Changes to Player Races | Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse | D&D
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 янв 2022
- Todd Kenreck sits down with Jeremy Crawford to talk about the changes to playable races in 'Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse.
#dnd #dungeonsanddragons
Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse
A bestiary of wondrous friends and foes for the world’s greatest roleplaying game.
Sparkling with the musings of the wizard Mordenkainen, this tome features a host of creatures for use in the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game. Hailing from every corner of the multiverse, these creatures represent some of the most benevolent and malevolent forces that D&D heroes might face.
The book also gathers together fantastical peoples from many different worlds. Each of these peoples represents a race option when you create your D&D character, expanding on the choices in the Player’s Handbook.
Compiling and updating monsters that originally appeared in Volo’s Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes, this book presents friends and foes for any D&D campaign, many of them accompanied by the comments of Mordenkainen. The wizard has faced many of these monsters and peoples on numerous wondrous adventures. Now it’s time for you to venture forth and face these creatures yourself!
Includes over 250 monsters. Updates to the monsters include making spellcasters easier for Dungeon Masters to run; giving many monsters more damage and resilience; and improving the organization of the stat blocks themselves.
Includes over 30 playable races. Brings all the game’s setting-agnostic races into one book, complementing the races in the Player’s Handbook.
A multiverse of lore. Includes updates to monster lore that refocuses the stories on the D&D multiverse, rather than on any particular world. 
Игры
"We know that those bonuses only really matter at lower levels."
"Also, our data shows us that OVERWHELMING players disproportionately play at lower levels because gaming groups fall apart."
"Also, we only write adventures for lower levels and don't extend them for higher level play because we know that players don't play at higher levels, and our decision not to support higher levels of play with official modules creates a feedback loop that keeps players stuck playing lower level characters."
"But we can't understand why our players put so much emphasis on how their characters were built at lower levels when it all evens out at the higher levels of play 🤷♂️"
"We primarily market and support the game for new players but that in now way contributes to the decline of high-level play" - WotC, probably
It’s so easy to scale up a module for higher level play…
@@slagmoth literally all your problems can be solved by not following the rules to the exact letter. You’re literally complaining about a set of rules that are completely malleable. Tbh you sound like a little b. If you don’t like aspects of the game then do something. If monster are too weak beef them up, if dying has no consequence then add some. Stop complaining and house rule some things to enhance your experience. That’s what D&D has always been about. Lol 🤦🏻♂️
@@slagmoth the problem with CR is it doesn't take equipment into consideration. If you have 4 players at 17th level all with legendary equipment a CR17 creature is going to get annihilated.
@@TaylorAP13 While I agree, I don't think scaling up modules is something that's really communicated well as an option in those modues, nor does the Monster Manual provide much in the way of plug-and-play options. If you want a high-level goblin for a goblin adventure, you gotta homebrew it: increase its hit dice, swap out its weapons, add lair actions and legendary actions, etc etc... I think it would be useful if there was a "Big Book of Goblinoids" for instance, that has goblin enemies, mapped-out goblin lairs, goblin lair actions etc for all levels of play. That way, instead of having to put in the work myself and HOPE I balanced it correctly, I could just crack open my BBoG and swap out that Goblin Boss for a Goblin Overboss, or a Goblin Over-Overboss. A map for a level 1 module could be swapped out for a goblin lair akin to the huge dungeon from Dead in Thay, complete with appropriately-leveled goblin encounters, puzzles, traps, and treasure.
Elves after a long rest: "I know Kung Fu!"
"Chuck" reference?
@@digifreak90 The Matrix reference
Drow Morpheus: Show me.
Me when I saw what they did to Lizardfok: “Look how they massacred my boy!”
Yeah that was the one i was most confused about. I get the bonus action heal bite change from per short rest to orof bonus times, but why remove cunning artisan? Did people just not use it enough? I really liked it as a feature.
@@captainrelyk slavery is a much more taboo subject in today's world than murder.
@@captainrelyk I'm not disagreeing with you friend, I think it's ridiculous too
Honestly I don't get why we carnt have a line saying this is the bonus typical to this race, but feel free to move it to any other to represent your charater. That way we keep the lore but players can do what they want. Kinda sad they are removing the side of things completely.
Agreed. It would've added something without taking something away.
Ignoring racial ability scores is a mistrake. It just made sense. A dwarf, an elf and a dragonborn SHOULD BE mechanically different becuase their bodies are entirely different. And the most obvious, simple way to do that is modifying ability scores. I would argue that that's way better than using racial traits. Racial traits are sometimes confusing, requieres some sort of bookkeeping or even overlap with the class features. This is supposed to be an RPG! If I choose to play a weird fantasy creature aI want to FEEL the PROS and CONS of said creature. This book of "errata" has erased a lot of the uniqueness of its characters. Not EVERY dwarf has to be an stout and angry warrior, of course, but the WEAKEST dwarf should be still more resistant than the WEAKEST human being. Also, a dwarf have shorter legs so, of course, he would be naturally slower. And no, there's nothing "cultural" on a Lizard-man having thicker skin. People at Wizards of the Coast: please, reconsider this changes. Down this road, every single race will play the same: No variety, no color, no roleplaying...
@@Enriqueguiones I agree 100%. They could just have put a sidebar indicating the floating ability scores as a variant rule, I don't understand why they removed racial ASI. Eh, I guess we can always homebrew.
In the front of Tasha's it has half a page dedicated to this exact thing. Basically saying that the bonuses a dwarf gets represents the "Standard" Dwarf that wants to adventure but there is no reason a Dwarf wouldn't be more intelligent instead of tougher.
Agreed, I don't see why we can't just have both as an optional rule.
I really didn't like some of these changes, I hope my DM doesn't force me to update my kobold
Tell him no
Dnd: we are getting rid of racial ability bonuses
Humans: guess I’ll die
Variant human: _still blatantly the best race in the game by a mile_
@@ronaldmathers9060 Variant Human is the best race in the game, to the point where it's effectively mandatory for all martial builds. Sharpshooter/Great Weapon Master is the best way to be a fighter, and Variant Human gives it to you for free.
@@Cr33pysku11 you wrote custom lineage wrong (get feat and darkvision and can start with an 18) Or dwarf (+2 two times), aracockra (flying speed) or goblin (bonus action hide play a caster, cast a powerful spell, hide, success). One of the strengths of humans was the flexibility. As now everybody is flexible it takes away one of his strengths making him worse in the process.
When everybody is special nobody is special. Which is the goal of current trend. We are all the same so nobody is special.🤣 that includes now fantasy until rafe and class has about the same mechanical impact as the colour of your shoes. 🤩 then we will have as cool clases as unsalted rice, slice of bread, cup of water.
P.s. i mean i do like that i now dont have to play a below 16 int wizard, but on the same time all this changes make the game a lot more blend which i doubt was the intention. Nowadays a movement type and a spell are considered racial abilities. I would love a bit more creativity.
@@Cr33pysku11 You tend to forget, that people take that race for a free feat and nothing else. Just cause it you can jump start your build doesnt mean its not a weak race or is on par with the rest of them
Like yeah its the "best" race if you want to be a barb with SS or GWM at lvl 1 (or similar skills) but you lack anything else besides that feat compared to all other races, plus there is now Custom Lineage that allows you to be over any race and be the human variant as well.
I dunno about the "races don't have specific ability scores" thing. I *love* seeing suboptimal combinations played for fun. Goliath wizard? Kobold Paladin? Orc Rogue? It's fun, to me, to play around a character's limitations sometimes and it can add a lot to the roleplay aspect.
You can still do so and limit yourself with your choice of stats, I get that the limitation is less fun to overrun because you chose that limitation using numbers, but now you can play a weak but dextrous orc trying to be a barbarian
@Essylo
It feels different though. It doesn’t feel like your struggling against the hand you were dealt. It instead feels like you dealt yourself a bad hand…
I realize it doesn’t actually matter. That this means that anyone can play it the way they want right?
The truth of the matter is that the increase you get from racial ability scores is so insignificant in the grand scheme of things that it will change nothing mechanically significant. A +1 bonus is a 5% increase. You can easily play the game with a 16 in your primary stat until 10th level. It’s not all that much of a hindrance. It hits prepared casters the hardest. I don’t think there’s anything overly special about the bonuses being there or not. The other abilities still often point you in a direction anyway. But I think it’s ridiculous for them to pretend they made such a huge difference. Power gamers are gonna power game and they don’t care what race they are playing. People that want to play against type are going to do so anyway, and already are. As I mentioned, it’s not a huge deal anyway, and 5e is very forgiving about ability score bonuses.
Suboptimal combinations aren't fun. Screwing your party over because you're deliberately bad at what you're supposed to do isn't fun.
@@thatradiogeek Suboptimal does not mean garbage. Goliath wizard vs a Tiefling wizard with the same rolled or point-bought base stats there's only a difference of 2 Int. That's one skill point. That's not going to doom your party.
