Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If a choice is "Blue human" or "Red human" or "Elf human" or "Human human", it's a choice of aesthetic, not a choice you have to make for roleplay. Remember, roleplay isn't this nebulous "pretend everything" or else there's no reason to use a system. Roleplay involves mechanics, and pretending that they don't matter is disingenuous.

And, honestly, why the hell should you care if someone wants to play efficiently as an elf wizard? What's the big deal? Important choices matter.

Also, while people will be better mages earlier, you'd have covered the drawbacks of being a wizard, by having better constitution and strength, so by level 8, you're just as good a wizard, and have some other benefits. What's the point of races at all if the distinction is nonexistent?

If you have two Wizards in the party, then sure, they'll be compared to each other. And more than Attribute choices, Spell Choice and Subclass choice is going to make one wizard stronger than the other.

But, why would a party have two wizards? If you have one wizard in the party, what does the Orc Wizard perform poorly in reference to? The idea in the orc players mind that he could be stronger if he optimized harder? Any player can think that of their character.

 Thadin wrote:
If you have two Wizards in the party, then sure, they'll be compared to each other. And more than Attribute choices, Spell Choice and Subclass choice is going to make one wizard stronger than the other.

But, why would a party have two wizards? If you have one wizard in the party, what does the Orc Wizard perform poorly in reference to? The idea in the orc players mind that he could be stronger if he optimized harder? Any player can think that of their character.

I've played in a campaign with like 3 or 4 wizards, and we never cared who was best. One of us was an elf, two humans, and I think one was a dragonborn or something. It was fun. Subclasses do make way more of a difference than race, and an Orc might even make for a better wizard in some scenarios. I know in Morrowind, if I pick an Orc, I can reliably hit someone with a sword if I run out of mana, and resist magicka quite effectively, but if I play as a High Elf, and run out of magicka, I would need to run away.

A magic class in Morrowind considered fairly fun is a Redguard with just Conjuration and Long Blade as skills, and conjuring your weapons and armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum:
I keep typing Ork instead of Orc, so I'm sorry if I end up having a typo.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
If a choice is "Blue human" or "Red human" or "Elf human" or "Human human", it's a choice of aesthetic, not a choice you have to make for roleplay. Remember, roleplay isn't this nebulous "pretend everything" or else there's no reason to use a system. Roleplay involves mechanics, and pretending that they don't matter is disingenuous.

You know there's more to a RPG than combat, right? And that most social interactions are poorly defined at best in the rules and involve a ton of improvisation and "that seems about right"?

And, honestly, why the hell should you care if someone wants to play efficiently as an elf wizard? What's the big deal? Important choices matter.

I don't. I care that anyone who wants to play an effective wizard is pushed into playing an elf because it's the only way to get the vital +INT bonus. I care that people are encouraged to write the backstory and personality of a human/orc/etc, and then cross out that race and write "elf" at the top of their character sheet without changing anything else about the character. If you play an elf it should be because you want to play an elf, not because you want to play a character with +2 INT.

Also, while people will be better mages earlier, you'd have covered the drawbacks of being a wizard, by having better constitution and strength, so by level 8, you're just as good a wizard, and have some other benefits.

That's not what min/maxing involves. I don't care what strength I have as a wizard. I'd happily play a wizard with 4 STR if it meant putting even more points into INT. Carrying capacity is irrelevant when I don't wear armor, don't need a weapon, and after a few levels can make bags of holding whenever I need them. Melee is irrelevant because I have a tank for that. And if I need strength for a skill check I have an assortment of buff spells to get whatever I need, if I can't just tell the fighter to kick that door down. None of that stuff will ever make up for having a reduced primary spellcasting stat.

What's the point of races at all if the distinction is nonexistent?

What's the point in describing your character's hair color if there are no rules attached?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thadin wrote:
If you have one wizard in the party, what does the Orc Wizard perform poorly in reference to?

