D&D (2024) Do you think they will add more races to PHB2024 to make up for dropping other stuff?

[DEFCON 1]

I don't agree. I really want more out a rulebook I'm paying for than easy to use and somewhat fun to play. I certainly don't want the rules to intentionally create dramatic outcomes. That's for the DM and the players to determine.

What exactly are the rules meant to give you then if not dramatic results? What do you think the point of the rules are? Why do you have them, need them, and use them? The rules must be giving you something, right? They have to-- you wouldn't be so tied to them if they weren't. So what are you hoping to gain from them that isn't dramatic results (if those are meant to come from the DM and players themselves?)

 

[Vaalingrade]

Same thought crossed my mind with regard to the Giant "ordning". I mean really? Yet an other D&D "racism is fun" trope in all its blatancy.

I never even thought of the ordning. Probably because I bounce off D&D giants at 'lol, Hill Giant Fat Joke' before getting into any further lore. Also, I was thinking of it more as a caste system which I don't have enough understanding about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What exactly are the rules meant to give you then if not dramatic results? What do you think the point of the rules are? Why do you have them, need them, and use them? The rules must be giving you something, right? They have to-- you wouldn't be so tied to them if they weren't. So what are you hoping to gain from them that isn't dramatic results (if those are meant to come from the DM and players themselves?)

Verisimilitudinous results, based on the setting and the PCs actions. That's what I want, what I've always wanted. Those results may be dramatic, or they may not; that's up to the situation at hand and the actions of the players and the GM, not the rules.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I can get you not agreeing, but don't tell me wrong about things that exist and effect my life. 'Pick one' is a BIG thing for a mulatto in America.

My primary argument is about the Half-elf/Half-orc naming convention being inappropriate, and that I don't think they deserve special treatment over any other mixed species rules, not even due to tradition (which I think we agree has problematic origins as it is). Nor do I think that humans should be the only common denominator for mixed species, which they currently are.

And as a mixed person myself, I would ask that you kindly don't tell me I have to accept the Half-breed naming convention, or claim that it isn't a problem for a society to label a mixed people "Half-breeds". It is absolutely fine for an individual to identify that way because it is a personal choice foir how they want to be identified. But societal labeling (how it is universally presented in a rulebook for a fantasy multiverse) does not seem like the right choice.

Your argument still supports only one mechanical representation, that all Half-elves have the same racial stats. However with ability score modifiers being removed from race, mechanically they are really only just an Elf variant that is missing Trance and swapping a skill. Whoopteedoo. Mechanically it doesn't really take the human side into consideration. What if I don't want to be pigeon-holed as an Elf, mechanically?

As for my argument, Elf-kin would have more ways to be depicted. They can choose the baseline Elf assumption that exists in the current Half-elf with darkvision and elven ancestry, but if I want my Elf-kin to instead get the human abilities of my human parent, I would have that choice, and that choice is AWESOME. I would still be an Elf-kin, though. I can still choose how my character appears cosmetically, what their background is, and how they fit into their society, whether Elf, Human, Multicultural, or foreign to their preferences.

All that said, the Half-elf option as its own species entry isn't being taken away or erased, just like the Enchanter isn't being taken away or erased. The options still exist in the game. They just wouldn't be in this particular book and there would just be more variant ways to depict more hybrid species that wouldn't otherwise be an option.

You are also not being erased if a rulebook offers a variant way to create hybrid characters. The way you prefer will always be visible and available. You would still have the books and/or DDB where they are available.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Verisimilitudinous results, based on the setting and the PCs actions. That's what I want, what I've always wanted. Those results may be dramatic, or they may not; that's up to the situation at hand and the actions of the players and the GM, not the rules.

I understand what your feeling is on the matter in this regard... but from my perspective what you are looking for is completely arbitrary.

Your feeling on what is verisimilitudinous is just that. A feeling. X feels like it's a part of the world, Y does not. But that is entirely based upon your imagination. How you imagine these things would be represented in this world, were there game rules to represent them.

But there's no hard or fast way for anyone to determine what is correct in these rules for your verisimilitude. It's all just your feelings, your imagination. So at what point is any random rule in the game not verisimilitudinous because it's not a good rule, or just because you aren't imagining it well enough?

I mean... isn't that what the issue is for all those players who say (for instance) that then NEED to have the Elf species give a +2 to DEX, rather than just give the player the choice of the +2 in anything? They can't imagine the Elf being dexterous enough without seeing that +2 to DEX is the Species write-up? To me, that's them just not imagining hard enough. That's their issue, not WotC's.