This is just going to move emphasis to racial abilities that aren’t stat bonuses. If everyone is equally dextrous or charismatic then there’s no reason to not pick the same 3-6 races based on whether flight, magical resistance, or some other trait is generically the best or the best for your build. The difference now is that instead of races being perceived as being better at specific classes, some are just going to be perceived as better (full stop).
yup. A really poor choice in my opinion. Unless you are actively making a weaker character
That is absolutely true… if you're playing at an optimization table. I don't think most people are playing at tables that care that much about system mastery or game mechanics. Most players think "Ooo, a tiefling, that sounds cool", and pick it. I would bet a plurality of players don't even read the description of what a tiefling is, let alone what its features are.
And I think that's okay.
@@deProfundisAdAstra Sure, but tables that aren't concerned with optimization also wouldn't have cared if Orcs had a +2 STR versus having a free-floating +2 anyway. This design choice already makes the assumption that people were previously pigeonholed by a pursuit for optimization. This is just going to change which feature is driving that optimization.
@@mattreigada3745 You’re probably right, but perhaps both arguments are a little too black and white: there are some people who aren’t all that interested in optimization, but they still know that “number go up” is good, and consequently pick their race after their class for those bonuses. I don’t really have a philosophical issue with that at all, but if we accept that WotC does, I think the change was a reasonable attempt (with some success so far, I think) to ameliorate the “issue”.
Not having a particularly strong opinion on the change itself, I’m really more annoyed that the bonus is included with your race at all. Why not just give player character their bumps to Ability Scores in the Ability Score stage of character creation? Why is it linked to race at all if it’s the same for everyone?
@@deProfundisAdAstra I agree with the latter point that it’s become an irrelevant artifact in character creation being that it no longer has anything to do with race.
That said, I think there’s just as many people who can recognize the value of a fly speed, magic resistance, or damage resistances as who can appreciate that a +2 INT is good for a wizard. I primarily find it annoying because it’s ridiculous that a halfling and Goliath are on average expected to be equally strong with the typical Goliath having no advantage when arm wrestling the typical halfling, and it fundamentally ruins the idea of playing against type since there no longer is a type to play against. Stat capping at 20 was already solution enough since it gave everyone the same max potential, but still allowed you to feel like you were overcoming an archetype to get your Orc wizard to a 20 INT when they started at 13. Even then the flat bonuses didn’t matter too much, and an 18 with a feat was often better than scraping every ASI for the 20.
I guess I would have preferred to have the stat bonuses be called "Archetypal bonuses", establishing certain physical traits are more common, whether it's cultural, environmental, physical, magical, or divine in origin, without straightjacketing the choices. Orcs might tend to have strength bonuses because their cultures tend to favour strength. Dwarves might tend to have constitution bonuses because historically they've lived in tough environments. Goliaths might tend to have strength bonuses because they average at least 7 feet tall. Tieflings and Aasimar might tend to have charisma bonuses because their connections to their outsider patrons/ancestors manifests partially in such ways. Elves might tend to have dexterity bonuses because their gods had such affinities and wanted to grant their creations to share in them.
While a good point I don´t think this really matters for character creation. You are creating a unique character that will almost for sure be an outlier from the general populus. For example I play as strength 20 and cons 18 Gnome palladin who is slightly more then 5 feet tall. She might very well be one of the tallest gnomes ever, but she is also level 16 palladin who was able to solo kill a Goristro without really ever being in danger of dying. That is an insane level of strength and skill that most gnomes will not and should not have. It actually makes more sense for her to be different, since it kinda explains how she is able to achieve such crazy levels of power.
I think you only need to have that "Archetypal bonuses" info available somewhere for roleplay reasons - for example so my DM knows to have NPCs comment on how tall she is, how smart an orc wizard is, how strong a kobold barbarian is etc. And I think for know we don´t really need it anywhere, since everyone has access to the original classes, but in 6th Edition it should be in a foot note or somewhere in the DMs Guide for example.
not everyone plays snowflake characters tho
@@Anna-md4dv This system doesn't stop you from giving your orc a +2 to strength, it just also lets you give them other bonuses. If you want to be the "stereotypical" orc, nothing is preventing that.
@@Anna-md4dv In my experience, the person bringing up the term "snowflake" tends to be the snowflake.
The reason they didn't give suggestions is because an asshole DM would enforce those and not let players deviate from them, which is what we're seeing now with DMs not letting players use the Tasha's rules to switch around ability score increases. Also they're not doing racial cultures anymore.
one thing they did not come in on that i really like is, that now spells races have can be cast with spell slots and you chose what casting modifier (Int, Cha or Wis) it has when you make your character. :D
it makes much more sense that they can also cast a spell they naturally know with spell slots if they are a caster. :)
Oh wow i didn't know they made that an official ruling. About time!
@@jonathancummins6234 yes it is something they are doing from now on, just take a look at the Fairy from THE WILD BEYOND THE WITCHLIGHT.
it will be like that from now on, and the Races in the previous books will be made like that.
Yes except they seems to give every race such spells now.
Spell Races? Bit confused are you able to clarify for me???
@@Tropicoboy races such as Tieflings that receive spells they can cast for free.
Still weird that a Gnome and Goliath can have the same starting strength.
It's not any different right now, since they can have the same strength cap
@@slayeroffurries1115 "same starting strength", not "same strength cap" later in the game.
@@falkscharnberg8315 you can have the same starting strength now, assign your goliath 13 in strength and your Gnome a 15 in strength. The new way ability scores work just make more fun for everyone, people who want to build a classic strong goliath can, and people who want to build an equally effective strong gnome can too - you don't have to, 5e has always been about choice.
@@slayeroffurries1115 no difference, and I’m sure you’ve played as many games where you became stat capped as you have had games that didn’t get past a single ASI..
If the Goliath player rolled like shit and then dumped strength cause he was playing a Hexblade Warlock and didn't need it anyway then yes, the Gnome Totem Barbarian who rolled better is going to have a better starting strength score. This ain't anything new. Let's be honest, the player race was an afterthought to player class, and part of the reason why was because the ability score modifiers made playing some combinations feel suboptimal at lower levels of play. Now that meta has changed because the modifiers are flexible and the new traits essentially give you a free racial feat. It creates more options.
We change to floating stats bumps, because power gamers chose race for the power bump.
Now power gamers will be able to get even more dangerous combos, like a mountain dwarf spellcaster.
eh...not sure about it, but also dont really see myself or my group changing to the new way, the original 5e has basically got us covered, i like racial abilities and prepensities. means that my dwarven thief as an example while not ideal (by the numbers), allows him to stand out as a character
Agreed. Do we really want to play in world where Elves have no Dex advantage over Dwarves? Each race is inherently more adept and certain abilities. In all honesty I think Palladium Fantasy handles the difference even better by changing the number of d6 to roll for each ablility based on race.
@@captainrelyk And now people will be preasured into a set race based on the fact that some of them just have way stronger racial features. A list thats more likely than not to be Way smaller than the ASI restricted list was.
Don't know how this will play out but what I'm understanding is that a 98lbs halfling can arm wrestle a 380lbs goliath because said halfling has no penalty to strength and said ability can reach +4 or more no problem?
How's that gonna play out?
But iT dOsEn’T mAtTeR cAuSe HiGh LeVeL gAmEs CaN hIt AbiLiTy cAp!
The same way it plays out that a 3'10" halfling can squeeze into a space about a foot in size. It's a game and not all rules make the most logical sense. Not to mention they could already do that.
The Halfling wrestles the Goliath. Fantasy doesn't have to be realistic and IMO sometimes it's more fun that way. (I personally love the idea of the tiny halfling being many times stronger than the Goliath. Good flavor.) Obviously though if you don't like that it's easy to house rule around.
@@Spirelord122
But not at first level.
@@RouxAroo666
Then perhaps there should be some logic built into the game?🤔
It would be nice to see some of the cultural characters we had before - such as the lizardfolk crafting - return as options through new backgrounds.
Make a custom background n that's a thing
The problem I had with an ability like Lizardfolk crafting is that it's something that characters of every race should be able to learn how to do. Even if the lore of your setting says that it's a trade secret that is only taught to Lizardfolk, there's nothing to stop an elf from using a hat of disguise to turn into a Lizardfolk and learn the secret.
In my campaign, anyone who has proficiency in Leatherworker's tools can do the things that Lizardfolk crafting allows.
That will surely be part of the culture choices they'll likely include in the 2024 PHB.
@@daviddalrymple2284 Agree. That’s why I think backgrounds make a good place to include stuff like this for starting characters. And, yes, custom backgrounds are a good way to go, but many players might find more backgrounds content helpful.
@@williamtaylor6886 I agree a tribesmen background that allows/taught you to make better use of bones and parts from animals makes sense.
Excited to see Todd Kenreck's interviews on the official D&D channel!
I think he’s working for the digital division.
...this is the official D&D channel
@@milktots6933 congrats, thats what they said too!
@@codymarshall587 that's one way to read it
For Kobolds at least they could have made it an optional subrace. Cavern Kobold = original sunlight sensitive + pack tactics. with the new one just being a subrace that normaly lives above ground or something.