To other wizards in other games, to the rest of the party, and to the NPCs the party is fighting. People aren't stupid, they know when they're fishing for 20s because their character build sucks and they know the rest of the party isn't.

So, the difference between a functional wizard, and one that sucks and does nothing and needs to fish for 20s, and is immediately recognized as a terrible character and everyone knows they're worthless is... +1 to their spell casting modifier? What hellish DND have you been playing?

A 5th edition, Point Buy base racial modifier Orc can start with 15 INT. A High elf can start with a whopping 16.

 Thadin wrote:
So, the difference between a functional wizard, and one that sucks and does nothing and needs to fish for 20s, and is immediately recognized as a terrible character and everyone knows they're worthless is... +1 to their spell casting modifier? What hellish DND have you been playing?

Literally fishing for 20s? Maybe not. But if you need a 16+ to hit then +2 DEX/STR is a 20% increase in offense. If +2 INT takes you to another spells per day breakpoint that's potentially 33% more of your best spells. Etc. That's a significant difference, and when you add in other non-optimal choices you can easily get to that fishing for 20s point.

A 5th edition, Point Buy base racial modifier Orc can start with 15 INT. A High elf can start with a whopping 16.

Then why have fixed racial modifiers at all, if 5e has already pushed them to the point of barely being relevant?

You have no idea what you're talking about for 5th Edition. Your posts show a clear lack of understanding about the basic mechanics.

+2 DEX is going up one modifier step. 16 DEX is +3, 18 DEX is +4. Every two points in an attribute raises the chance of success by 5%. Classes don't have spells/day any more. They have spell slots, which increase based on level, not by Attributes.

Racial modifiers are there to show that fantasy races are different. Elfs are naturally predisposed to being lithe and graceful, while High Elves have keener minds in particular. Orcs are typically hulking and tough. Through different upbringings and effort (point buy) they can overcome those differences.

 Thadin wrote:
Every two points in an attribute raises the chance of success by 5%.

Yes, but that's not what "X% more offense" means. Percent increases are multiplicative, not additive. If you hit on a 16+ you have a 25% chance to hit. If you improve that to hitting on a 15+ you have a 30% chance to hit, which is a 20% improvement in offense. If you did an average of 10 damage per round previously you would now average 12 damage per round.

To make this clear, let's say you have an exceptionally difficult enemy where only a 20 hits. If you add +2 STR/DEX and improve that to a 19+ you have doubled your offensive output. Small modifiers make a huge difference when you're on the tail of the bell curve where most (meaningful) D&D rolls happen.

Racial modifiers are there to show that fantasy races are different.

Lore can do that just fine even when it isn't represented in mechanics.

There is no damage per round. You either hit or you don't. A modifier step increases the chance to hit by 5%.

 Thadin wrote:
There is no damage per round. You either hit or you don't. A modifier step increases the chance to hit by 5%.

There is damage per round when you recognize the implicit "average" in that statement. If you have a 25% chance to hit with one attack per round and do 40 (average) damage per hit you average 10 damage per round. That's a useful way of comparing the damage output of different characters in a complex system where you can do things like trade accuracy for damage. And if you average 10 damage per round at a 25% chance to hit going to a 30% chance to hit gives you 12 damage per round, a 20% increase in damage output.

Or, to go back to the extreme example: going from a 5% chance to hit to a 10% chance to hit is a 100% increase in offense, literally doubling your chance to hit.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Remember, roleplay isn't this nebulous "pretend everything"

Roleplay is literally "pretend everything", that's the whole point. You are playing a role. Stats and mechanics are not a role.

or else there's no reason to use a system. Roleplay involves mechanics, and pretending that they don't matter is disingenuous.

This would be the "game" part in "RPG".

There are different ways to play RPGs, you are just someone tilting to the more gamey extreme with little roleplay, while others you are discussing with tilt to the opposite side where the system is just tool for conflict resolution that's slightly better than trying to shout louder than your opponent.

