| Author |
 Topic  |
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 15:19:32
|
I just got Tasha's Cauldron of Everything yesterday from Amazon. I've looked at the very first section and I skipped ahead to wizards. I noticed bladesinging is no longer elven only (I'm not against this concept, as I feel it fits elves, but I can see other cultures developing the same idea of mixing fighting and casting without even having to "steal" the ability from elves). I also saw the order of scribes and loved it from a roleplay standpoint (the fact that I turned Sleyvas literally into a talking artifact spellbook with ties to the red knight and Deneir already probably has some play into that feeling).
However, in the very beginning, they do one thing with some optional rules that at first glance don't SEEM game breaking, but they would seem to have some serious balance issues to me. Essentially, you no longer are forcing certain races to have certain stat bonuses. Also, if a race gets some kind of proficiency, you can swap it for another proficiency (there's a table to go along with it). For the proficiency thing, some races get some proficiencies that generally aren't considered unbalancing because they'll also get the same proficiencies from most classes. So by default its not usually a major bonus, but if you KNOW you'll get that proficiency from your class, then suddenly it becomes a bonus. So, from this, what's the real advantage to being a human then?
To give an example here, let's compare the two versions of human to a mountain dwarf
HUMAN
+1 to 6 ability scores
VARIANT HUMAN
+1 to 2 ability scores
1 skill of your choice
1 feat of your choice
MOUNTAIN DWARF with Tasha's rules
+2 to any 2 different ability scores
Longer life
speed of 25, but also not affected by wearing heavy armor
darkvision
poison resistance and advantage on poison saves
proficiency with 2 simple and 2 martial weapons (which can be traded under the new rules for similar weapons or theoretically 4 tool proficiencies)
1 tool proficiency (which can be traded for a simple weapon proficiency)
stonecunning
proficiency with light and medium armor (which could be traded to be either light armor and a simple/martial weapon or tool OR alternatively no armor proficiciencies and 2 more simple/martial weapons or tools)
So, I have to ask, what's the advantage to being human in these rules. You have so many more options as a non-human race, and all the versatility of being human is given away. With the variant human, you gain a feat and a skill that you can put into anything, but at the same time, you're getting LESS ability score bonuses (i.e. the variant human only got a total of +2 whereas the dwarf got +4 in abilities and could put them wherever they wanted). Add into that that a lot of feats aren't that great.
So, back to the main question... aside from person feel, if a DM were to adopt these rules is there any reason a player would want to play a human? Since I'm betting half the characters and NPC's in the game are human, doesn't this seem like a severe oversight? I mean, if they were going to do this, shouldn't they provide some means to provide some means for humans to be a viable mechanical choice? I'm not against these rule options in theory (versatility is nice, though they could have set some kind of limits without making DM's have to come up with options...).
|
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 23 Nov 2020 15:23:38
|
|
|
TheIriaeban
Master of Realmslore
USA
1289 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 15:30:56
|
| The original game balance reason for level limits for non-humans was the fact they got all these other abilities that humans did not get. Did they re-introduce level limits for non-humans in that book? |
"Iriaebor is a fine city. So what if you can have violence between merchant groups break out at any moment. Not every city can offer dinner AND a show."
My FR writeups - http://www.mediafire.com/folder/um3liz6tqsf5n/Documents
|
 |
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 15:36:47
|
Dragonborn still suck, so humans are still better than them. But really, why humans should have to be "better" than nonhuman the first place?
That is a Gygaxism that makes no sense to me, and that only remains in D&D "cuz Gygax said it". It's simply illogical that a human can be "better" than a 100+ elf or dwarf. By experience alone, they surpass humanity by a wide margin. But I digress...
So, why to play a human in D&D 5e post-Tasha? Because you like them, even if they give you no mechanical advantage. Just like we dragonborn players do.
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
The original game balance reason for level limits for non-humans was the fact they got all these other abilities that humans did not get. Did they re-introduce level limits for non-humans in that book?
Nope. There are no limits to non-humans. Thanks all the gods for that. It should be ridiculous and illogical. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 23 Nov 2020 15:39:21 |
|
|
|
TheIriaeban
Master of Realmslore
USA
1289 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 16:04:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
So, why to play a human in D&D 5e post-Tasha? Because you like them, even if they give you no mechanical advantage. Just like we dragonborn players do.
That is just crazy talk. No one likes humans. Even humans don't like humans.
<yells to a passing orc>
Hey orc! Com'ere. Do you like humans?
