Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[Psyren]

Not Constant. It would be At-Will with an activation. There is a thematic difference.

The Dwarf takes a moment (costs an action, or even a minute) to put their ear to the stone or pause to listen to the earth. The Dwarves being able to read and listen to the stones is part of their folklore background.

The longer effective usage, even allows the per activation duration and range to be shortened. Tremorsense of 60ft 2/day sounds like Wildshape to me but knowing how to pause to listen for Tremorsense 5ft-10ft sounds like Species of Stone* to me.

Edit
* Context: Dwarf, Gnome, and Goliath are thematically associated with rock and stone. There was a book called Races of Stone and I was alluding to it.

Personally, I'd rather have the longer range with more limited use than the other way around. The big benefit of Tremorsense is detecting things you may not know are there - a 10ft range would pretty much either only come in handy when you're already suspicious enough of a given stimulus to get close to it, or if your dwarf is constantly doing laps around every room they enter, neither of which seem appealing.

So... we accept infravision and ultravision but not this? Why?

Again. I don't play a lot of D&D these days, so there could be game balance issues with this.

I can tell - infravision hasn't been a thing since 2e

I hear what you're saying about dwarves being more fantastical as a way to make them more interesting, but the other thing we were discussing in this thread is how little tolerance there seems to be for deviating dwarves from their template. I think drawing on earthen power to "see" through stones is thematic, but I think doing it at will is a bit much. (And since you ask - yes, as a matter of fact I do think there is a game balance concern if dwarves are as hard to hide from as umber hulks.)

Eh, get a second feature that does the same thing as the first but better to make the first feature work isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

It's not 'better' - as established, 10' range is for things you already know are there, not for exploring.
And the feature works fine. Even if something is invisible, once you can unerringly keep track of what square it's in all you have to worry about is disadvantage. That's hardly insurmountable.

[Errorname]

Constant Tremorsense... eh. That suggests all dwarves are part-spider or part-bulette or something. I don't think they're supposed to be that overtly monstrous or mystical, they're still just humanoids.

Eh, Dwarves as creatures magically tied to the earth is not without folkloric precedent.

I guess this really depends on whether you view dwarves as just "short stocky humans who live underground", or if they are an actual unique species in a fantasy setting. I tend to lean in the latter direction.

I think part of the problem here is that the genre defining works of fantasy fiction skewed towards "short stocky humans who live underground", so that's what people expect and want from Dwarves.

[Psyren]

Eh, Dwarves as creatures magically tied to the earth is not without folkloric precedent.

There's tons of folklore about elves being overtly magical creatures too. But in game terms, at-will racial powers should be roughly equivalent to a cantrip; if they're more powerful than that, the alternative is to have them use up pretty much the race's entire power budget (see for example Changelings ability to Disguise Self at will), which is further explained by the latter being fey.

I think part of the problem here is that the genre defining works of fantasy fiction skewed towards "short stocky humans who live underground", so that's what people expect and want from Dwarves.

As mentioned though - is that actually a "problem?" And if the actual problem is something like dwarven adoption rates - how much of that problem is due to their lack of fantasticalness and not to, say, their slow movement speed as WotC themselves theorized?

[Errorname]

As mentioned though - is that actually a "problem?" And if the actual problem is something like dwarven adoption rates - how much of that problem is due to their lack of fantasticalness and not to, say, their slow movement speed as WotC themselves theorized?

It's a problem if you want to make Dwarves something more than short humans who live underground, but I agree that there's no real need for that.

[Psyren]

It's a problem if you want to make Dwarves something more than short humans who live underground, but I agree that there's no real need for that.

I already see them as more than "short humans who live underground." They don't need to become humanoid ankhegs to get there; their tremorsense being an activated ability that they can't use all day fits with that fantasy better in my mind.

[Witty Username]

I already see them as more than "short humans who live underground." They don't need to become humanoid ankhegs to get there; their tremorsense being an activated ability that they can't use all day fits with that fantasy better in my mind.

Tbf, everything is better with the ability to spit acid.

Ideas for Thri-kreen.

[Jophiel]

Dwarves have been around longer anyway. Ankhegs are just stupid insect dwarf wannabes.

I'd have no issue with expanding dwarf tremorsense beyond the proposed new PHB. Maybe not constant but with a perception check and smaller radius or something. In my opinion, that doesn't make them "part Ankheg" any more than hearing makes us part bat or smelling makes us part bloodhound. Especially when dwarven tremorsense would be more mystical/elemental and just sharing a mechanics name with bugs that have it via more traditional heightened physical senses.