Neither is wrong.

 Jidmah wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Remember, roleplay isn't this nebulous "pretend everything"

Roleplay is literally "pretend everything", that's the whole point. You are playing a role. Stats and mechanics are not a role.

I'd argue that stats and mechanics provide a structure to the role - if your character has ended up with CHA 8, you really shouldn't be playing them as George Clooney, say, and if they're INT 8 they probably shouldn't be played like Einstein.

I find it odd that people are acting like stat bonuses are the only thing that seperated an elf from a human in D&D, and not trance and the innate magic (or the speed & stealthiness Wood Elves have instead, or the ability of Sea Elves to all be Aquaman).

Having races be defined by the cool extra features makes far more sense than the little number that makes you pressured to play that race if you want to play class X or Y.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
...lots of stuff...

From reading your posts it sounds like you are coming from an environment where character optimisation is the norm among players. And there is nothing wrong with it, if everybody at the table likes to play this way and the DM provides an adequate challenge.

Disregarding 5e for a moment and only looking at 3.5 / Pathfinder...
If you care about balance between the players in general, some kind of gentlemen agreement is needed before starting to play anyway. The group needs to sit down and talk about how they want to play the game. If you have a newbie playing his Halfling Barbarian and picking whatever he thinks sounds good for classes, skills, feats and attributes, he will be weaker than a mildly focused Wizard player who knows what he does and it won't matter if the Wizard starts with a 16 or 18 in INT.

Even an optimised martial class will struggle inevitably against casters if you reach a high enough level, for that matter.

Having racial bonuses narrows down playable races for people who care more about optimisation than roleplaying or where optimisation is vital for "survival" at the table.

I see nothing wrong with playing an exotic race that only got 200 members left in the whole multiverse. It is a game after all and you play the MC, you can be a boring human in real life every day :p.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Remember, roleplay isn't this nebulous "pretend everything"

Roleplay is literally "pretend everything", that's the whole point. You are playing a role. Stats and mechanics are not a role.

I'd argue that stats and mechanics provide a structure to the role - if your character has ended up with CHA 8, you really shouldn't be playing them as George Clooney, say, and if they're INT 8 they probably shouldn't be played like Einstein.

You put it much better than I would have, thank you.

The reason, for me, at least, mechanics exist is to properly show how your character should/does function. It's one reason why I dislike the idea of taking exactly what I say as what my character says, rather than as a basic overview. My character might be Charisma 16, but I personally stutter and am monotone. Also, roleplay comes from playing a role, which can be easily determined by stats and rolls, not just dialogue. That's the reason I like having decent mechanics, and why D&D doesn't do it for me anymore. If I need a supplement or optional rules to have "I turn my sword to the side and attack through the visor" to mean anything, I'm disappointed.

Also, from earlier, a +2 to intelligence gives you a +1 to hit with your spell. If you use the standard array, with a race that has a -1 modifier to Int, and one that has +2 to Int, and both pick 15 as Int, then it's 14 vs 17. This looks huge, it really does. But, it's a difference of a +1 to hit.

Our focus has been on Orcs, but let's move to Humans. The difference is exactly the same. 15 vs 17 is still a difference of +1 to hit. Make the human have a +1 to Int, if you don't pick a feat, and suddenly the difference between the orc and the human is a +1 to hit and the human vs. the elf is no bonus or penalty.

In addition, you could be a sorcerer. It's charisma based, but Constitution is one of their favored stats, and now Orcs are good casters still.

Just pick the race and class you want, even if it has very, very minor drawbacks that are basically gone in a few levels. I promise, your character will be just as interesting, or more interesting for it. I promise, it won't make your wizard inept.

