sneaky move that the opponent, once he's seen it, won't fall for a second time.

Sure, IRL, there's a question of whether everyone involved saw it or not, or whether they've seen something similar in the past. But it basically abstracts down to "you can do this effectively once per fight."


----------



## MiraMels (Nov 5, 2016)

Mouseferatu said:


> Is it? I mean, I can see real-world circumstances that would best be described as "once per combat." Effectively, a trick or sneaky move that the opponent, once he's seen it, won't fall for a second time.
> 
> Sure, IRL, there's a question of whether everyone involved saw it or not, or whether they've seen something similar in the past. But it basically abstracts down to "you can do this effectively once per fight."




Right, but 'a fight' isn't defined as a unit of gameplay within the ruleset.  

This is rule design critique.  You and I both know what they are getting at with 'once per combat', and can both _actively i__nterpret _the rule into a table ruling that matches the intent, but that doesn't mean that the rule is designed well.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 5, 2016)

I'm not sure there's any way of phrasing it better that wouldn't require a lot more word count, and a level of nit-picky precision that 5E's trying to get away from. I think "once per combat" is pretty clear, and not hard to interpret. Sure, there are corner cases where it may not be 100% clear, but I prefer that to--for instance--3E's efforts at trying to eliminate corner cases by casting everything in concrete.

Not trying to convince you to like it; just saying, I don't think it's objectively poor design.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Nov 5, 2016)

Chaosmancer said:


> Perhaps this is me being  slightly dense... but the ability is to deal extra damage correct? When  are you dealing damage, from surprise, where you wouldn't call it  combat?
> 
> And, if you are in an incredibly long combat, or  war/siege situation, how does it make more sense that every 10 rounds  they are suddenly sneaky damage dealers again? Plus, in my experience,  with those scenarios you either don't have a lot of hiding, or you break  it into smaller combats, which would refresh the ability....
> 
> So...  is this just an "I don't like the word choice here" type of situation,  because it seems that in practice it will work perfectly fine as  written?




Now that I've actually read the ability text in question, it seems that the "once per combat" limitation is actually not needed at _all_, nor once per minute, since it only works against surprised creatures. If it's limited to 1/turn, like Sneak Attack, then everything works just fine.

If you are in a long combat, say one where people keep teleporting into a meeting and you keep ambushing them as they arrive, that does mean that you might get to surprise and do extra damage to each participant in turn--but as you say, there's no reason why that _shouldn't_ be the case. You're super-sneaky; no need to make you super-sneaky only once per minute.

It's basically just a limited form of Sneak Attack.


----------



## MiraMels (Nov 5, 2016)

Mouseferatu said:


> I'm not sure there's any way of phrasing it better that wouldn't require a lot more word count, and a level of nit-picky precision that 5E's trying to get away from. I think "once per combat" is pretty clear, and not hard to interpret. Sure, there are corner cases where it may not be 100% clear, but I prefer that to--for instance--3E's efforts at trying to eliminate corner cases by casting everything in concrete.
> 
> Not trying to convince you to like it; just saying, I don't think it's objectively poor design.




I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.  I am not arguing that this rule is hard to interpret.  I am arguing that accidentally adding a brand new rules construct to the game (which this does, by way of referencing a concept that doesn't exist) when you are not thinking about the rules set as a whole, _j__ust this new little racial benefit _is objectively bad game design.

This was, in fact, that is _exactly_ what 3rd edition did.  Splat books added new rules to the game all the time (remember swift actions?) and I admire 5th edition for avoiding it up until now.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Nov 5, 2016)

MiraMels said:


> I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.  I am not arguing that this rule is hard to interpret.  I am arguing that accidentally adding a brand new rules construct to the game (which this does, by way of referencing a concept that doesn't exist) when you are not thinking about the rules set as a whole, _j__ust this new little racial benefit _is objectively bad game design.
> 
> *This was, in fact, that is exactly what 3rd edition did.  Splat books added new rules to the game all the time (remember swift actions?) and I admire 5th edition for avoiding it up until now.*




To be fair, 5E already had this concept in a couple of places, including the Thief's 17th-level ability. It's just that the Thief's 17th-level ability can be largely ignored because very few DMs will ever encounter a 17th-level Thief in actual play.