<orc starts to answer>
Shut up! Of course you don't.
<runs orc through with sword>
See, no one likes humans. |
"Iriaebor is a fine city. So what if you can have violence between merchant groups break out at any moment. Not every city can offer dinner AND a show."
My FR writeups - http://www.mediafire.com/folder/um3liz6tqsf5n/Documents
|
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 16:09:29
|
quote:
Nope. There are no limits to non-humans. Thanks all the gods for that. It should be ridiculous and illogical.
Yes and no. We all know the decades-old arguments about why demihumans shouldn't have max level limits or class restrictions.
But from a game-balance perspective all the non-human races get unique advantages so the human races need some kind of unique advantage as well. Otherwise every player and DM and author will echo the OP's question: "why would I want to choose a human"?
"Humans are the dominant race in the setting" (for no discernable reason, from a game-mechanics perspective) is a nebulous and intangible enough parameter that most players completely disregard it anyhow.
"Humans are the only race which can choose this class, or which can reach the highest levels in this class" is something concrete enough to encourage a viable population of human characters in almost every game.
The "ridiculous and illogical" 1E/2E rules weren't perfect. But they produced a lot of human PCs. And they described a fantasy genre very different from what 3E-onwards encouraged people to play. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 23 Nov 2020 16:21:55 |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 16:28:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
"Humans are the only race which can choose this class, or which can reach the highest levels in this class" is something concrete enough to encourage a viable population of human characters in almost every game.
Well, this is not an option for D&D today. Tasha's optional rules were created just to avoid the "half-orcs having no INT because of their race feels racist" debate. So, locking nonhuman to certain classes, and not allowing them others, is "racist" as well. IIRC, that's why the bladesinger got unlocked for nonelves.
I know the pre-3e D&D was Gygaxian anthropocentric, but for the D&D buyers of today it feels racist. Because, let's be honest, we old players are not their main buyers anymore. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 23 Nov 2020 16:29:01 |
|
|
|
Baltas
Senior Scribe
Poland
955 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 17:43:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
"Humans are the only race which can choose this class, or which can reach the highest levels in this class" is something concrete enough to encourage a viable population of human characters in almost every game.
Well, this is not an option for D&D today. Tasha's optional rules were created just to avoid the "half-orcs having no INT because of their race feels racist" debate. So, locking nonhuman to certain classes, and not allowing them others, is "racist" as well. IIRC, that's why the bladesinger got unlocked for nonelves.
I know the pre-3e D&D was Gygaxian anthropocentric, but for the D&D buyers of today it feels racist. Because, let's be honest, we old players are not their main buyers anymore.
This isn't even just an issue political correctness... Players would be pissed if there would be limits for races other than humans in terms of classes, or even being able to level in classes if they can chose them.
Humans being the only race without such limitations, would be seen (to illustrate the situation in tropes) as a very
obvious Creator's Pet race , especially now, if anything, causing people to play humans less, maybe even much less in protest. I mean, a similar backfire, was with the original trope namer - Wesley Crusher from Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Especially seeing this literally involves sabotaging other races, after people played them for years, without such restrictions.
In other words, I don't think WoTC would pull this, due to how much damage this could potentially do to their sales at this point. |
Edited by - Baltas on 23 Nov 2020 18:02:46 |
|
|
|
TheIriaeban
Master of Realmslore
USA
1289 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 18:23:54
|
Let's put game balance and real life expectations aside for a moment and look at human bladesingers in FR. It has been mentioned that bladesingers are something that elves are very proud of and not something they would want to share with anyone. But, let's say a human found an elf that decided to teach it to a human. As soon as it came out, that would move that elf and human to the top of the list for the Eldreth Veluuthra. It has every possibility of making other elves not want to interact with them, either. Now, while that may be an interesting back story for a character, being actively hunted or shunned by every elf you meet would get old real fast. Also, unless that bladesinger teacher decided to follow around the human bladesinger, good luck finding someone to teach you as you level.
Just because game rules allow something doesn't mean it makes sense in a particular game setting. What COULD happen is that you have a group of humans that have all the same abilities/advantages/disadvantages as a bladesiner but is called something else....say a swordhummer. Swordhummers may even have a friendly rivalry with bladesingers as to who is better. However, neither group would THINK of saying they are a member of the other. |
"Iriaebor is a fine city. So what if you can have violence between merchant groups break out at any moment. Not every city can offer dinner AND a show."