[Psyren]

In my opinion, that doesn't make them "part Ankheg" any more than hearing makes us part bat

I think constant echolocation as opposed to merely "hearing" would make us/them feel "part-bat."

Anyway, if they change it to be constant tremorsense I wouldn't set my books on fire or anything, I just think the playtest version with it being an activated ability is plenty sufficient.

[Witty Username]

In my opinion, that doesn't make them "part Ankheg" any more than hearing makes us part bat or smelling makes us part bloodhound. Especially when dwarven tremorsense would be more mystical/elemental and just sharing a mechanics name with bugs that have it via more traditional heightened physical senses.

This matches my take, the requiring contact with stone is sufficient for themes for me.

Mechanically, it requiring a resource seems like a balance concern. Which will depend on how tremorsense checks out. As it is, I would have no concerns with it being at will.

[gbaji]

I already see them as more than "short humans who live underground." They don't need to become humanoid ankhegs to get there; their tremorsense being an activated ability that they can't use all day fits with that fantasy better in my mind.

I think it maybe fits with mechannical game balance better, but I'm struggling to see how "I have this mystical ability that I can only use X times a day" actually fits or makes sense more than "we just have the ability to do this thing".

I think some gamers have just gotten so used to the X/day mechanics that they don't realize just how nonsensical it really is if you actually step back and think about it. Even moreso for a perception/sense type ability. I have a much much much harder time wrapping my head around "dwarves can feel the earth and sense things moving through it, but only 3 times a day"" than "they can do this naturally all the time, because they are dwarves". Why the X/day restiction? Again. it's a game mechanic. We've all gotten used to them. But... really? Why? What is the actual rationalization for this? It takes some special mystical effort to do this, so they can only do it so often? For a sense? It's not like I'm casting a spell here. I'm not depleting some store of mystical mana or whatnot. Any rationalilzation for dwarves to be able to do this in the first place, should preclude an X/day mechanic to be involved. They either have this as a racial ability, or they do not.

And yes... <mutter mutter> game balance <mutter mutter>. But that's literally the reason to do this. It really doesn't make a lick of sense from a world setting or race building pov at all.

Er... But then again, a good portion of X/day abilities in many current games don't make sense either, and exist solely for game balance reasons, so there's that (many feats work this way and are equally unexplainable IMO). I'm just maybe suggesting we don't lose sight of that.

[VoxRationis]

I think it maybe fits with mechannical game balance better, but I'm struggling to see how "I have this mystical ability that I can only use X times a day" actually fits or makes sense more than "we just have the ability to do this thing".

I think some gamers have just gotten so used to the X/day mechanics that they don't realize just how nonsensical it really is if you actually step back and think about it. Even moreso for a perception/sense type ability. I have a much much much harder time wrapping my head around "dwarves can feel the earth and sense things moving through it, but only 3 times a day"" than "they can do this naturally all the time, because they are dwarves". Why the X/day restiction? Again. it's a game mechanic. We've all gotten used to them. But... really? Why? What is the actual rationalization for this? It takes some special mystical effort to do this, so they can only do it so often? For a sense? It's not like I'm casting a spell here. I'm not depleting some store of mystical mana or whatnot. Any rationalilzation for dwarves to be able to do this in the first place, should preclude an X/day mechanic to be involved. They either have this as a racial ability, or they do not.

And yes... <mutter mutter> game balance <mutter mutter>. But that's literally the reason to do this. It really doesn't make a lick of sense from a world setting or race building pov at all.

Er... But then again, a good portion of X/day abilities in many current games don't make sense either, and exist solely for game balance reasons, so there's that (many feats work this way and are equally unexplainable IMO). I'm just maybe suggesting we don't lose sight of that.

I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment.

[Psyren]

I think it maybe fits with mechannical game balance better, but I'm struggling to see how "I have this mystical ability that I can only use X times a day" actually fits or makes sense more than "we just have the ability to do this thing".

Why do spells (including racial spells) need slots? Spellcasting is a mystical ability right?

60' Tremorsense is more powerful than a cantrip, so it shouldn't be at-will; it's as simple as that.

[Mordar]

Why do spells (including racial spells) need slots? Spellcasting is a mystical ability right?

60' Tremorsense is more powerful than a cantrip, so it shouldn't be at-will; it's as simple as that.

I hear you...but I can easily imagine games where I'd rather have 60' limited application tremorsense (persistent) than a +2 CON. And that's more powerful than a cantrip too. Even with a CHA modifier.

- M

[VoxRationis]

Why do spells (including racial spells) need slots? Spellcasting is a mystical ability right?

60' Tremorsense is more powerful than a cantrip, so it shouldn't be at-will; it's as simple as that.