----------



## gyor (Nov 5, 2016)

So there are nine races in the PHB and 13 races in Volo's Guide to Monsters and 3 in EEPG (but the Goliath is in 2 books unfortunately).

 So that is 24 races you can choice with just buying 2 books abd a free book, with many subraces.

 Human, Human Variant
 Elf, High, Wild, Drow
 Dwarf, Hill, Mountain, Grey
 Halfling, Lightfoot, Stout, Ghostwise
 Gnome, Rock, Forest, Deep
 Tiefling, Variants
 Half Elf, Variants
 Half Orc
 Dragonborn, different breath weapons
 Aakrocaa
 Genasi, Fire, Water, Earth, Air (need to be redone in my opinion)
 Goliaths
 Aasimar, Protector, Scrouge, Fallen
 Firbolgs
 Lizardfolk
 Tritons
 Tabaxi
 Hobgoblins
 Goblins
 Bugbears
 Yuan Ti Purebloods
 Kobolds
 Orcs.

 So, lots of races/subrace/variant choices.


----------



## KahlessNestor (Nov 5, 2016)

MiraMels said:


> It's okay, the concerns that I (and others) have raised about the wording can easily be read as trifling over semantics.  I'll try to explain better.
> 
> The issue isn't that I'm envisioning use of the Surprise Attack ability in a situation that you wouldn't consider to be 'combat', or even that I want to have it happen multiple times in a particularly drawn out scene.
> 
> ...



Isn't combat a "game state" though? It's called "roll initiative".

Seems worded fine to me. Natural language and all. If everyone understands what it to means, I think it's doing it's job. Why nitpick?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 5, 2016)

Conceptually, I understand what [MENTION=6855497]MiraMels[/MENTION] is saying.

I guess we will have to see whether its a one off or something that continues to spread with more rules additions.


----------



## MiraMels (Nov 5, 2016)

KahlessNestor said:


> Isn't combat a "game state" though? It's called "roll initiative".
> 
> Seems worded fine to me. Natural language and all. If everyone understands what it to means, I think it's doing it's job. Why nitpick?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk




The initiative round is a game state: the narrative slows down, and everyone's actions are tracked with much greater degree of precision.

The initiative round is usually concurrent with the beginning and end of combat, but you can use initiative time to resolve anything that requires such attention to order of action and positioning (ie, plenty of things that we wouldn't consider combat).  Likewise, initiative isn't a necessary component to combat; you can resolve combat without initiative, using the same action resolution mechanics of the rest of the game. 

Initiative time is a game state, and combat is just something you do in the course of gameplay. 

As to why I'm being nitpicky about this: The terms you use to describe your game necessarily effect the goals and behaviors of people playing the game.  Communication about expectations and the game will become a lot more difficult if the designers continue this trend of canonizing combat as the primary thing that D&D is about.  This shift from *'combat'/'exploration'/'interaction'* to *'combat'/'non-combat'* (even just in natural language references to what the designers assume your table play is like) will necessarily change the way the game is played by many, and not in a way that I would like.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Nov 5, 2016)

KahlessNestor said:


> Isn't combat a "game state" though? It's called "roll initiative".




Depends on how you run initiative. If you use cyclic initiative, then yes, combat and non-combat are distinct modes, and two combats can be distinguished from each other by the order in which turns occur within them. (This is one of the really pernicious things about cyclic initiative.)

If you use a simultaneous initiative system, though, combat and non-combat will blend together more seamlessly. You might have two characters engaged in combat (granularity: six second rounds) while others are peacefully conducting a conversation while playing dice nearby (granularity: ten minute games). The dice-players can even pause to interfere briefly in the combat (e.g. Help one combatant by casually shoving a chair in front of the other combatant at just the right moment) before returning to their noncombat activities, and it doesn't in any way make either activity difficult to adjudicate.

5E officially includes many initiative variants.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Nov 6, 2016)

Okay, I get where you guys are coming from now. 

I have cyclic initiative and I already think in terms of combat/ non-combat (ie exploration and social) in certain places. The switch between a very fluid time set to a very strict one is too jarring for me to not see them as separate.


----------



## Beleriphon (Nov 7, 2016)

On kobolds, has anybody else noticed that while Daylight Sensitivity sucks, it doesn't matter so long as the kobolds are near allies due to Pack Tactics? Kobolds are basically never going to get disadvantage so long as they have friends around.


----------