You can still use the old rules if you want.
They are still out there and you now got a choice for what sort of Kobold you want to make.
I’m torn on the stats thing, I’d be lying that there hadn’t been situations where I wanted to go a certain way but the numbers didn’t work.
However I did enjoy with some of the combinations I did make and it also made going against the norm special because there was a ‘norm’. I also liked how it supported the fiction (high elves are often smart but wood elves are often wise and humans could be anything).
Something like 13th Age might be a good compromise, where say you have to either pick two racial stats, two starting class stats or one from each. Races have what they are known for, but still flexible enough to be something else.
I can see getting rid of mental trait modifications by race, that's cool since it is awkward to label a race "dumb" or "smart". But the extreme range of physical sizes not meaning anything anymore is pushing the game farther into video game territory. Gnomes and Goliaths are effectively the same size now in every way that matters. If they decide to make Pixies and Stone Giants playable, they will also be the same. We are a long way from the mentality of D&D 3.0 as a simulation.
@@MichaelNgTzeWei to be fair that might be a slight oversimplification.
@@RecklessFables I get what you mean about size, but to be fair I’ve also enjoyed not slowing the game down checking size rules. To your main comment I personally don’t get why it’s awkward for races to labeled ‘smart’, ‘strong’ or ‘graceful’, but fine to have slow moving, can see in the dark’ or breathe under water. I just think a compromise can be found like in 13th Age.
@@RecklessFables except 5e doesn't even label races "dumb", as there is no negative modifiers anymore through the race choice.
Just that some are naturally inclined to be more intelligent or wise, which means that the least wise of one would be a little wiser than the wisest of the other, but not the other way around, because of levels and ability scores improvements
@@RecklessFables so ogres aren't dumb? its a species, there are animals that are smart and animals less smart.
Are you saying no one ever played a class that wasn't boosted by the race? Because that's definitely not true.
In my experience, people often chose a race-class combination that has no relation stat-wise. Sure, it happens sometimes but definitely not the majority of times like you suggest. Players often pick a race and class that fits their concept of the character regardless of whether the class benefitted from the race.
For example, in my current game, one of my players is a tiefling rogue. Did the tiefling race boost her being a rogue? No, she just wanted to play a tiefling rogue. That happens far more often than you pretend.
The last character I played as was a goblin ranger. While the ranger class benefitted from the goblin's dex boost, I chose that combination simply because I wanted to try the goblin as a race and the ranger as a class. I could've easily played as a goblin fighter instead. I just wanted new experiences.
I agree with your approach 100% but I feel like this mindset is far less common among the longer playing people. Must be a millennial thing I guess🤷🏻♂️
@@aerojedi02 I'm over 40, and my players aren't in their 20s.
@@lunavarion I’m late 30’s and my players range from early 40’s to mid 20’s. Most of the “power gamers” I’ve come across are those who have been playing since at least 3.5. I am young to D&D still only been playing about 2 years.
@@aerojedi02 At that point, I'd think you and your players would've had their fill of power gaming and would just want to play interesting character combinations without care of buffs.
Personally hate power gaming, always have. I’m in it for a great story and to get lost in fantasy for a few hours, power gaming goes against this. You don’t “win” D&D
3:05
A playable race being as varied as humans does not mean they would not be on average smarter, stronger, etc than humans. We always use the word "race", and that is where the issue is. These are not races, they are whole other species. Some species naturally grow bigger and have more density of muscle into the average human. Some grow half as much. Some brains naturally develop to be more complex. How is a Kobold as strong as a Goliath? Why do your monster stay blocks show a difference if there is not one common through those groups? I'm fine with changing it and saying that PCs stand out from the general rule, but don't try to say there are not differences in general that run through these groups.
I will also say that giving negative or not as good ability scores to balance powerful abilities is fun design imo.
@@gorillaguerillaDK sure. But he used a real life example to make his point, it makes sense to do the same thing as a rebuttal.
A gnome can become as strong as a goliath in 5e. All races have the ability score cap of 20 (24 for strength and constitution if you're a high level barbarian).
You can also hit just as hard with a heavy weapon, even if you're the flimsiest of medium races.
I agree with you. There needs to be differences or every character is just a different looking being of the same race/species.
Kobolds, Goliaths, Dwarves, etc. should have some racial bonus that is set in stone. If you want to say that in society some things are more important than others I would agree with that. So maybe a set in stone "racial stat", and a player chosen "racial stat" based on what motivates or drives the character.
But that chosen stat should be offset of a negative based on what the character gave up on to be better at something else.
But I just want to say that up until recently, the word race meant the same as species. That is why D&D always called them races.
The word has been changed so people can say there are different races of humans which is not true. Humans are one race/species.
Spot on. Race is a very loaded word and WotC are reacting to it. Perhaps if tbey had used Species as the word we wouldn't be here.
Though given you get half-elves and half-orcs, would thay mean these 3 species share a common ancestral species?
Are half breeds infertile, like the Zedonk?
If not, where are our Quarter Orcs and 3 Quarter Elves, dammit!
@@davidpeacock8276 Great Danes have a higher strength than chihuahuas. That’s real life.
Like I understand the sentiment behind the change, I really do. And I’d love to see more Goliath wizards or gnome barbarians, but part of what makes that idea interesting is having to deal with the non-optimized nature of it. And some of the racial features are even more egregious than just ASIs. Why would a barbarian rock gnome know how to tinker? Why would a wizard Goliath or Half-orc have savage attacks or powerful athlete?
I still don't believe it's a bad thing for races to be naturally stronger/hardier/dextrous/etc than average, but I guess I understand the desire to make more race/class combos appealing to players.
My understanding is that the "typical" elf is still dextrous in any setting. The player just has the option to not be a "typical" member of a certain race.
@@ninjagamer1359 dude, stop crying. It's still an option. There is nothing holding you from making a gnome and assigning the same ability bonuses as in the PHB. Don't talk about anatomy and physiology as if you actually gave a crap about it. I doubt you complain about how dragons aren't really supposed to be able to fly with those bodies or how can a medium humanoid have the potential to reach a strength score higher than an ogre.
It Is still an option for races that can be referenced in old handbooks. But the new ones, owlins, rabbitfolks and the like, there Is no previous "typical" version of those races to be compared to. I had a First time player do a High Elf Wizard and put One of the lowest score in Intelligence. It was strikingly unique. I feel like this was thought more to appease the kind of player Who can't stand not having an 18 in their main stat at level 1.
@@yurimolino5435 Fair point man. Think like this: Now it is more important to pick a race from its lore than its ability bonuses. The lore is still translated into mechanical attributes through the race features. Just not ability bonuses. That would be the lamest reason to pick a race, don't you agree?
@@tukman16 then many people are lame by that reasoning. If I want to play a rough character itncomes Natural to me to think of a Dwarf, Orc or Goliath, because their lore and typical ASI increase suggest me so. Will my owlin be different than a typical One? I don't know because I have no reference about It, so maybe I'm playing It as an outcast when my pick seems perfectly normal for my DM.
If we really wanted to separate ASI from races I would have tied them to the background choice maybe.
I think a better medium would have been all races have two points they can put wherever, but they all still have 1 point they have by default (save humans, who's flexibility and adaptability trait means they can decide where all 3 points go). This lets you still have your Half Orc Wizard with the +2 Int, but still have that racial trait of strength (+1).
I would love to see a series of interviews like this one about World Building.
I don't think it's a problem that some races have ability score adjustments. It's natural elves are more dexter than dwarves and therefore are better for particular classes.
I think I agree but it's great rp wise, you know? In case you want to roll a super clumsy Elf and maybe a Dwarf that's actually really graceful--or maybe raised by elves.
@@Gen-Rev then make that your house rules, not part of core
@@Gen-Rev actually you could already do this by picking where you applied your rolled stats. That said the idea that the clumsiest an elf can be is just an bit better then the clumsiest a dwarf can be makes since to me.
Except my thick wood elf has high con and strength cause he's a power lifter...
@@diomedes1544 if you can homebrew anything, why would it matter what the core is?
Todd Kenrick: "...Kobolds who are like, I like them a lot better now. They're really fun now."
Meanwhile poor Kobold from Pack Tactics I'm sure is pulling his hair out.
Kobolds are player character races now? How long has that been a thing, Chris Perkins? "ELEVEN DAYS!!"
They’ve been playable since Xanathars, but that reference will never not be funny.
@@Greenwoodland Since Volo's, if I recall... Do I win?
*Looks up at fire giant raising his warhammer*
I WIN!!!
*Spurt*
@@Veltharis Yeah, page 119 in Volo's Guide to Monsters.
RIP Spurt
I don’t see an issue with set numbers and alignments
Yeah, not selling my DM guide neither my Monster guide.
I didn't care at all when Tasha's made choosing Ability Scores an OPTION, I don't care if other people need that to play a goblin wizard, heck, I might 've even used the option if I were to play in a setting where minitours formed an highly intelectual society or something. But now I don't have the option to play the way I want.