I forget the proficiency bonus to start, but let's say +3 for now. How different is a +5 to hit vs a +6 to hit? It clearly looks like 20%, but if you fight a goblin, with an Armor Class of 15, you need a 9 to hit for the elf, and a 10 to hit for the orc. Orcs hit 50% of the time, and elves hi 55% of the time. That's a 10% increase in the amount of hits. But now Orcs can move faster, due to bonus action moves, can carry more than double what the elf can, and can have more hit points, due to having a higher constitution. It's still good, just not minmaxed.

P.s. I will die on the hill of Roleplaying Games needing at least some level of mechanics to determine your abilities, but the amount depends on your particular group. My group tends towards crunch rather than fluff. There can be an rpg where race doesn't matter, where nothing really matters, or there can be rpgs where everything matters. In Morrowind, even character sex matters somewhat for beginning stats, but I wouldn't go that far for tabletop games. Point buy is my mistress, where everyone starts with a default, and can customize by spending points. It is my dearly beloved. In GURPS, there are racial templates built by either the books, or by the gm, but they cost points depending on how good they are. If my race is better at magic, I pay for it with points, points that someone can use to be better at magic regardless.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Remember, roleplay isn't this nebulous "pretend everything"

Roleplay is literally "pretend everything", that's the whole point. You are playing a role. Stats and mechanics are not a role.

I'd argue that stats and mechanics provide a structure to the role - if your character has ended up with CHA 8, you really shouldn't be playing them as George Clooney, say, and if they're INT 8 they probably shouldn't be played like Einstein.

I can roleplay as George Clooney or Einstein without any stats at all though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

Spoiler:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Remember, roleplay isn't this nebulous "pretend everything"

Roleplay is literally "pretend everything", that's the whole point. You are playing a role. Stats and mechanics are not a role.

I'd argue that stats and mechanics provide a structure to the role - if your character has ended up with CHA 8, you really shouldn't be playing them as George Clooney, say, and if they're INT 8 they probably shouldn't be played like Einstein.

You put it much better than I would have, thank you.

The reason, for me, at least, mechanics exist is to properly show how your character should/does function. It's one reason why I dislike the idea of taking exactly what I say as what my character says, rather than as a basic overview. My character might be Charisma 16, but I personally stutter and am monotone. Also, roleplay comes from playing a role, which can be easily determined by stats and rolls, not just dialogue. That's the reason I like having decent mechanics, and why D&D doesn't do it for me anymore. If I need a supplement or optional rules to have "I turn my sword to the side and attack through the visor" to mean anything, I'm disappointed.

Also, from earlier, a +2 to intelligence gives you a +1 to hit with your spell. If you use the standard array, with a race that has a -1 modifier to Int, and one that has +2 to Int, and both pick 15 as Int, then it's 14 vs 17. This looks huge, it really does. But, it's a difference of a +1 to hit.

Our focus has been on Orcs, but let's move to Humans. The difference is exactly the same. 15 vs 17 is still a difference of +1 to hit. Make the human have a +1 to Int, if you don't pick a feat, and suddenly the difference between the orc and the human is a +1 to hit and the human vs. the elf is no bonus or penalty.

In addition, you could be a sorcerer. It's charisma based, but Constitution is one of their favored stats, and now Orcs are good casters still.

Just pick the race and class you want, even if it has very, very minor drawbacks that are basically gone in a few levels. I promise, your character will be just as interesting, or more interesting for it. I promise, it won't make your wizard inept.

I forget the proficiency bonus to start, but let's say +3 for now. How different is a +5 to hit vs a +6 to hit? It clearly looks like 20%, but if you fight a goblin, with an Armor Class of 15, you need a 9 to hit for the elf, and a 10 to hit for the orc. Orcs hit 50% of the time, and elves hi 55% of the time. That's a 10% increase in the amount of hits. But now Orcs can move faster, due to bonus action moves, can carry more than double what the elf can, and can have more hit points, due to having a higher constitution. It's still good, just not minmaxed.

What you are describing here is a dice fighting game, not roleplaying. It's really no different from playing something like gloomhaven or BSF.