My FR writeups - http://www.mediafire.com/folder/um3liz6tqsf5n/Documents
|
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 18:42:38
|
As if they cared about lore nowadays. The most likely scenario is that the Eldreth Veluuthra is going to quietly disappear because it's racist, lol
The good thing about Tasha's rules is that they are optional. You aren't forced to use them, and that is stated in the book. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 19:50:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
As if they cared about lore nowadays. The most likely scenario is that the Eldreth Veluuthra is going to quietly disappear because it's racist, lol
The good thing about Tasha's rules is that they are optional. You aren't forced to use them, and that is stated in the book.
My point though is that its simply shoddy and lazy workmanship, and it should have been pretty easy to spot. If they're going to allow other races this kind of adaptability, they should have done something to show humans are even more "adaptable" specifically since that's the schtick with them since they don't get any other special abilities. Otherwise, like others have pointed out, why exactly ARE humans ruling the world in so many areas? It seems a relatively easy thing to fix since essentially this is letting folks min/max their characters (and for those that say that's not why the majority of people would use these rules, I say they're kidding themselves). They'd need to give humans more options. Of course, the argument then will be that they're simply overpowering the game, which at the same time isn't an invalid argument. The question just becomes "does overpowering really make the game untenable"... and I think the answer is no to that... the game is just more adaptable. It is getting away from the "motto" of 5e though of "we're making it simple" and heading the game in the direction I'm actually more used to with earlier editions. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 23 Nov 2020 19:55:33 |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6643 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 20:30:38
|
A very interesting discussion. And the reason why other than the rules (well more like forms/conventions) for spells and magic items, I try and steer away from them. The same problems that have been around since 1E continue to plague the system. I remember reading posts like Sleyvas' back in Dragon magazine in the 80s.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 20:33:20
|
Well, they should have to create an explanation for that in the lore (mine is that humans believe they are the center of the universe, but they actually aren't --just like in real life; humans just breed like rabbits).
I don't see a necessity to explain the lore with game mechanics. But well, that simulationism is some legacy concept from 2e as well, so I don't have it as I never played 2e.
I guess people will still be playing humans, tho. I don't think all D&D players are like me, who finds playing something I already are boring (and not only in D&D. I don't use humans in any game that has other options, regardless of CharOp). |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 20:33:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
As if they cared about lore nowadays. The most likely scenario is that the Eldreth Veluuthra is going to quietly disappear because it's racist, lol
The good thing about Tasha's rules is that they are optional. You aren't forced to use them, and that is stated in the book.
Honestly, I think they won't ever be mentioned at all -- because no one at WotC cares to look into the lore enough to find out the group exists. If the designers do discover the group, it still won't be mentioned unless it has a direct bearing on whatever the current adventure path is. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Seethyr
Master of Realmslore
USA
1151 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 21:03:02
|
| I think giving one additional feat at first level could balance things out nicely. Just saying. |
Follow the Maztica (Aztec/Maya) and Anchorome (Indigenous North America) Campaigns on DMsGuild!
The Maztica Campaign
The Anchorome Campaign |
|
|
|
TheIriaeban
Master of Realmslore
USA
1289 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 21:03:16
|
| This discussion reminds me of when I was playing EverQuest. They did a really good job with one of the basic differences between the races: infravision. If it was night or underground and you didn't have it, you better have a light source or your screen was completely blank. You couldn't see anything. That led to people absolutely hating playing humans unless they happen to have a higher level character that could give them a ring of infravision to start off with in the game. Since monks were human only, they were very rare. Then, in the first expansion, they added a race of lizard people that not only could be monks, they also had infravision. Suddenly, there were monks EVERYWHERE. Lizard monks, but monks all the same. |
"Iriaebor is a fine city. So what if you can have violence between merchant groups break out at any moment. Not every city can offer dinner AND a show."
My FR writeups - http://www.mediafire.com/folder/um3liz6tqsf5n/Documents
|
|
|
|
see
Learned Scribe
235 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 21:14:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
That is a Gygaxism that makes no sense to me, and that only remains in D&D "cuz Gygax said it". It's simply illogical that a human can be "better" than a 100+ elf or dwarf. By experience alone, they surpass humanity by a wide margin. But I digress...
Right, see, Gygax's argument for class and level limits was explicitly premised on the fact that if there were none, it would be illogical for dwarves and elves to not dominate.