The worst thing is, anyone who wanted could always have homebrewed the rules to choose their ability scores, but is not that simple for me as a player, to decide what would a baseline for a particular race be.
Why can't YOU just homebrew the rules at your table to be the way you want? You say you don't have the option, but I fail to see why.
@@paxtenebrae Oh yes, sure. Sure. WE should have to change the rules back to the old standard. WE should have to ADD content that WOTC has **TAKEN AWAY**. Great idea.
@@MrJoeyWheeler What are you talking about? This isn't like coding a videogame. To "change" the rules "back"...you literally just don't adopt new rules. It's as easy as having a thought. You should try it.
@@paxtenebrae I think you missed the part about "what would a baseline for a particular race be" Yes, he could still come up with his own baseline but I think you are missing the point.
What is stopping you from using the same stat bonuses as before? Absolutely nothing,
So. Do i get that right that the average kobold is physically as strong as the average Goliath? I would love to hear the explanation for that.
It's a game. That's it. That's the whole explanation. There's nothing stopping you even right now from creating a kobold stronger than a goliath if you put your kobold's highest dice roll in STR and make your goliath's STR their dump stat.
@@highlanderwins3328 And what part of average is it that seems to be giving you a hard time understanding ?
Well what I was assuming that this remake is not about the average kobold this about allowing players to create the exception to the common. Hey, Steve the kobold is build like a tree stump of muscle that is odd and now is doable. I’ve always look at the adventure type as being exceptional to began with in 5E so having the non norm standards can make sense. I would just like my players to give explanation in their history to justify their build. Yeah, In first edition and 2ed you were definitely not exceptional with 3d6. Hahahahaha
@@jamesmorgan7299 "this about allowing players to create the exception to the common"
Okay, but how do you know what is "common" if they don't tell you anymore?
@@SirStrangefolk go back to all the lore that has been created for last 40 years and decided what you want to use or not in your world building.
Hmm, Kobolds originally had dog-like heads.
Also, I'm very surprised to hear that Kobold changes were mostly positively recieved... I don't think you'll see that in the fullness of time.
The kobold changes were mostly positively received by people who never have and never will play a kobold. This is why "Focus Group Design" sucks balls.
@@lord6617 I do find myself questioning WOTC playtesting methodologies, their decisions are so out of step with the matter (monk subclasses). I get *why* they changed the kobold (sunlight sensitivity and pack tactics can be a headache to deal with at some tables) so I don't dislike the changes personally, but pretending the community is accepting of these changes is wishful thinking at best and blatantly dishonest at worst.
out of 20 players that I have DM'd or spoken with / played with as a player, none of them would want this as a replacement- MAYBE an option for kobolds, they also outright removed cunning artisan from lizardfolk which is awful
Apparently what WotC hears in feedback is not from my circles of friends, because we do not like our favorite "little dragon" nerfed. Kobold loosing pack tactics is fine IF they get something else to compensate for it, and the loss of sunlight sensitivity combined with the itsy-bitsy "choose your flavor of kobold" bonuses are nowhere near enough to make it feel like an equal exchange. Thusly, the more mechanically focused players and DMs in love with kobolds will still use the old ones to not shoot ourselves in the foot, thank you very much.
Draconic cry is better than pack tactics though. Yes it has limited uses but compensates for that by extending its effect to other party members.
@@captainrelyk It's unfortunately not a buff. It's deceptive, really, because the new features are way cooler in their flavor, but mechanically the kobold is now quite a lot weaker. Volo's version is potentially the most tactically interesting race in 5e, because it has very clear weaknesses in the form of lacking attributes, sunlight sensitivity and AMAZING boon in the form of Pack Tactics. It is very rare that a race could define a playstyle to this degree, and that's what was so cool about them. You actually had to be smart, tactical, play to your strengths and minimize how often your weaknesses came to bite you... You know, like a scrappy little kobold should!
Now the mechanics have been rolled over and flattened. Sure, you get a few little things, like the +1 to any attribute (as the -2 to Strength was already removed a while ago), Kobold Legacy and cool Draconic Cry. The latter two are exceptionally COOL in flavor, and I love them for that! But mechanically? Those are not nearly an equivalent for removing Pack Tactics, even when we factor in the removal of Sunlight Sensitivity.
On that last point - it's called Dungeons & Dragons, not Sunshine & Dragons. Vast majority of combat happens in dungeons, other interiors like castles, under the canopy of ancient forests, or it could happen during the night. It varies from table to table, of course, but with how many player races have darkvision, or ways to get darkvision through spells and the like, darkness is not really a problem. And when you DO get caught by surprise during the day? Then that is the weakness you pay for having pack tactics... And a weakness easily mitigated by Pack Tactics, by the way. Avoiding fights in daylight plays to the tactical depth of the race I talked about, and it's great!
But let's look at the Draconic Cry as well, compared to Pack Tactics. @haerdalis84 Let us also ignore for a moment that Grovel, Cower and Beg already exists (I'll get back to that point in a moment)
Draconic Cry uses a bonus action, lasts for one round (with 2-3 uses during levels most people play), works for you and your allies, and affects enemies within 10 feet of you.
Pack Tactics doesn't require any actions, lasts FOREVER, works only for you, and affects all enemies in melee range of your allies.
So, how is Pack Tactics amazing? For one, let's assume some 4 encounters per day, each lasting some 4 rounds (that's vastly downplaying how much encounters DMG is assuming, but almost nobody plays like that I feel). That's about 16 rounds of combat you can use pack tactics in, and potentially way more if the fights take longer or are more numerous. Compare that to 2-3 rounds of advantage Draconic Cry gives. Then there's the second problem - draconic cry requires you to be right next to enemies to use it, which invalidates it for characters that want to keep their distance. Pcakc Tactics has no such range limitations. Third, Draconic Cry cuts into your action economy, which might mean one less attack with spiritual weapon, not applying hunter's mark, not moving Flaming Sphere, etc.
If you are Volo's kobold, and are a melee fighter - then just get a mount, a familiar, a summon, or an ally next to you, for PERMANENT ADVANTAGE, at no action cost. If you are a ranged character - then again come familiars, summons and allies. You have to be more clever and tactical to have it active always, and it depends on having friends to fight alongside with... But that's it! That's the draw of the race, why it's so cool and so needed!
Now then, does this mean Draconic Cry is bad? Of course not! It's basically giving you 2/3 of the Samurai's Fighting Spirit, and in some ways better because it applies to allies as well! It's like a free goddamn fighter subclass in one feature! I ADORE it and it's vaaaaaastly better in every way than Grovel, Cower and Beg, which was borderline unusable and felt really bad and weird when you did so.
But when someone says the new kobold is an improvement? That, my friends, is only true in the flavor factor, because mechanically - it's a big nerf.
... Unless you are a player that cannot be bothered to optimize and play tactically, I guess. Then the new one is better, because it's harder to mess things up.
@@haerdalis84 draconic cry is LITERALLY just grovel cower and beg. In no way is it a buff when it's just basically a renaming of a ability they already had.
As a video editor and producer, I've gotta say (and I'm aware that this isn't a huge deal to most people), it bugs me for some reason that Todd posing the premise of the video as a question at the beginning while still under the D&D graphic makes me a little crazy because it's so important to the video.
its a 5% or less bonus... and that tiny limitation or benefit is what makes "odd" choices seems rarer or more fun. also if you dont use point buy then this entire premise is nonsensical, not ALL of a race would be more dextrous, but it would be more common than other races. this makes the world ...less flavorful. solving "problems" created by "good feel fixes" is not the way...
The beautiful thing about D&D is the rules are more like guidelines. So when you DM at your table you can run it however you want :D
@@AbominationalFailure except the world i grew up in i expected elven enclaves to be riddled with archers, and dwarven fortresses to be decked out in plated warriors.
the world the next generation of d&d player will grow up in, will expect nothing because everywhere is just humans in cosplay...
Prepare yourself adventurer, the great but short humans that live in the mountains and have big beards will possibly be interested in mining and may or may not attack you on site but when you cross their mountain home you will cross into the cliffside forest where the tribe of green to greyskinned humans live with large tusklike teeth but be careful, they may or may not attack you on site or trade flowers, no one can be sure, and beyond the mountain range you will enter the deep forest which has dozens or few of these humans with pointy ears, which again may or may not kill you on site and might trade heavy plated armor with you or might all be wild berzerkers we just dont know. I'd give you a book of all our knowledge on these three types of humans but they're just so unlike their creator deity that it would do you no good. Are you prepared to explore this rich world, young adventurer?
@@IzalorDantin I grew up in the same world as you. The difference is, I understand that a DM can choose to be traditional about things, or not. That's my point, if you want the traditional thing go for it, literally no one is stopping you.
But don't expect the progression of what D&D is to be defined by you outside of your game. You are not the authority on D&D, quit trying to pretend that you are.
@@Biostasis5x7 your issues with the changes and the race cultures completely losing their identity because the starting stats are baseline can be easily resolved with lore and flavortext.
I feel you're being a bit hyperbolic about the significance changing the base stats of the characters will hold. What about elven culture do the base stats tell you?