P.s. I will die on the hill of Roleplaying Games needing at least some level of mechanics to determine your abilities, but the amount depends on your particular group. My group tends towards crunch rather than fluff. There can be an rpg where race doesn't matter, where nothing really matters, or there can be rpgs where everything matters. In Morrowind, even character sex matters somewhat for beginning stats, but I wouldn't go that far for tabletop games. Point buy is my mistress, where everyone starts with a default, and can customize by spending points. It is my dearly beloved. In GURPS, there are racial templates built by either the books, or by the gm, but they cost points depending on how good they are. If my race is better at magic, I pay for it with points, points that someone can use to be better at magic regardless.

You are right. If they didn't have mechanics, they wouldn't be Roleplaying Games, but just Roleplaying.
You are merely confusing the two parts.

I think an issue we have here is that words have multiple definitions, and you're using the definition that's just acting like someone else, which I prefer to avoid as a definition, as pretending and acting already cover. Even just looking up roleplay can provide many definitions.

I'll clarify for future posts, when I say roleplay, I mean in reference to a game, with any level of structure, in which it gives mechanics/rules to represent your character. Roleplay, under this scenario is different from roleplay in the sense of acting or pretending.

I'd rather this not turn into an argument similar to water being wet. My definition there leans towards making Call of Duty a roleplaying game, but I feel that it's still better to narrow it down to this degree for the sake of argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

What you are describing here is a dice fighting game, not roleplaying. It's really no different from playing something like gloomhaven or BSF.

The only reason I only mentioned combat mechanics was due to the person complaining about minmaxing being the main reason they're against racial bonuses. What, for me, defines an RPG rather than a wargame is the ability to have social statistics included, in which your character's proficiency matters more than your own. For example, in GURPS, I can take disadvantages that limit my character mechanically. I can take a lower IQ. I can have disturbing voice, ugly, overweight, or the opposites, and that all matters more than my own. But when I talk about roleplaying in this discussion, it is purely about roleplaying games.

Without getting off the main topic, I don't have a personal problem with Tasha's. I welcome any policy that says rascism=bad. However, in a game where I routinely cast orcs and demons as "the baddies" it's a little hard to make a sudden shift whereby if I make an orc to be a direct copy of an Orc Nob, I'm suddenly catering to racist sterotypes. Orcs for those of you who don't know DnD lore, are not the orcs of Tolkien(Eastern Elves perverted by dark magic and Morgoth) of , or even WoW (Space people from another realm of existence)they are literally feral creations of the Gods built to war against anything the gods did not like. They are not learned scholars, or benevolent priests. They don't even have a strong grasp of Common, the base language of DnD. They exist to fight and kill, that's all.

But Tasha's came along, and said, no we are now making Orcs a playable race, and we can have Orc Nobles and Orc Wizards, stats and history mean nothing, and then we had the whole painting all orcs as green is blackface crap.

I'm a card carrying left winger who's been arrested for protesting against wars I actively served in, and I think Bill Burr is right. We have to stop worrying about pissing off everyone over every little thing. Who gives a crap that a fantasy race of a game that almost no one plays portrays them as green? Enough. Stop. Go fight actual racism. DnD is not the source of racism, its a convenient thing for lazy woke white people to be pissed at, instead of being pissed at structural racism, inherent racism, or their OWN RACISM.

IIRC, orcs had been playable in some form or another in a variety of the editions through supplements. However, 5e is the first instance I can recall where they, and any of the other races, have no negative penalties to Attributes.

Feel of that what you will, but to my mind, removing Negatives was a good thing as it removes Discouragement of playing a particular way. Bonuses to Attributes doesn't have that same effect. This Fantasy Race isn't good at this class, vs this Fantasy Race is good at this class.