Racial spells are mostly just X/day abilities of the sort we're criticizing; I'm not going to defend them conceptually. By contrast, other spells are tied into a broader system wherein the majority of a character's mystical abilities are linked to a common pool that represents the bulk of the character's strength over the day, whether that be a power point system like RQ or 3.x psionics, the common single-level slot system of a 5e warlock, or the tiered pools of a wizard. When a spellcaster learns how to cast fireball, they don't (usually; there are odd exceptions, depending on the system) gain the ability to cast fireball specifically once a day, independently of how many times they cast lightning bolt or sending; rather, they gain the ability to devote a subset of a broader pool of power to casting that spell, at the expense of doing something else with that power.

With X/day abilities, what gets really weird is when you end up with a character who possesses half a dozen abilities with independent hard caps on their daily usage in spite of all purportedly coming from the same source (the nebulous "inner strength" of the character or what have you). One runs into the position of having to explain why one's character cannot use flaming sphere or the like again in spite of still being able to throw three more fireballs or do sprints around the battlefield while break dancing without even breathing hard. If one is playing some sort of animist or demonologist, this makes sense, because the sources are explicitly separate (e.g., the bound spirit that gives me fireballs has no contractual obligation to use flaming sphere on my behalf), but that is the exception, rather than the rule.

Plus, finally, whether or not it's more "powerful" in the sense of game mechanics (and I would agree that in many cases, it is), it's hard conceptually to argue that being able to passively sense vibrations in the earth requires or uses more power than cantrips like fire bolt. If we are to compare it to other senses, one might argue that regular optical sight is much more powerful than just about any cantrip (consider how highly the ability to hinder it is typically valued), but no one mandates that it be usable less often.

[Psyren]

Racial spells are mostly just X/day abilities of the sort we're criticizing; I'm not going to defend them conceptually.

Whether you 'defend' x/day abilities or not is totally irrelevant; they're woven into the game's very fabric.

By contrast, other spells are tied into a broader system wherein the majority of a character's mystical abilities are linked to a common pool that represents the bulk of the character's strength over the day, whether that be a power point system like RQ or 3.x psionics, the common single-level slot system of a 5e warlock, or the tiered pools of a wizard. When a spellcaster learns how to cast fireball, they don't (usually; there are odd exceptions, depending on the system) gain the ability to cast fireball specifically once a day, independently of how many times they cast lightning bolt or sending; rather, they gain the ability to devote a subset of a broader pool of power to casting that spell, at the expense of doing something else with that power.

With X/day abilities, what gets really weird is when you end up with a character who possesses half a dozen abilities with independent hard caps on their daily usage in spite of all purportedly coming from the same source (the nebulous "inner strength" of the character or what have you). One runs into the position of having to explain why one's character cannot use flaming sphere or the like again in spite of still being able to throw three more fireballs or do sprints around the battlefield while break dancing without even breathing hard. If one is playing some sort of animist or demonologist, this makes sense, because the sources are explicitly separate (e.g., the bound spirit that gives me fireballs has no contractual obligation to use flaming sphere on my behalf), but that is the exception, rather than the rule.

The spell slot pool vs. independent cap thing is also irrelevant. Let's put racial spells aside then; is a Hobgoblin's Fey Gift not mystical? A Firbolg's Hidden Step? A Shadar-kai's Blessing of the Raven Queen? A Shifter's shifting? So what's wrong with their powers having "independent caps?"

Plus, finally, whether or not it's more "powerful" in the sense of game mechanics (and I would agree that in many cases, it is), it's hard conceptually to argue that being able to passively sense vibrations in the earth requires or uses more power than cantrips like fire bolt. If we are to compare it to other senses, one might argue that regular optical sight is much more powerful than just about any cantrip (consider how highly the ability to hinder it is typically valued), but no one mandates that it be usable less often.

Optical sight is baseline to every species so it's not more powerful than anything, it cancels out. Only Dwarves get Tremorsense.

I hear you...but I can easily imagine games where I'd rather have 60' limited application tremorsense (persistent) than a +2 CON. And that's more powerful than a cantrip too. Even with a CHA modifier.

- M

Everyone can get +2 Con now too if they want, +2 to a stat is also baseline. There's no racial power budget allocated to that either, just like there isn't to "optical sight."

[Aquillion]

Why do spells (including racial spells) need slots? Spellcasting is a mystical ability right?

60' Tremorsense is more powerful than a cantrip, so it shouldn't be at-will; it's as simple as that.

I mean... Darkvision is a 2nd level spell, isn't it? And yet plenty of creatures get it at-will.