Lets do an experiment.
For your consideration:
High Elf = +2dex +1int
Feral Tiefling = +2dex +1int
Mountain Dwarf = +2con +1wis
Water Genasi = +2con +1wis
Lizardfolk = +2con +1 wis
Hopefully you see how D&D race, culture, and expectations of how they might be as a people, aren't defined by their base stats.
Being able to change the base stats also accounts for people who might be exceptional in some areas naturally despite their race. Some humans in real life have a natural grace to them, or are naturally strong, or have a weak constitution. Why can't it be the same for D&D races?
I get that there are tropes, and the tropes are there for a reason, but should the game force players in to that trope? Or should the trope belong to the overall race as described through lore and flavortext?
I don't claim to be the authority on D&D either, that title belongs to WotC. But I agree with this particular direction they're taking the game (that doesn't mean I always agree with them for the record lol)
"Elves in a trance can commune with the hivemind of their ancestors..."
So... they are Eldar now?
Always have been.
I love this. This a a hoot. The Forgotten Realms is a Craftworld you know.
well considering Eldar knocked off a lot of elf traits.
@@RouxAroo666 Not really. Only in the sense that Eldar is just a word for elf, but they've never been as overtly similar to Games Workshop's version of the Eldar as they are now.
@@JaydenAlexander312 Astral elves always were very similar since they both leaned on similar ideas and tropes. Astral elves are not new, they've been around since the original Spell Jammer books.
Personally, I think it's way more interesting if the strongest halfling fighter will never be as strong as the strongest dragonborn fighter, and so has to make up for it in other ways (like their size and agility making them harder to hit). Unfortunately that kind of game design is both hard and complex, and 5e eschews both of those things.
I think the strongest dragonborn not being able to match up against the strongest halfling is more interesting. Sort of thing one could spend an entire campaign trying to figure out why.
@@Ravenholm337 Easy: Magic.
And it feels just as fulfilling as it sounds.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Wow, you won D&D. Congrats.
@@Ravenholm337 You can't ‘win’ at D&D.
Anyone who says that you can knows nothing about it.
@@Lobsterwithinternet I believe I have now won D&D and the internet with my Sarcasm trap card. How the tables did turn.
It feels like this book should have been D&D 5.5/6E. No reason to mess with the old stuff.
Did Jeremy Crawford know anyting about optimization?
Sure the halfling could get 20 strenght score, but he will get it at evel 12 compare to the half orc getting it at level 8. And at level 12 the half orc can now take great weapon master.
But yes he's right, a hafling who train hard could become as strong as an half orc, but the hafling need to work harder then the half orc for teh same result, and that is FINE.
But even by allowing race to have any stat anywhere, their is still race that Optimizer will take 90% of the time: Variant human / custom lineage free feat at level 1 is Godly for most build, unless your build require elven accuracy then you'll take an elven race (and thank you Crawford for specifying that custome lineage didn't allowed to take racial feat, so no their is a reason to take something else then Variant human)
Can I suggest to Crawford and his team, that if the objectif is that "anyone can play anything with any combo, so a halfling barbarian can be as good as a half orc barbarian" try to look at diffrent optimization channel, and if you notice that 90% of all build are taking Varian human (or custom lineage) becaue the free feat is SOOO good, maybe remove the varian human (and custom lineage could gain a different ability ther then a free feat give us the choice between I don't know, to pick 2 special ability from any race? So this way custom lineage would allow me to be an elf (with trance) but raise by a dwarf (with Stone cunning. and a Gnome (with gnomish cunning) but learn from wood elf how to hide (mask of the wild) etc... ) and give a free feat to all character at level 1 like everyone keep asking since the release of 5e. That feat at level 1 allow to have different character. I mean at the moment if I want to play an rune knight, and my friend want to play a battle master, at level 1 and level 2 we would be extremly alike, with few differences. If we could take a feat... ok we'll both take great weapon master, because grat weapon master is a mandatory feat for any character wanting to use a heavy weapon (maybe great weapon master, sharpshooter, crossbow expert and polearm master should be free ability that every get (just like 2 weapon fighting from 3rd became an ability that anyone can use for free)
So did they ever explain why the heck goblinoids are from the Feywild now?
Goblins are quite close to the fey in real world mythology often times being used interchangeably
As game desing ended up on how ability scores work on 5e it became a lot more prevalent because it became a lot rarer and special, beacause specially on 3.5e atributes were a lot more a flavor because there were negative stats and the sorts.
at 2:19 is where I have a problem. Players that "I can't enjoy their dwarf thief because oh my God I don't have a dex bonus and my character will forever suck" ned to learn what role plying games are, and what's the difference with a videogame.
Players desiring a dwarf thief need look no further than Odo from the old Ivanhoe Dark Knight series. He is the perfect example of an arcane trickster using his Dwarven weapon proficiency to wield his mighty warhammer "Toecracker".
As another option, I think this is just fine. Too many times have I just seen players in various mediums adopting the same Race/Class combos and though there will still be racial abilities; the raw mathematical numbers will be entirely up to the player. Races are already just a "Cover" for the class, this just removes some of the Math-Induced choices that so many players are "Tradition Locked" into making. The numerical number is such a small bonus, as was stated, and had an outsized affect on player choices.
You are the DM, you can provide any option ( or lack of options ) as you wish. I prefer more options for my players, inclusive before exclusive, always.
This is why I changed I home ruled that races have a static +2 and a +1 that can go to any other stat. It gives flexibility without abandoning the idea that some races are more naturally built a certain way.
That's just a product of meta gaming and trying to get the best stats possible. Can still have fun role playing a character that doesn't have big stats.
@@azmodeuslordofhell5263 and can still have a very effective character with "low" stats but exploiting a race's pretedermined stats, with the addition of being more original and unique to play
I like the race ability modifiers. It represents their heritage and the ways they each go about life. Elves are naturally nimble and smart while dwarves are naturally hardy. I encourage my players to make a character that makes them happy and seems cool and not to fall into the habits of a try-hard power gamer.
And i couldnt agree more on the options front. I prefer pathfinder over d&d because of the mechanics. However i prefer d&d over pathfinder when it comes to lore a lot of the time.
@@CommissarPickle If representing the race with mathematical variables was to be represented, I think it should be done through racial maximum. The strength to hold a given smaller object would be similar no matter the race. In Ogre vs. Halfling, both species could carry another halfling, but a halfling likely couldn't carry an Ogre.
Front end numerical "Minimums" are just a poor way to separate species when there is so much diversity within a species (IE: Acrobat vs. Grappler). Maximums would be a more apt way to show the differences if you really needed to force racial disparity into character development.
Not sure if the bufs to “bad” races was sufficient if that was the idea.
Most of my gripes have been made by others. I'll simply not play the DnD game this way. I value the diversity of the racial (and character) differences.
Halflings are physically weaker, but more dexterous. That's how they compensate. Orcs are less intelligent and thoughtful, but more tough and strong. That's how they compensate. Elves live for hundreds of years, so they have time to become smarter and wiser than a 18 year old human.
This diversity among races, was one of the sweetest elements of DnD to me. Sometimes I wanted to min/max my character. Sometimes I wanted to overcome the lot that the (in-game) world dealt me.
E.G.G. said that he made humans neutral (in ability scores) and centric to the game on purpose. The other races were built in comparison to that - orcs are tougher, halflings more dexterous, elves wiser. That's all been thrown in the dumpster and lit on fire in what appears to be an effort to make everyone equal.
Races are not equal, they are diverse, but you'll not be able to tell that by the ability scores/averages - unless you look at the Monster Manual ability scores. I wonder how WotC or (more importantly) DMs are going to explain that?
My homebrew is to have the Ability Maximums vary. Orcs get 22 max in Strength and Con, but an 18 max for Intelligence. Seems to work well.
@@brucemaximus3797 interesting! I might use that
Interesting. Will be nice pretty much all races will be in one book.
If every race can now choose ability score. Why do you select first ability scores and then add points. Wouldn’t it make more sense to just give 5 or 4 points more to point buy and make standard array 16,15,14…?
Also as the game is created to increase asi at 4 and 8 why not give automatic bonuses to the main stat or in case of paladin you choose so that for people who use feat can use feats additionally. Always found it boring to select asi at 4 and 8 as most campaigns are over after 12 the latest? Thats why i like rolling for stats when you are lucky you can finally do something else instead of always the same.
I've wondered the same thing. I would imagine the starting ability score change you mention is similar to the approach we will see in edition 5.5/6 and the current implementation is a band-aid that functions basically the same way without as much confusion/errata.
I wouldn't say the game is "created" to ASI at 4 and 8. Because of bounded accuracy starting Main stat 16 should be plenty, or 17 with a half feat.
@@Shawzy not my native language. Let me try to rephrase it. The base game is asi only as feat are only optional. The goal of dnd was to become more noob friendly which they succeded thus they want to continue this track. With this two paragons asi should just increase automatically as in a game withouth feats whatelse should a wizard do then first max int and then con or dex? So why not make it easier and just get +1 int every other level until max and then maybe con?
