@Ryan Cass: I think you gave the best balanced explaination of how this ruleset can work well. It's guidelines for players and DMs to modify some rules without needing to wait for new official books with races and sub-races, and less risk of house-ruling something unbalanced.
really though, i don't see the problem with giving people options. it's not being forced on anyone and encourages playing the way they want to (in this case, mainly if that way is unusual by lore and would upset game balance). people should play games to have fun; if it's not fun, why bother?
oh no, not options. how horrible. the presence of more ways to enjoy the game means allowing people to enjoy the game in a way YOU don't like it, which is obviously horrible. like how both competitive and casual pokemon exist when only [insert the one you like more here] should have the right to.
Im fine with it. Its mostly just saying to do what you want but if you do here are some guidelines we think help. With the right usage it can be more exciting and let the usual min/max player finally explore other options.
Before covid I would literally get paid to DM. I ran events for large conventions all across the midwest including gencon. This is easily one of the best things to happen cause a majority of us DMS were doing it anyway. 5E has been a godsend in this regard and helps us make it concrete for groups.
Relying on mods or house rules is literally the laziest thing a designer can do. When you can make options for more stuff, but STILL ALLOW THE OLD ARCHETYPES, then that's design at its finest.
Here's the thing: unless your DM is an obstinate rules-lawyer, simply telling them that you want to play as this race/class, but play it against archetype or get a few skill related to their backstory, should be perfectly doable with simple house-rules.
People complained FOR YEARS that 4th and 5th edition cut down on the raw options you had in 3.5. They complained so much that Pathfinder was born out of that complaining to be essentially 3.75. So now WotC is giving options back to character creation and... people are complaining? Really?
Something that was pointed out to me yesterday when I showed this to a family member.
In panel one the Orc should have more pig like features. Version 1 D&D have orcs who basically had pig heads, later editions changed them to be more human but still had a bore nose and tusk.
Second that elf should be dead. Orcs and Elves get along like klingons and tribbles. The two cultures hate each other that much. They can't even breed, and Orcs can breed with almost every thing.
I will always find the normal characters to be the more interesting because it's less of them being special and more of the player being special, If the character is built to be special and unique in all the colors of the wind then there isn't as much room left to develop during the game.
Im not a massive fan of these kinds of things, D&D is a game, yes it is an escape from reality but it still a game, and it's starting to feel more and more like the game part of it doesn't matter, people want to imagine themselves as being perfect, or SUPER quirky, or anime.
D&D is already a game of "play whatever you want." This optional variant rule that allows people to play what they want with flexible optimization does not hurt the game in the slightest. There's a deeper convo abt games and how we use them to comprehend concepts that could be had here.
Funny thing is that score penaulties not even exists anymore. Races just gain a bonus to show what they are naturally good as, like, halflings are fast, dwarves are tough. The only real racial penalty is size, keeping you from using the big weapons.
To be honest, this is I've been noticing the lack of attribute penalties since Skyrim.
Though Small Size, Sunlight Penalty, Darkvision, and speed do apply.
How does having a wider choice water down choice? Instead of cookie cutter first group, or all the same second group, you could have the first group but ALL orcs, wildly different.
So, basically, they are pulling the same crap Skyrim did to the TES franchise? You know, how all races used to have different starting attribute and skill values and unique racial traits, but in Skyrim they are all 100% identical other than the appearance.
Origin stories are supposed to give an alternate start to the character. It's like he/she is 'different' from the other members of their race. What this comic is saying is that now everyone is 'different', and in being 'different', are the same.
I think it is more that it waters down the choices and removes any flavor and uniqueness they had. You could be something less ideal but there were penalties. To relate it to World of Warcraft it would be like a Tauren rogue something that wouldnt really make sense
Ok I dont get this one... unless everyone is choosing the exact same set up how does any of this make sense?
If everyone is special and unique no one is? thats complete garbage >< someone else being unique and special in one way in no way detracts from your own unique of specialness?
It's because we've confused "equality of opportunity" with "equality of outcome". It's apparently not enough that everyone's given the same chances, now everyone must be given the same rewards too.
The most fun character I ever played in 5E without homebrews was a Pyromaniacal Lizardfolk Sorcerer who I only allowed to take fire-themed spells. He was the antithesis of min/maxing, and it was fun BECAUSE he was so bad at what he did.
I remember when diversity meant we embraced the differences of everyone, because we all had unique strengths that contributed to the whole. Not sure how I feel about the 'diversity means everyone is the same' nonsense they got going on these days.
Even mutant ogre-looking and ogre-sized "halfling" could be a pretty interesting concept tbh. Could be played both for gags or straight. One might wonder how the heck s/he ended up like that. Backstory almost writes itself.
@Jo Pereira
If someone wants to play someone like the old bearded orc Gul'dan and be as smart as any elven caster, then why not? I'd rather have that then Drizzt_4219, or some twinked out min-max race/class build.
What matters is whether or not they have a good character concept.
... sort of optimized characters because d&d is pretty fight-heavy game and stats and traits moreoften make big difference, I'd risk saying that often they play bigger factor than roleplaying your character.
All the arguments here are valid, and that's why its an <optional> rule. Why they did this is players have played their respective races+classes combo for 4 editions and now a lot of them would really like to play "against a stereotype" so they give them that option. And player really want to have..
Yeah... this new system seems like it was made by someone who made an OC that was a Jedi with dark force powers that didn't corrupt him because he was already angsty and didn't get any attention from cheerleaders. And then got all the women because he was so angsty and cool. Bleck.
remember. it's not a computer game. it's a human to human, table top game.
it's an option rule. if you think it's not lore friendly or something you can just not use it in your game.
I think DnD 5th edition already went wrong when they removed attribute penalties from races. So the races have lost much of their negative identity. But at the end for me this makes no difference cause I mostly play Pathfinder 1st edition.
More seriously, I took up Pathfinder because I didn't like the way WoTC keeps churning out new editions of D&D to keep their revenue flowing. And now Pathfinder is entering 2nd edition and I'm digging in with 1st edition.
That being said, at the end of the day, the most important part is if the players have fun with the game. My group likes it, and i'm sure many others out there do, too.
Also, makes no sense. A dwarf is supposed to be physically more resistant than the average of the other races, and a kobold is supposed to be weaker, but faster, for example. If a player wants to make something different, they just need to spend their points accordingly to represent that.
It's very silly. I see the logic behind it, but i feel like it just takes away personality and individuality from each race.
Like for instance, lets say i wanted to make a halfling barbarian. Part of the fun is in overcoming the challenge it presents, and in the absurdity of it (cont.)
I am unsure if you can change your size with origin, but you I know you can remove all size-related drawbacks which is weird but that's Dungeons and Dragons for you.
5e is an edition, 1st edition still exists and is played to this day where Halflings can only be thieves, elves can only be casters, orcs can only be barbarians etc etc etc.
Personally I prefer this new origins system, because who seriously enjoys mismatched stats?