The removal of racial attributes seems to come from a place of applying real world human equality to Fantasy races. Humans already can do everything they set their mind to, and are as equally good at their chosen role as other humans. But why must this apply to different Fantasy Races who have specialized traits? They'll still have their unique racial abilities, but with how the trends have gone, how long until that's gone as well? Well, it's already coming, through the Custom Origin system already in 5e.

It might be because they are shifting the concept of racial traits from stats and into story more so than before.

When you've a race that in story and in stats has a specific bonus toward a certain kind of class, most people will go for that class range. So an ork or half ork always becomes some kind of fighting class and very rarely a mage. Similarly you're unlikely to get that barbarian elf.

Meanwhile the human class was pretty neutral and could do anything they wanted as the base-line faction in the game.


So all they are doing is taking that human approach and starting to place it onto the other races. Probably because in part there's some min-max going on with players so opening up the stats a bit reduces that ;but another is because over the years we've had orks as a certain kind of thing for so long that people have become bored. Meanwhile those who are really interested in them want to see them further developed.



I see it as both good and bad things as I do like the idea of a setting with a strong profile for factions and races. At the same time I find that whenever a franchise lore starts to look beyond the surface of an otherwise role-based faction; you find way more depth within. Once you stop elves just being the haughty mages and actually look at them under the hood; once you get into their society and structure you find room for so many more characters and stories. Having a stats system that's more open to exploring those opportunities and potential elements is no bad thing.

Fair points, I do agree that there's good and bad to it from lore and mechanics. It's why I approved of how Tasha's approached it at first.

Fantasy Races default to these attribute bonuses. If you wish, you can change them. My two current parties haven't chosen to do so, but the option was there.

My Elf is unique, he's a mountain of muscle
vs
Every Elf is Unique.

I have no problem with breaking the mold, it's when you suddenly invalidate all the lore in the established universe in the sake of not offending a fantasy race of human-like creatures. I notice no one stepped up to say defend Hobgoblins, Goblins, Gnolls, or Kobolds? Is it because they aren't "passably humanoid"? It's like if they suddenly declared that all Dwarves and Halflings are now just larger cousins of Fairies, to avoid offending short people.

Remember when PETA wanted to ban DnD because people killed animals in the game?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Thadin wrote:
I don't know if you've actually played DND 5e, but most players don't think like Wargamers.

In your experience. In my experience they do. But maybe this is because I've played most of my D&D in 3.5e/Pathfinder, a system that punishes you brutally if you don't optimize your character build to get +30 on every roll. Maybe 5e attracts a completely different group in general, I've only played it with the same people I played the older systems with. But I doubt it's gone through such a complete culture change that min/maxing and picking races based on getting the right bonuses for your build are as unheard of as you claim.

It isn't. 5e (and 4e, and pathfinder 2) have such constrained numbers that you more or less have to max out at least your attack stat or you'll fall behind forever (or at least until level 12 (or 10 in PF2), and WotC and Paizo are more than aware that the majority of campaigns don't get that far- its been repeated subject of polling data and playtesting questions). Its very straightforward to spot and for most players to realize what they need to do. (which admittedly, is an improvement in some ways. Obfuscation of mechanics and trap options is bad design in my book)

People are dismissing a '5% difference' (though often it isn't just 5%, because of the way both point buy and rolled stats work), but it affects so many rolls over the course of the campaign. Players unapologetically make a _lot_ of dice rolls. Of course you feel it. If someone wants to 'RP' an incompetent character, they can knock themselves out. It doesn't need to punishment tied to the mechanics of races of all things. Partly because its been creepy for decades now, but also because there isn't any reason to crap on player ideas with 'oh your character will just be bad at that because you chose the wrong thing at character creation. You should've been a <X> race instead.' That's what really spits on roleplaying.