Tremorsense is sort of weird and hard to balance because it's fairly situational and also just... not very clearly written. In theory it negates invisibility and it might negate stealth, but it technically doesn't say either; and not having it auto-negate stealth is perfectly reasonable (moving carefully means less "tremor" in addition to less sound.) It's also unclear if it negates the disadvantage to attacking an unseen target. It's probably intended to but it's not at all clear.

Most of the monsters that have it also have it as an alternative to normal vision; but when used that way it has both advantages and disadvantages. If a creature got it as an alternative to darkvision then the same thing applies.

If I were designing a player race with tremorsense, I'd just give them a more limited version of it that explicitly can't detect invisible creatures and doesn't negate stealth. It does let them detect things through walls, but that's a fair tradeoff to not being able to detect things that fly and not being able to actually identify things you detect with it as precisely as vision can.

At that point it's an entirely reasonable alternative to darkvision, and they can have it 24-7.

And honestly, if the "not detecting invisible creatures" bit seems weird, I don't think it would break anything to let it work on them. Invisible enemies aren't that common, and several of the ones that do exist can fly. They might have to give up something else for this, but not much - it's just not very strong. Really the entire argument is a bit of a head-scratcher because how often are you going to encounter more than one invisible enemy in a day?

The main question of "is it permanent" isn't about power-level, it's about whether you want Tremorsense to completely replace their Darkvision or not.

Optical sight is baseline to every species so it's not more powerful than anything, it cancels out. Only Dwarves get Tremorsense.

Well, yes, but - dwarves would get permanent tremorsense instead of darkvision, right? Which is optical sight. At that point the comparison is important, because they'll be stuck with tremorsense's limitations in any situation where they would have previously used darkvision.

[Witty Username]

I hear what you're saying about dwarves being more fantastical as a way to make them more interesting, but the other thing we were discussing in this thread is how little tolerance there seems to be for deviating dwarves from their template. I think drawing on earthen power to "see" through stones is thematic, but I think doing it at will is a bit much. (And since you ask - yes, as a matter of fact I do think there is a game balance concern if dwarves are as hard to hide from as umber hulks.)

This does have an advantage on this point that tremorsense (limited or at will) doesn't change much visually. Which is where the strong emotion point is.

Heck, it come off as a more detailed way of how detecting secret doors works, kinda like pondering how darkvision works spawned infravision back in the day.

[Psyren]

I mean... Darkvision is a 2nd level spell, isn't it? And yet plenty of creatures get it at-will.

Tremorsense is sort of weird and hard to balance because it's fairly situational and also just... not very clearly written. In theory it negates invisibility and it might negate stealth, but it technically doesn't say either; and not having it auto-negate stealth is perfectly reasonable (moving carefully means less "tremor" in addition to less sound.) It's also unclear if it negates the disadvantage to attacking an unseen target. It's probably intended to but it's not at all clear.

Most of the monsters that have it also have it as an alternative to normal vision; but when used that way it has both advantages and disadvantages. If a creature got it as an alternative to darkvision then the same thing applies.

Are you reading the 2014 wording? Because I thought the updated wording for Tremorsense in the UA was crystal clear - you automatically pinpoint creatures and moving objects, meaning you know what square(s) they're in as long as they're in range, even if you don't have line of sight or they're invisible. Not only is that easy to understand, it's broadly useful.

If I were designing a player race with tremorsense, I'd just give them a more limited version of it that explicitly can't detect invisible creatures and doesn't negate stealth. It does let them detect things through walls, but that's a fair tradeoff to not being able to detect things that fly and not being able to actually identify things you detect with it as precisely as vision can.

At that point it's an entirely reasonable alternative to darkvision, and they can have it 24-7.

And honestly, if the "not detecting invisible creatures" bit seems weird, I don't think it would break anything to let it work on them. Invisible enemies aren't that common, and several of the ones that do exist can fly. They might have to give up something else for this, but not much - it's just not very strong. Really the entire argument is a bit of a head-scratcher because how often are you going to encounter more than one invisible enemy in a day?

The main question of "is it permanent" isn't about power-level, it's about whether you want Tremorsense to completely replace their Darkvision or not.
...
Well, yes, but - dwarves would get permanent tremorsense instead of darkvision, right? Which is optical sight. At that point the comparison is important, because they'll be stuck with tremorsense's limitations in any situation where they would have previously used darkvision.

As mentioned, I'd much rather have the more powerful detection ability (i.e. that you can't simply hide from) with limited uses, than constant detection that is less useful. You may disagree and that's okay.

This does have an advantage on this point that tremorsense (limited or at will) doesn't change much visually. Which is where the strong emotion point is.