Now if (general) you don't want to have to imagine anything and want everything spelled out for you in-game... I understand that instinct. I don't agree with it-- and in fact I think it's more lazy in attitude than ANYTHING WotC has ever done that people claim are "lazy choices" in their rule design-- but that's fine, how you choose to play the game is how you play the game. But I personally do not see any reason for any of us to get in arms that WotC doesn't agree with us on how we play the game and makes choices that run counter to it. So I don't. Knowing full-well that WotC will make occasional rules choices that don't work for me, I just don't concern myself with them and play the game how I want with what I have. And that way, I never have to worry about the choices WotC makes and I'm a heck of a lot happier than it seems a lot of people here are.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I understand what your feeling is on the matter in this regard... but from my perspective what you are looking for is completely arbitrary.

Your feeling on what is verisimilitudinous is just that. A feeling. X feels like it's a part of the world, Y does not. But that is entirely based upon your imagination. How you imagine these things would be represented in this world, were there game rules to represent them.

But there's no hard or fast way for anyone to determine what is correct in these rules for your verisimilitude. It's all just your feelings, your imagination. So at what point is any random rule in the game not verisimilitudinous because it's not a good rule, or just because you aren't imagining it well enough?

I mean... isn't that what the issue is for all those players who say (for instance) that then NEED to have the Elf species give a +2 to DEX, rather than just give the player the choice of the +2 in anything? They can't imagine the Elf being dexterous enough without seeing that +2 to DEX is the Species write-up? To me, that's them just not imagining hard enough. That's their issue, not WotC's.

Now if (general) you don't want to have to imagine anything and want everything spelled out for you in-game... I understand that instinct. I don't agree with it-- and in fact I think it's more lazy in attitude than ANYTHING WotC has ever done that people claim are "lazy choices" in their rule design-- but that's fine, how you choose to play the game is how you play the game. But I personally do not see any reason for any of us to get in arms that WotC doesn't agree with us on how we play the game and makes choices that run counter to it. So I don't. Knowing full-well that WotC will make occasional rules choices that don't work for me, I just don't concern myself with them and play the game how I want with what I have. And that way, I never have to worry about the choices WotC makes and I'm a heck of a lot happier than it seems a lot of people here are.

You're welcome to believe that what I want is entirely a product of my imagination, with no connection to anything outside of that (as denigrating and insulting as that is), but I don't have to go along with your dismissive attitude. You can make a rule set that focuses on simulation, to a greater or lesser degree. Designers have done it. How you or I feel about it is personal and subjective. That it exists is not.

By the way, despite my strong opinions about playstyles, I have never told anyone that what they want out of a game is merely a product of their own imagination. Seems a little harsh to me, although of course that's just my opinion.

 

[Yaarel]

My primary argument is about the Half-elf/Half-orc naming convention being inappropriate, and that I don't think they deserve special treatment over any other mixed species rules, not even due to tradition (which I think we agree has problematic origins as it is). Nor do I think that humans should be the only common denominator for mixed species, which they currently are.

And as a mixed person myself, I would ask that you kindly don't tell me I have to accept the Half-breed naming convention, or claim that it isn't a problem for a society to label a mixed people "Half-breeds". It is absolutely fine for an individual to identify that way because it is a personal choice foir how they want to be identified. But societal labeling (how it is universally presented in a rulebook for a fantasy multiverse) does not seem like the right choice.

Your argument still supports only one mechanical representation, that all Half-elves have the same racial stats. However with ability score modifiers being removed from race, mechanically they are really only just an Elf variant that is missing Trance and swapping a skill. Whoopteedoo. Mechanically it doesn't really take the human side into consideration. What if I don't want to be pigeon-holed as an Elf, mechanically?

As for my argument, Elf-kin would have more ways to be depicted. They can choose the baseline Elf assumption that exists in the current Half-elf with darkvision and elven ancestry, but if I want my Elf-kin to instead get the human abilities of my human parent, I would have that choice, and that choice is AWESOME. I would still be an Elf-kin, though. I can still choose how my character appears cosmetically, what their background is, and how they fit into their society, whether Elf, Human, Multicultural, or foreign to their preferences.

All that said, the Half-elf option as its own species entry isn't being taken away or erased, just like the Enchanter isn't being taken away or erased. The options still exist in the game. They just wouldn't be in this particular book and there would just be more variant ways to depict more hybrid species that wouldn't otherwise be an option.

You are also not being erased if a rulebook offers a variant way to create hybrid characters. The way you prefer will always be visible and available. You would still have the books and/or DDB where they are available.

The multispecies rules needs to account for admixtures such as Elf/Triton. The character gains traits from both species.

 

[Scribe]

The multispecies rules needs to account for admixtures such as Elf/Triton. The character gains traits from both species.

Why, we have Sea Elf for that.

 

[Yaarel]

Why, we have Sea Elf for that.

Heh. You know what I am implying!

 

[Scribe]

Heh. You know what I am implying!

I do, which is the best part of Sea Elf being right there, forever.