It then went on that if the game world is dominated by long-lived nonhumans, then logically the resulting overall society of the world would be dominated by nonhuman perspectives. But since human players would not be able to consistently or convincingly portray that sort of world, you would get an illogical and inconsistent world where, despite the dominance of long-lived nonhumans, the society would act as if it were dominated by humans.
Thus, since the game is going to be played by humans, and thus the society in the game is going to be dominated by how humans think, the society in the game, to be realistic, needs to be dominated by humans. So there needs to be a factor that prevent elves and dwarves from dominating humanity, as they otherwise would logically do.
Well, since the abilities of high-level characters are already supernatural rather than a straightforward extrapolation of what accumulated mundane skill could do, it's perfectly reasonable that humans, for some supernatural reason, are better suited to acquiring that power, and thus the society in the game is dominated by humans because the most powerful beings around are humans.
So, class and level limits existed specifically because otherwise the game world would make no logical sense.
Now, if you don't care that the game world makes no logical sense, if you're willing to overlook that it makes no sense for either nonhumans failing to dominate when they should, or everybody acting like they're humans even though nonhumans are dominant, you can toss out those limits.
But if you care about logical consistency, you're throwing out class and level limits, and your game is being written and played exclusively by humans, you need to come up with some other logical reason why in-game humans or human thought patterns dominate the in-game society. |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 21:20:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seethyr
I think giving one additional feat at first level could balance things out nicely. Just saying.
Exactly. If they were going to open up the functionality, then give humans something like this and it makes them viable again. Worth some thought on what exactly to give (maybe a feat and an extra skill), but the fix is really simple. It shouldn't have to come from the community though... that's pretty sad. I really have lost a lot of respect for the designers with this. This is so simple of a miss in my eyes that its just sad. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 22:12:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Seethyr
I think giving one additional feat at first level could balance things out nicely. Just saying.
Exactly. If they were going to open up the functionality, then give humans something like this and it makes them viable again. Worth some thought on what exactly to give (maybe a feat and an extra skill), but the fix is really simple. It shouldn't have to come from the community though... that's pretty sad. I really have lost a lot of respect for the designers with this. This is so simple of a miss in my eyes that its just sad.
Isn't that extra feat and extra skill mentioned in the very first post? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 22:33:40
|
Master Zeromaru X,
quote:
It's simply illogical that a human can be "better" than a 100+ elf or dwarf. By experience alone, they surpass humanity by a wide margin. But I digress...
I completely agree. I know there are cultural reasons as to why Elves are slower in their approach to achieving things, as well as time just making things not a rush. Same for Dwarves of course.
That's always been a hard thing for me to wrap my mind around and agree that it is definitely a Gygaxism. Well said.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 22:45:38
|
btw, since dragonborn were specifically brought up, I wanted to compare them as well against both types of human. Only looking for the differences mind you.
without this optional ruleset
str +2, char +1, dragon breath weapon like a multiple target low level effect 1/short rest, energy resistance of your choice
with this optional ruleset, they get +2 to one ability score of their choice and +1 to another, and everything else is pretty much the same. So, they get a resistance and a breath weapon and an extra +1, but a human in this same scenario gets either +1 to 6 scores or a +1 to 2 and a skill and a feat. In comparison to a human, I'd call this about balanced. However, I'd say the dragonborn definitely lose out as well compared to say dwarves and elves in this optional ruleset. I am actually surprised that dragonborn don't get darkvision, as that would seem to fit the race. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
keftiu
Senior Scribe
656 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 22:49:17
|
There was literally an Eldreth Veluuthra member in one of the 5e adventure books. I know its asking a lot, given how this place talks about 4e, but can we please not invent reasons to be mad that are proven wrong with two seconds on Google?
Also, the changes to make races in D&D less racist is decades overdue. |
4e fangirl. Here to queer up the Realms. |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 22:59:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by see
Right, see, Gygax's argument for class and level limits was explicitly premised on the fact that if there were none, it would be illogical for dwarves and elves to not dominate.
It then went on that if the game world is dominated by long-lived nonhumans, then logically the resulting overall society of the world would be dominated by nonhuman perspectives. But since human players would not be able to consistently or convincingly portray that sort of world, you would get an illogical and inconsistent world where, despite the dominance of long-lived nonhumans, the society would act as if it were dominated by humans.
Thus, since the game is going to be played by humans, and thus the society in the game is going to be dominated by how humans think, the society in the game, to be realistic, needs to be dominated by humans. So there needs to be a factor that prevent elves and dwarves from dominating humanity, as they otherwise would logically do.