Then when you allow feats you can use the normal 4 and 8. This would make characters stronger but not more then in a game where people are allowed to roll and keep 18/20 starting abilities. Also as you mentioned +2 ability scores is “only” a 5% additional success chance.
@@CaitSith87 personally I'm not sure that approach would be much, if at all, more simple for a newer player to understand than ASI.
Additionally if all players were granted ASI every other level and ability to take feats then the more experienced players lose a bit of depth and complexity. In my opinion making character creation and progression less interesting and fun.
@@Shawzy but if your goal is to attract new people no matter what that means for long time fans. For which i would say there are a lot signs for that. Which is the same strategy that the game and movie industry is applying in case of the game industry since the success of candy crush. I personally doubt that strategy is longterm a good one, but i am a finance guy not marketing so who knows. You cant live on “hard core” fans but you cant build a community around casuals.
Also if you dont use feat what is there to decide? The only classes where its not obvious what ability score you max are paladins, rangers and maybe monks.
Lets say you play a rogue. In 99.9% of the cases of standard dnd (withouth feats) asi 4 and 8 will be +2 dex. Cause thats more damage, higher chance to hit, higher skills like stealth, higher initiative….So there is not actually a choice cause one choice is indefinitely better then the second best choice.
So why make the game unnecessary complicated for new player and for experienced players there is anyway no choice. A powerful build is defined by feats and the right combination of spells and/or subclasses. The only role ability scores play currently in this is the question if you max them out now or later.
8:15 I'm sure that's great for forgotten realms but most of us don't play in the forgottne realms.
Corellon isn't FR exclusive. He's the default Elven deity in several core d&d settings
He's not just in forgotten realms
@@haerdalis84 Well seing as the official DnD settings are really one setting it amounts to the same.
@@DaDunge define official settings. Theros, Ravnica, Ravenloft, Eberron are all official D&D settings but not one of them is anything like FR
So if I already own the other source books, is there a point to buying this book? It sounds like this is just a conglomeration of what is already out there. Or does it have new stuff in it too?
What I'm hearing is I should save the current version of payable races and monsters before they are tweak? Just incase in breaks other adventures and modules?
Sounds reasonable.
I never really understood this decision. The ability score bonuses never really swayed my decision when creating a character, I just saw them as kind of things that were just that, bonuses. If the class I had played into those ability scores, then that was cool, a couple extra points. If it didn't, no big deal.
My big worry is that a lot of these changes are merely going to take away some of the distinctness from the races, and wind up making them all feel the same, just with a different coat of paint.
I think you are on to something. all races will end up being is the skin you put on your player model.
Star wars the old republic comes to mind.
I am wondering if this is a player only mentality.
As a DM we are used to making orc rogues, clerics, bards, and more in addition to fighters barbarians and warriors.
Even with abilities not in the favor of the "optimal build", it was the class and tactics that carried the encounter.
@@billytschirn3982 no because there are distinct racial abilities (elven trance, dragonborn fire, etc) that you can speak with your dm to tweak or tweak it yourself to make it more distinct
Y'all are the biggest whiners. If your orc feels the same as your elf just because you have more customization that isn't the games fault, its yours.
Im homebrewing a Final Fantasy Dragoon for my next Campaign and literally I made my character an Air Genasi just to have the last name Highwind for a Final Fantasy reference. I gave 0 thought to how the stats would be beneficial. I mean if people wanna min max then go for it but I choose what sounds fun. This change also doesn't really make sense when you can roll an 18 and be an Intelligent orc anyway
Jeremy said it backwards.
The problem was not that your rogue was forced to play a DEX race. The problem is a rogue often got NOTHING out of playing a INT or WIS race because their INT or WIS was too small to matter and the race's power was tied up into the INT or DEX.
I am curious if Pack Tactics is coming as a feat for Kobolds and/or other player races.
Nature vs nurture.
It should of been special abilities for all races and the added benefit of taking 1st level traits that tie into a class or build choice. You could even have these "traits" be flavored and varied among the other races but still an equal amount of these traits across all races to cover many build choices.
Like a ninja tortle or a bulky barbarian tabaxi and a skinny hyper intelligent human etc.
I wasn't a huge fan of the seemingly random changes MToF made to the elf and drow lore (previously, Arvnador was a reward, not a temporary paradise that souls stay in until they're forced to reincarnate), so I'm a little wary of another Mordenkaien book, but we'll see. While I wasn't happy with the lore changes, the fact that they're actually incorporating the trance and connecting with elven ancestors and Corellon is kinda cool.
I do wish they would keep racial (or, more aptly, species) cultures, though. It seems like they're so afraid of ascribing cultural archetypes that they're getting rid of racial cultures altogether. Cultures are part of the flavor and uniqueness of each race (or species), and in the mythic histories and lore that Crawford referred to, those histories would doubtless create cultures. Of course an individual can grow up in a culture different from their own, but elves, dwarves, halflings, etc, are generally united by at least some cultural traits. I'm not saying they should be monocultures or that every member of a race/species should be an archetype, but it sounds like they're being reduced to appearance and some special mechanical traits. An elf can be an individual and still be part of elven cultural (and again, using elves as an example, if they're going to be connected to their ancestors, that would doubtless create a racial culture).
If i had to decide how to do the stat bonuses i would let at least 1 point in the typical stat of a race (half-orcs have strenght, dwarfs con, elves dex, etc) and the other points to whatever the player wants. Plus i would add that the race's stat could be up to 22 instead of 20 to sow that they have an advantage thanks to their race at high level.
So 1 point from race and one free ASI at lvl 1?
@@codebracker Most races get 3 points, using the elf example it would be always 1 point for dex and the other two where you want like when you use thasa's rules. At leas that gives the player an incentive to have a 10 in dex so you dont waste the point and get only a 9 with a -1 bonus. I always use 27 point buy so i think it makes sense with that sistem, so you can have a valanced character. So yes, it would be basicly what you said.
I actually had a similar idea in mind, I like your idea better.
Mind if I steal it from you?
@@Lobsterwithinternet not at all, use it if you want 😊
Will there be an update to the beyond app or will it be a book to purchase for character creation options?
Monsters of the Multiverse will be available for $30 on D&D Beyond in mid-May. DDB's twitter account confirmed that buying MoM on DDB will retroactively update the stat blocks in the older books.
It's not yet known, though, whether or not there will be errata for Volo's and Tome of Foes that will incorporate the changes seen in Multiverse of Monsters.
Most games that I have seen, ran and even talked to other dms usually only make it it 13th level at best before the game falls apart. The sweet spot seems to be 7 to 10th level that most games can wrap up with out exploding or imploding.
I’m not a fan of people choosing what stat to increase instead of having the stats be based off the race. It feels like they’re insulting the original game designers by making that change. They’re also assuming that a player will always choose an optimal character rather than one that’s suboptimal but has great role play potential.
They actually teach that players will naturally min/max in game design courses, because if you build a game that way it appeals to the largest group.
I genuinely got asked why anyone would pick another race if one was (even slightly) innately more powerful.
I use the new system specifically to choose suboptimal stats
@@codebracker Interesting take, and one I admittedly hadn’t considered. Thank you for opening my eyes.
Choice works both ways. Some gamers enjoy a challenge and, if everyone involved is on the same page, it does make sense to be able to limit your character and make things more “difficult.”
@@codebracker That's a bold strategy, Cotton.
So ability scores don't effect class choice but what about the traits? Are some traits not more beneficial for specific classes?
Yup. Power gamers just getting way more power
I absolutely love that Todd has joined the team! He is such a good presenter and his passion for dnd is so genuine.
What about the races from the PHB that are not represented in the book.
Will we get a new PHB or errata to create characters with the "normal" races?
Hey people out there you know you can still you point By or rolling the dice as long as your dm allows it. And you can always mix the two races from the new and old.
There are literally different species. As in they are creatures that are nonhuman!! Obviously some species are better at some thing than others. A dwarf is not going to be as good as an orc at running. There are also cultural differences within those same species that make differences in an individual's ability. An orc who comes from a background that encouraged more academic pursuits than military will not likely be good at martial arts as a tiefling who had parents who wanted them to be in the army but a big giant orc will likely beat up a tiefling in an arm wrestling due to simple biological differences in strength.
There can be different ability score increases here and there but not the norm… plus the different non human species are kind of treated as metaphors for human ethnicities in many fantasy settings anyway…
@@Willie5000 God I hate that. It just feels like a cop-out for not having enough non-whites.
@@Willie5000 but they are not? and even if they were they would be redundant? Like, if you look at an Orc and go: "oh well yes of course bloodthirsty dumb creature that like in a tribal society... that is a black man" that is a problem with yourself you need to address. Same with Drow, although I would argue drow embody white stereotypes if anything lol. There was an issue in older prints that made the tribal societies out to be the villains every time, so Yuan-Ti, Orcs, Goliaths, Lizardfolk etc. but you can still have their cultures and ability scores present without making them all the same in all but appearance. RIP lizardfolk Cunning Artisan :(
@@Willie5000 🙄 if you choose to imagine orcs or dwarfs as analogies for minorities and think that is how all members of said minorities act or think then that is your problem not mine or anyone who wants to play D&D.