3e (for all its complexity) at least had classes where you could build around not having your stats matter (particular characters that provide buffs or battlefield control, which the more recent editions have largely killed off or strictly limited). The modern versions never let you get away from the stats because of capped bonuses and the target DCs (which, ironically, at least for 4e and PF2 were mathematically incorrect as well, the published DCs for both systems were too high and had to be revised (multiple times in the case of 4e), because the actual statistics didn't match the designers intent because so few of design team were, uh... 'mathematically competent'). They're omnipresent in the game at all times, and the encounters and monsters are all designed around the assumption that you have the maximum possible at any point. Particularly officially published modules, if you (and your party) aren't built right, you absolutely _will_ TPK, because often (particularly at the beginning of an edition) the designers don't fully comprehend the lethality of monster math vs PC math, and new DMs understand it even less, so encounters can get real ugly without warning or expectation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I have no problem with breaking the mold, it's when you suddenly invalidate all the lore in the established universe in the sake of not offending a fantasy race of human-like creatures. I notice no one stepped up to say defend Hobgoblins, Goblins, Gnolls, or Kobolds? Is it because they aren't "passably humanoid"? It's like if they suddenly declared that all Dwarves and Halflings are now just larger cousins of Fairies, to avoid offending short people.

Remember when PETA wanted to ban DnD because people killed animals in the game?

What are you talking about?
5e hobgoblins are just straight up broken at low levels. The monster versions are (effectively) level 3 rogues on top of anything else they are. The player versions lean too close to a creepy 'yellow peril' stereotype.

Gnolls (and orcs) have the worst fluff they've ever had in 5e, they're just straight up always evil (almost cursed) murder-machines. Which was an amazingly regressive step to take, even 8 years ago.
Gnolls in particular are an offensively bad take since there so clearly based on pack animals with complex social behaviors. Its like treating every dog like the worst Rottweiler stereotypes and adding 'always rabid.'


No real lore is being invalidated- it wasn't particularly consistent between editions and settings anyway. Some of the retconned mess they made of the lore with 5th edition will hopefully be banished, because they opted for really lazy absolutes to have 'Easy labelled Evils' to fight

There is a video game coming out this fall called Moon Breaker that looks like a digital version of a tabletop game, if it does well I would expect to see a version of 40k sometime soon. This doesn't stop GW from making miniatures, I feel it's just like World of Warcraft and their Hearthstone game, just cast a wide net and see what happens. People will like it and play it but some will just return to their original game. Just like D&D, there are some excellent apps already out there, but when my group plays we are still heavy old school. Dice, paper maybe miniatures, and we hope everyone showered.

 Genoside07 wrote:
There is a video game coming out this fall called Moon Breaker that looks like a digital version of a tabletop game, if it does well I would expect to see a version of 40k sometime soon. This doesn't stop GW from making miniatures, I feel it's just like World of Warcraft and their Hearthstone game, just cast a wide net and see what happens. People will like it and play it but some will just return to their original game. Just like D&D, there are some excellent apps already out there, but when my group plays we are still heavy old school. Dice, paper maybe miniatures, and we hope everyone showered.

I'll admit, I hate that they've tied this playtest into the D&D Beyond app (though I suspect folks can work around it).

Speaking of which, I'm watching a live play (Battle for Beyond) which is using D&D Beyond heavily, and I'm disgruntled every time they swap to the screenshots. Apps seem pointless in general, but the layout of D&D Beyond just has me scratching my head.
Important information (like subclass and subclass abilities are just thoroughly buried... somewhere, and important numbers are just down several rows or buried in big pop-up boxes.

English is read left to right and top to bottom. Why AC (which comes up every combat) is the 4th item on the second row is a completely mystery to me, and attack bonuses are in a box that starts on the third 'row' (though at this point there are so many large boxes it isn't a row anymore) and they're on the second line of said box and hidden under multiple tabs, so you've got to swap between tabs in the same box to find different pieces of relevant information. Its like the designers have never even looked at a screen eye placement heat map.

The stats and save boxes also really emphasize that the 3-20 stat range is really pointless. The bonuses are really prominent, the actual stat value is not. For saves, the stat is just left out entirely. Though why stats and saves are separate items rather than a three value column (or row) is a mystery to me. They're derived values, why would you split them up?