Don't blame the players for Gygax's bad writing and lack of imagination. Plenty of fiction authors have demonstrated by now that is possible to have nonhumans alongside humans, and give humans a shining spot in the story, without needing to limit the nonhumans in some way.
Warcraft is the best example I can think of right now, but I'm sure there are better examples out there.
|
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 23 Nov 2020 23:39:41 |
|
|
|
Risven
Acolyte
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 00:35:00
|
I like the optional rules for races introduced in Tasha's, and I can't see any reason they would affect the 'balance' of races in the Realms. Races aren't making decisions based on their bonuses, or comparing those bonuses to other races. Players do that, and 5E has been pretty clear that PCs are exceptional people anyway.
|
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3736 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 01:26:24
|
| -Low Light/Darkvision has basically been the solitary reason why a handful of players in my circle do not ever play humans...and honestly, outside of flavor, I can't blame them. Outside of stuff like that, physical things different races were capable of, I was never really much of a fan of "certain races get a plus to this and a minus to this". A lot of the time it felt just forced for the sake of it. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 01:58:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Seethyr
I think giving one additional feat at first level could balance things out nicely. Just saying.
Exactly. If they were going to open up the functionality, then give humans something like this and it makes them viable again. Worth some thought on what exactly to give (maybe a feat and an extra skill), but the fix is really simple. It shouldn't have to come from the community though... that's pretty sad. I really have lost a lot of respect for the designers with this. This is so simple of a miss in my eyes that its just sad.
Isn't that extra feat and extra skill mentioned in the very first post?
No, I meant doubling the current bonus might be a good way to work it out in comparison to all the bonuses that this ends up giving to certain races. I think that was Seethyr's intention as well. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 02:25:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Risven
I like the optional rules for races introduced in Tasha's, and I can't see any reason they would affect the 'balance' of races in the Realms. Races aren't making decisions based on their bonuses, or comparing those bonuses to other races. Players do that, and 5E has been pretty clear that PCs are exceptional people anyway.
Then quite frankly you aren't reading what I wrote above where I laid out how this changes things. Literally the example dwarf is getting double the ability score bonuses of a variant human, the option for like a half dozen tool proficiencies, plus a whole host of other abilities like darkvision/poison resistance/etc... The dwarf, if he went into any class that gives him simple/martial weapon proficiencies and light/medium armor has absolutely no reason to keep the racially provided abilities for weapons and armor because he's getting them another way. Therefore, he's now got a bunch of "free to use how he wants" proficiences. This might be, for instance, thieve's tools, poisoner's kits, etc...
Some other changes that should be written in and are pretty obvious is that someone getting multiple single weapon proficiencies shouldn't be able to swap them out one at a time for tool proficiencies (so like how elves and dwarves both get like 4 weapons, they can turn those in for 4 tool proficiencies with the rules as written). This again, with some simple wording changes can be easily handled to make it exceptionally clear.
To be clear, my point in all this isn't to remove choice, it's that the people writing these rules need to really think more before putting out something this simplistic to abuse. I saw the abuse in less than 3 minutes. Its pure and simple shoddy writing and I expect more from a professional. I'd be more forgiving of say a scribe here trying to produce something similar, as they don't have the resources to properly vet the ruleset immediately available. A company producing such doesn't get that kind of sympathy from me.
For those that want to turn this into something about racism, my point is that the rules can be balanced and not enforcing racism at the same time. You don't have to ruin balance in order to achieve this goal. Nor am I convinced that these changes truly promote the "end of racism". I see them as simply an ill thought out unbalancing of the ruleset that seems to have been done quickly for some reason.
Also, to be clear, this ruleset optional as it is, isn't just unfair to humans... its unfair to several other races. In looking at dragonborn as well and comparing them to all the options now open to a hill dwarf, I can't help but point out that this makes the dwarf so much more unbalanced against other races. For this to be the first thing they want people to see in this book and to be so poorly written up, it worries me about whether their goals are actually about balance at all. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 24 Nov 2020 02:45:20 |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 02:54:08
|
Dragonborn have been the neglected race of 5e since the beginning. This optional rule actually benefits them, albeit if only a little, lol. As a mainly dragonborn player, I've never used the official dragonborn, but some fanmade fix I found in a forum, lol.
And no, their goals aren't about balance since at least, last year. Or more.