@@Rhyman1992 I didn't imagine it, that's how they are treated by fantasy writers.
Would’ve preferred it if they hadn’t, intentionally or not, nerfed changelings with the humanoid to fey switch, making them easily detectable with a level 1 spell…
Still, can’t have everything…
Ah yes, a nerf. Except there is a way around it, should they so desire. Magic Aura, a slightly higher level spell. However, if cast n the same target every day for like a year I think the effect becomes permenant. Additioanlly, Nondetection as a costly 2nd level option.
In trade off for this thing you have to be weary of at lower levels, you get: immunity to any ability that targets humanoids such as hold person, charm person, a vampire's charm- In general this creature type change is a huge buff, making you unaffected by same very nasty low level spells.
@@The_Crimson_Witch I’ll admit I didn’t realise it would grant immunity or resistance to those other spells… but still, it’s a direct nerf to the main feature that defines being a changeling. It’s a bit like going “ok Paladin, your smites are limited to once per short rest now, but as a bonus, your immunity to disease now includes poison damage!” Not a perfect analogy, but you get what I mean.
There's a dozen magic items in this and older editions that solely exist to mask level one detection spells. Honestly setting off Fey detection is a small price to pay for immunity to all spells that have the word "person" at the end of their name.
maybe it’s just me, but I’d rather play a changeling where my main ability can’t be thwarted easily by a single easily available spell, and I have to either invest in magic items or go against the main ethos of the video and always pick a spell casting class when picking changeling in order to use it effectively.
“But on the plus side you’re immune to all these other spells” smacks of “we at WotC really did not play test this stuff”.
Either way, it’s not like this disallows the humanoid changeling, or DM fiat to just go “hey we’re using the new changeling but they’re humanoid”
I actually find the set ability scores much more enjoyable than this new system. These set scores give every race a bit more individuality. Sure, some races are just not cut out for certain classes, but that makes it so much more fun! I don't need all of my stats to be 100% perfect. Sometimes you just want to play a Barbarian with low Strength and high Intelligence.
I mean, you can still do that with these rules.
@@AlexanderTome Not really. The newer races like Harengon, Owlin and Fairies have no set ability scores, so they can't be used in the old system.
@@greendemon905 then make them up for yourself. Best thing about this game is that you can do whatever you want, and it is correct.
@@greendemon905 and if you want a barbarian owlin with low strength and high intelligence, then assign your stat bonuses accordingly.
@@briancherry8088 haha, I mean, I guess? For me, this has always been a game about creativity, so picking and choosing to use what has worked for me and handwaving or homebrewing the rest has always been my modus operandi. The games still have structure, sometimes quite rigid, but it’s a structure of my own design.
If that is the philosophy why are we keeping natural armor replacement as it is currently can push people away from playing saying a lizardfolk monk or barbarian. Because your class feature interferes with race feature and you can't use both. I'd rather it just be a +1 to AC or at the very least make it a choose by making it 13+con or str . That way you are either choosing interesting different way to avoid damage or the normal barb or monk way.
No one is answering the most pressing question to me, which is: are these alternate versions, or do they replace the previous versions, in terms of legal gameplay?
I think they're intending to replace the old versions with this, since new copies of VGM will lack several paragraphs explaining the culture and behavior of monster races because "it's racist". Also, the digital media is also being replaced with the new rules, iirc.
I can see the frustration of some of the basis, but folks need to know
1. your table doesn't have to play with these changes (you can still play with the original rules before Multiverse)
2.Alot of the changes were due to alterations to make some races viable (some rarely get played due to stat growth), or some were just so broken they were mostly banned (anything with flight)
3.racial traits do play a viable basis, but a lot of it doesn't make or break the game (those that do like any magical or poison resistances got nerfed)
Regardless of whatever happens, it's always going to be Dragonborn (or whatever sapient reptile race may apply) half-elf, elf, or human for me all the way; regardless.
Sunlight sensitivity just saved a character in the first game of a new campaign. Rolling disadvantage made it so 40 damage was not done to a character who ignored a warning to back off from a scared Drow who had been transported suddenly to the surface in broad daylight as a test of Lolth. The unwise player/ character who approached her underestimated the power of a nude dark elf in an alley. I like that she had the disadvantage. It enabled the situation to be less lethal and the party recovered from it's rocky beginning. There are ways to mitigate these difficulties. It's part of the fun of playing.
I'm interested to hear what has been done to keep humans as a viable option.
Just wanting to play as a normal human for roleplay is the viable option..
My Kalashstar wisdom bonus for my Druid is great, but I wanted to play him as a race anyway.
What he said doesn't make sense... Having races get an ability score boost doesn't make all creatures of that race de facto have more of a score than any other, it's just a slight increase of likelihood, but that's a nice pretext. It sounds more like 'We're removing race flavor/mechanics due to implications of racism, and now we're all the same'. Last I checked this was still a fantasy game and these races/creatures weren't actually real.
Very well said. I was telling my son the exact same thing. I mean exactly.
See, I can appreciate what you guys are doing with the change to ability score increases on the races, but I do actually disagree with it. Ignoring ability scores increases when deciding races at character creation, I feel like a lot of people will just look at the other stuff that the races get. Like the feat from variant human, flying from aarakockra or variant tiefling, or magic resistance of yuan-ti. I personally feel like the ability score increases from the races let me look at things I wouldn't usually look at when creating a character. Perfect example of this is I created a mark of healing halfling druid. Never considered a halfling character before that, and it was a really fun character to play. Same thing with a tortle bear totem barbarian, that actually became a huge hit in my group when he got aged 40 years by a ghost and basically turned into one big boomer joke. It was great. Never would've happened if I hadn't seen the ability score increases to con and strength that you get for being a tortle.
So, DNDBeyond says this content won't replace old content we've bought. I want to know if that means the old versions are still viable in general? Sometimes I want that armor proficiency and they've pretty much culled a lot of those races if this new hobgoblin or githyanki replace the old one. Are they still "options" officially or what?
They're still going to be selling VGtM so the options within will still be there, I don't know what AL is going to consider legal or not, but you'll have a choice in what race version you want to run for the next two years, because when 5.5 comes out these races will most likely be the standard version.
They should give racial stat bonuses and then let you choose to use them or the new system as an option. They are taking choices away or at least making you homebrew racial stats going forward. So if I'm doing the leg work there now why do they think Im going to give them money? There was a way to do this that gave more options and empowered DMs but they've chosen an ideological route with political connotations. Ill keep my money and just homebrew anything else i want for 5e.
I wonder how we'll see ability score changes in the PHB, where we have some races that get more than a total of +3 to ability scores. Will Mountain Dwarf and Half Elf get an additional +1? Will Humans get an additional +1 to three ability scores? Humans would be amazing. You could get +3/+2/+1, +2/+2/+2, or +1/+1/+1/+1/+1/+1.
I think they are going to separate the subraces into new races, as we saw in Monsters in the Multiverse where shadarkai, deep gnomes and deep dwarves are no longer subraces.
@@mariovelez6132 Thank the gods! I hated sub races. Just make them flat out separate races!
I see where Jeremy is going with it but I don't feel like it was necessary. We had the ability to change the origins and stuff from tashas
I'm skeptical about actually needing to implement any of this in my games.
For characters options, I think that too much flexibility makes everything bland. Restrictions promote good role-play opportunities. I'm afraid this will encourage sameness and players will not be challenged to make characters out of their comfort zone, where a lot of the fun lies. I'll reserve my final opinion for when I actually read the book.
Concerning cultures, as a DM I absolutely need default cultures. I don't want to reinvent the wheel every time. I need presets that I can default to in a pinch.
This will vary from table to table. but in my experience players have never chosen af race/class combo that didn't match. they find a match and create a character concept after that. And I get the distinct impression that this is true for a vast majority of players.
I find the more flexible combo actually promotes players playing races they normally wouldn't. but because they still know that this class is not that normal in their culture that becomes a part of their story.
@@frankjensen5991 "Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game"
Players generally don't like to make character with what is essentially a handicap. At least not at first.
DnD can be daunting to some players to learn, and they don't want to make it harder on themselves by having a handicapped character. But after having some mastery of the game, they will be more willing to let loose and have fun with a handicapped character. But most are not at that point.
@@DvirPick That might be true, but for me at least I prefer the removal of the handicap and let people make varied characters from the start. To be fair I prefer the the way they do it in PF2E where races have +2 to one stat, -2 to another and a free +2 stat. so each race is only really handicapped on the one stat but other than that then can be "good" at everthing else. so the flavor is still there but a lot of freedom to play around with.
I don't like the idea that to "let loose and have fun" you would also have to make suboptimal choices. and that +1 to hit can be a major thing. on tougher enemies that could be 15-25% more hits. it is not a small handicap. most tables spend A LOT of time on combat. and just being bad at hitting kinda sucks.