----
Moonbreaker does look interesting. Though I'm amused by what you said, because the articles I've read about it compared it more to Warhammer than D&D.

As much as I've been defending racial bonuses and penalties, I feel there should be ways to mitigate them available. In GURPS, if I take a race that has ST+2 for 20 points, nothing is stopping me from taking ST-2 to get 20 points back. My character would be as strong as a normal human, but weaker than a normal person of their fantasy race.

I think this is an advantage of point buy, or whatever you'd call Shadowrun's system, which can be point buy, but is also different. I'm a fan of being able to mitigate a race's bonus or penalties, but I'm not a fan of races not having them. I can especially see not wanting penalties, and just giving varied bonuses. I can even see why you'd want to avoid racial bonuses at all, but I feel transferring it to abilities doesn't change minmaxing, and getting rid of everything besides story implications doesn't mean much unless the GM really cares about those implications. To be honest, there's not much racism in the campaigns I play in, unless it's 40k, in which it's just standard.

I probably won't look much at this thread from here on, though. I probably won't touch D&D again for years, and whatever it's becoming will suit whoever plays it. I doubt fans of older versions will care much either.

WotC buying DnD:B was the death stroke for a perfectly functional app. They should have let it grow into what is was made for, now it's just a digital distrubiton platform with an extremely beta encounter manager. If they'd left it alone there were plans for an integrated VTT plug in, but now that is gone. WotC has NEVER had good online functional programs. Every attempt by them to make DnD an online service as a complete failure. So they let a 3rd party make DnD Beyond, and bought it from them. Now they will screw it up with dumb stuff no one wants. You can already see it in "purchasable" flair for your avatar, extremely expensive DIGITAL DICE, and literal paid back grounds for the web page of your CHARACTER SHEET.

I should point out that paid for digital dice and backgrounds existed before WotC bought Beyond (though the backgrounds were bundled in with your subscription)

WotC may have increased the number of digital dice being released, but they weren't the ones to start it.

This thread has made me glad I haven't played DnD in 30ish years...let's keep that streak goin!!!

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So WotC released a statement that they are soon moving to release their new version of DnD, called DnD: One. This is considered by many in the TTRPG community as a new platform to launch DnD 6ed.

GW has all but given us the writing on the wall that 10th will be some time in the next 12-24 months. Given that timeline puts it smack dab in the middle of a competitive buyers market for TT games, do you think GW has considered this, cares, or even realizes it?

Not saying the two fan bases are absolutely the same, but most people who rush out to spend their money on one game series update, will likely hesitate to rush out to spend the same if not more, on a second series update.

This presents me my next observation:

GW fans are by the most part much more financially able to do both. Very few serious players of GW's base find themselves in the lower income bracket.

I would say the opposite of DnD's fanbase. Usually 1 book every couple of months was all I could afford as a kid, or a set of minis. I started (Was given) with a copy of ADnD in 1984. I didn't start actually playing until 1989, in 2nd. At that time I was a teen, and dependent on gifts or chore money. But I was still able to play, if all my friends had player manuals and I had the monster manual/DM guide. 5th revolutionized DnD though. Now you could literally play DnD in any income bracket. Almost everything was free, or easy to access. Player sheets were easily downloaded, or digital. Manuals became digital, or PDF at the least. Or libraries began carrying them.

You can't find that sort of thing for 40k. There is a significant investment hurdle into 40k.

If GW wants 10th to be successful, they need to go full into the digital era, and give people the option. Their app by all accounts is sheer garbage, still. You cannot get over the cost of models. That's inescapable.

However, TLDR; If GW wants 10th to be a success, they need to not release it in the same window as DnD's next edition, like Sony, Nintento, and microsoft do with consoles every year, with the Playstation vs the Xbox v the Nintendo.

How did you come to this conclusion?