My fix to this particular issue would be to always go Vhuman, and give them an extra ASI. That would balance them a little. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 24 Nov 2020 03:04:30 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 03:44:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
Dragonborn have been the neglected race of 5e since the beginning. This optional rule actually benefits them, albeit if only a little, lol. As a mainly dragonborn player, I've never used the official dragonborn, but some fanmade fix I found in a forum, lol.
And no, their goals aren't about balance since at least, last year. Or more.
My fix to this particular issue would be to always go Vhuman, and give them an extra ASI. That would balance them a little.
Yeah, as I've spent the day thinking on this, I wouldn't allow this ruleset as written in my games. Its seems to even more make the balance between races unfair, which is odd since it proposes the exact opposite. I kind of wanted to get a feel from other people about it, because my gut feel was that it had something to do with other than game balance or even improving play. It seems to be about making a false stand and trying to put forth some image that this doesn't really accomplish within the ruleset.
I severely hope the rest of the book is different, which as I said, I did immediately skip forward to the wizard section and saw some interesting things there... so I have hope. If not, then I'll voice my opinions, because this is first and foremost a game that needs balance in my view. Its not meant for trying to spread some propaganda viewpoint in some odd mixed message way. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 05:23:10
|
Then just give ability-poor human races some sort of +% experience bonus. Or give ability-rich non-human races some sort of -% experience malus.
The end result would still be human races lacking any special intrinsic abilities and advantages. No extra stats, skills, feats, ines of text to fill up "Racial abilities". But, compared vs non-human races, human "versatility" or "drive" (or whatever) allows humans to reach their goals faster, and to move further beyond those goals towards attaining other goals.
All else being equal, a low-level human would be reliant on the low-level elf's stealth and the low-level dwarf's robustness.
But the mid-level human might have an extra level which makes him somewhat more "versatile" and "adaptable" in any situation (instead of especially useful only in forested or underground environments, for example).
And the high-level human might be ahead of his high-level non-human peers by a couple full levels (which is even more of a significant advantage since the other racial abilities will tend to be disused in favour of other abilities).
High-level adventuring parties don't need the elf to spot secret doors or the dwarf to figure out how the stone mechanism operates, they have too many other ways to see or manipulate hidden things, they'll just smash and blast and cast their way around the map so the guy who's already doing "next level" stuff has noticeable advantages over the rest of the party. No wonder so many mixed-race adventuring parties are led by humans.
An elf can accumulate mastery over steel and magic across many centuries. Yet even with this "race" headstart he can be challenged by a human who's developed equivalent skills in just decades. And he can be completely outclassed, outpaced, overwhelmed when that human continues developing more skills and powers over yet another few alarmingly short decades. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 24 Nov 2020 06:42:08 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 06:22:46
|
If other races get +2 to 2 stats chosen by you (in addition to their normal passives), and you want to balance humans out, then I'd give variant humans the +2 to 2 stats as well (plus feat, plus skill), and normal humans the option to distribute their 6 points as they want, with the restriction of being only able to add up to +2 to any single ability score (so, +1 to all, or +2 to one AS and +1 to 4 others, or +2 to 3 AS).
As for human bladesingers, I don't see the issue. These are generic rules, which should be able to work in any generic fantasy setting. A bladesinger fulfills the "graceful magic fighter" concept; while in FR they might be an elven thing (though no reason why, at some point, someone else couldn't come up with a similar style), in a generic setting that might not be the case. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 24 Nov 2020 06:30:12 |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 07:19:55
|
Master Zeromaru X,
quote:
Don't blame the players for Gygax's bad writing and lack of imagination. Plenty of fiction authors have demonstrated by now that is possible to have nonhumans alongside humans, and give humans a shining spot in the story, without needing to limit the nonhumans in some way.
I don't agree that Gygax lacked imagination. I haven't read any of his novels, so I cannot comment on those. I believe it is informative to consider the root of Gygax' imagination. He came from the old school era of wargaming, i.e. Avalon Hill. It's not an excuse for what we consider bad writing or a "lack of imgination." Rather, the framework of ideas that Gygax was competing against was what he knew, and grew up with. To start to think outside of that box and develop something that was pretty staunchly opposed by the wargaming community at the time, was a pretty big deal. I mean, certainly, when you read some of his later work, after other material started coming about and growing in different ways, and he had something to compare too, I think he had less cover at that point. However, at the point of origin, I think he was pretty amazingly imaginative. :)
I am also not a Gygaxophile, haha. Just my perspective on his work.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Why be human in 5e with new rules - Tasha's