This entire change is definately influenced by what was done in PF2E. Which is what they should do. every game should steal what was good in previous games/editions and then you try to improve on what you don't like. I am not sure I agree on removing the stats completely from races. but it is a simpler and safer choice. But as I said I prefer the way it is handled in PF2E which is a sort of middle ground of the old way and the new way.
My biggest issue is how crippled some races will end up considering you don't have ability scores to balance it. For the new PH they will have to buff some races hard (for example, the Gnome), because there's no reason to pick certain races from a gameplay perspective anymore and their abilities are lackluster in comparison.
100% agree. these guys simply dont get that differences are better than sameness
Going to have to do phb 2 , or is this the new one . Because I really liked phb+1 for character rules building.
The giftset provides three options for your +1: Tasha's, Xanathar's, and Monsters of the Multiverse. None of the races in Monsters of the Multiverse are in the PHB. The PHB races will probably get a similar treatment in the revised core books which are due in 2024.
We know very little about the 2024 core books except (a) they'll be backwards compatible with existing 5e books and (b) the changes in Monsters of the Multiverse (over Volo's and Tome of Foes, etc.) are "previews" of the kinds of changes we can expect to see in the 2024 core books.
@@daviddalrymple2284 genuinely hope we see a sage advice article for phb races sooner than 2024 tbh. Dragonborn already got improved so no issue there but let's see elsewhere:
How does the floating así adjustment work with half elves?
Now that Trance grants sleep magic immunity and the ability to gain 2 tool/weapon profs, half elves got nerfed (fey ancestry no longer protects against magic sleep) and their elven cousins get more flexibility in the proficiency department.
Drow are now essentially more powerful than high elves (no more drawbacks and their racial spells can be cast using regular spell slots, longer darkvision). High elves only get bonus languages...
Elven Weapon Proficiencies are kind of moot given the trance change as well.
Thanks for gutting kobolds into unplayable race. I hope I never met tables using this book as guidline
Oh get over yourself. Their new version is hardly unplayable. Draconic Roar is better than GCB in that it doesn't eat your entire action (and you also get the advantage). Pack tactics were useless in daylight encounters (which depends on the campaign in question), DR is effective everywhere.
@@haerdalis84 if you are not creative enough to build ur field and pick better tactics it doesn't make pack tactics bad. Plus it fits "kobold-horde" whole racial spirit way better than what they have given instead. DR is a boring micro-tweak that turns kobolds into potential tanks that should now stay front line.
@@ArthurESC what does creativity have to do with the DM having an outdoors combat encounter during daylight? It's as valid as having an indoor encounter. Not every fight has to play to your strengths and smart foes will actually try to play up your weaknesses as much as they can. DR is a straight up upgrade to GCB - that ability has always been there, so your point about it forcing kobolds into front lines is moot. GCB already did that.
@@haerdalis84 you obviously not creative enough to build battlefield for yourself, even if it is outdoors. No reason to listen to people who prefer simplified and casual method. Have a nice day~
@@ArthurESC you are a kobold thief rogue being jumped by a dragon attacking you on a plain where you have no immediate cover from daylight. Build your battlefield knowing that your party members are a devotion paladin, a draconic sorcerer (blast focus), a valor bard (party buffs, and healing focus) and you're all level 6. Go.
I don't use ASI to determine my build. I had a high elf rogue/wizard. The ASI just happened to be Dex and Int when I went to create my ability scores. I get they want to put in more creative freedom, but its not much of a problem as they make it sound.
Nice to see they are giving elven revelry a mechanic.
Yeah but I don’t feel it fits the best why would reliving a random past memory for a few hours teach you the skill for a short time, and once an elf turns 100 they only relive memories of their current life which is why at 100 they are considered adults.
is the standalone coming out in May going to have updates to the already released version?
The new initial stat bonus is just for the races of the book or for everyone?.
A lot of the OG races aren't featured including - Humans, most Elves (not Shadar-Kai, Eladrin or Sea Elves), Dwarves (except for Duergar), Gnomes (save for Deep Gnomes), Half-Orcs, Dragonborn, Halfling, Half-Elf, and Tieflings. Also Owlin, Warforged, Kalashtar, Loxodon, Simic-Hybrid, Vedalken, Grung, Locathah, and Verdan aren't featured either.
Some are unique to their own settings I know, but from the looks of this book they were trying to merge a bunch of the universes together in a way, so not having things like Owlin, Warforged, and Loxodon that were updated to fit any world seems a bit of a shame. Perhaps in another product later down the line.
The races they included in this book are those not in the PHB (which will presumably be updated with the core book revisions in 2024) and those that they felt could be considered (or made) "setting neutral" - Goblins and Orcs are scattered across multiple settings by default, Changelings and haughty, fey-elf Eladrin aren't hard to fit in due to innate shapeshifting and fey plane-hopping shenanigans respectively (they're both built for either "I was here all along, you just didn't know it" or "I just stepped through the veil from the Feywild"), but the likes of Warforged, Kalashtar, Loxodon, etc. would need to either have a specific place created for them in any settings where they don't currently have one or be reconceptualized to fit a more setting neutral model, and I think that's the line where they felt it was more than they could manage in this book.
I do hope they can find a place to give them an update in the future, though.
I have a question, I get why they are offering/making these changes, but for those of us who enjoy the older way will the original information still be available in D&D Beyond, even if just for reference? Or will it be completely stripped?
They're still going to sell the VGtM so the option for using the older races will still be there
@@ZipotheThird
Are you 100% sure on that. And it’s not just those options I’m talking about. What about the PHB, I would like to know that it isn’t being altered. Again, make the new options and such available, but also leave the original.
@@royangell564, I think this is just a taste test for the upcoming 5.5 edition which you can buy now.
Will be interesting to see how D&D Beyond deals with 5.5, I presume you will still need to re-buy everything, or else stick wtth playing with what you have now (which could be plenty of players' preference anyway!)
@@royangell564 Beyond have said more than a few times on their Dev update steams that nothing will be removed, MTttM is simply adding in new options.
WoTC haven't announced any further changes to the PH and tbh considering that the new core books are two years away, I don't think we will given the fact they won't want to damage sales on the core rules by giving up the goods too early.
@@royangell564 That can easily be solved by simply not playing 5.5e or 6e or whatever it is.
Really liked the interview, and makes me excited to buy the book! Thank you
The initial mistake was baking culture into race, which does not surprise me given that this is an American game for an American audience
Western in general, while it is an American game I've met plenty of non Americans, Europeans specifically, who conflate race and culture even more than Americans.
Nice interview about what Tasha’s custom lineage is all about. Weird title for the video though
This is all done only to please people that care more about numbers than actually playing the game
I'm so done with superhero 5e. After DMing a 4 year campaign I can't do it anymore. Battles taking *hours* to resolve if you actually want to challenge higher level characters... Game has lost it's heart and soul, or just burned mine out.
Not quite sure how I feel about this, but I think it’s moving towards that 5.5 edition they were talking about
I think it's fine to present options to play races differently than they are usually stereotyped as, but things like removing Cunning Artisan or Sunlight Sensitivity makes races feel a bit more samey in a way that really takes a lot the flavor out of it. Meanwhile, the Elf Proficiency addition does the opposite for me, I think that's an awesome addition that brings more life to playing that specific race. I definitely need to get the book in my hands and look over every specific change that was made but I can't say I'm too pumped about a good chunk of these changes.
Sounds cool. If only I didn't have to buy books I already own to get it...
Don't.... Buy it when it launches separately in March I believe.
I’ve actively for races that don’t fit the archetype of a class before and it’s a lot of fun because they aren’t naturally suited to it. But also this isn’t like one human culture compared to another being stronger or smarter. They’re entirely different species and we know in real life some are faster or stronger . It’s because species are specialized and it’s what makes them unique .
Entirely agree
It's fun to have a character that's not fully optimized but has more of an identity (for example a half-orc wizard as is often cited could open to a build where you have your Magic, yes, but can also defend yourself in melee if it comes to happen, making the character MORE UNIQUE thanks to their racial stats.)
I feel like this is just incentivizing everyone to minmax their characters with the race they pick being more of a cosmetic choice (and a backstory choice obviously, but if the point is to say "my character is different from what is expected in their culture".... you could already do that with incentive to actually try something in terms of build.
@@nessa-parmentier having negatives or characteristics that dont match the norm in my opinion is how people come up with cool new ideas. Restrictions can often aid in innovation. When its too open everything ironically can end up feeling the same. One of my favorite characters I played recently had a -3 Charisma modifier and it was hilarious because my party kept make me handle social interaction for some reason. Another One I enjoyed was a goliath rogue but he wasnt the sneaky type of thief. He just would mug people through intimidation and bashing their head. Terrible at being sneaky but great at being a criminal
Taking one dynamic out of optimization out of the mix does not mean races won’t be associated with classes based of special abilities. You would have to make races all the same to do that.
"Racial bonuses don't matter as much at higher levels."
:(