Heck, it come off as a more detailed way of how detecting secret doors works, kinda like pondering how darkvision works spawned infravision back in the day.

I think this is a big part of why WotC was okay with giving dwarves such an overtly preternatural ability. A dwarf closing their eyes for a second and shifting their stance, before telling their party there are 4 ogres in the next room and a patrol coming up behind them, is something you could in theory do with really really good hearing and luck too, so it's not like it would be out of place in a campaign setting like Middle-Earth. And that sort of floor may play a role in what Dwarves are allowed to do, and be, racially.

[Mordar]

WEveryone can get +2 Con now too if they want, +2 to a stat is also baseline. There's no racial power budget allocated to that either, just like there isn't to "optical sight."

I know 5e is the current edition, but beyond that I don't really know a lot about it...but I have heard about this issue. Isn't this kind of hand-in-hand with the whole "bumpy forehead" or "let's make sure everyone is the same bland, because we don't want to be accused of making some kind of generalized statement about things outside of our game"?

I was contemplating the relative advantages of stat modifiers in general, and if 0-point balance was more than just the cheap-and-easy way out. And how hard is really is to balance across a spectrum of play styles and levels. The CON bonus is a big deal for a little while, and then a meh, then inconsequential. As far as I know, other stats don't even start with the same peak as CON, though DEX might be higher? I like the idea of differences that matter throughout the game. I'd love things that matter at level 1 and level 20 (or whatever). Maybe things completely divorced from "builds" or optimization.

This does have an advantage on this point that tremorsense (limited or at will) doesn't change much visually. Which is where the strong emotion point is.

Heck, it come off as a more detailed way of how detecting secret doors works, kinda like pondering how darkvision works spawned infravision back in the day.

Right - I think this fits perfectly with the underground/miner/delver idea...and I don't think it has to feel supernatural. Now that I have been in my new office for a while, I can tell (reasonably well) when people are moving in the hallways and neighboring offices, when the door is about to open, and things like that - because of changes in the air flow (from pressure), the way sound echoes, etc. I'm no ninja or fey...just been here long enough to be attuned and recognize changes. Like some hunters who are able to "know" the presence and type of specific predators without seeing or hearing them because of the way the rest of a region "feels".

Of course, it doesn't make sense for the players who want to play urban dwarves, or pirate dwarves, or whatever.

So while we're having a wishlist, how about an array of racial traits that includes selectables? I know that (exponentially?) increases the balance struggle, but does that make racial thingums (term de arte there) more enjoyable and meaningful?

If we were to think about "dwarfiness" we might identify 3 - 5 common themes or characteristics. Coming up with a Thingum for each, and then letting the player choose which applies could be cool. Some game somewhere must have already done this...it is just "feat selection" but for races instead of levels. So spitball for dwarves:

Craftsdwarves: Tools/structures/artwork crafted by this dwarf have a special enhancement vs standard (system dependent, but for D&D, all weapons/armor crafted by this dwarf are Masterwork, or all jewelry crafted have a 10% higher value than normal)

Delvers: Tremorsense (or the old suite of related benefits for secret doors, depth, quality, etc)

Mountain Ranger: Bonuses to outdoorsy skills, but also something like Unerring Navigator (Never gets lost in mountains) or Mountain Survivor (can find food and shelter for X people)

Hardy: Immune to disease, or natural poison, or can never be exhausted, or drunk, or some combination of that.

So in addition to my stat modification (without a "balancing" negative because *that* is where the "I can't say my totally make believe Drelks have -2 DEX because then people I am thinking real life Blists are clumsy" or stupid crap like that), I also get to choose one of these things.

Of course, the value relies on credible knowledge about the type of game you'll be playing...but Session Zero, right?

- M

[Witty Username]

I know 5e is the current edition, but beyond that I don't really know a lot about it...but I have heard about this issue. Isn't this kind of hand-in-hand with the whole "bumpy forehead" or "let's make sure everyone is the same bland, because we don't want to be accused of making some kind of generalized statement about things outside of our game"?

Old argument in the 5e section at this point, But some of the sameness is caused by it.
There is more too it though, species have tended to get more explicit features or have them highlighted.

Like how orc doesn't have the ability scores but got merged with half-orc to have the relentless endurance trait (the first time you hit 0, you don't) along with what they already had.

So if you want a tough feeling dwarf, instead of a con bonus the may have a feature that reduces damage or regenerates health to comunicate that.

The last thing for it is ability score matter more for class and build so it you want to go off script its less punishing (if you use point buy anyway)

Dwarves having the champion fighter regen ability might be pretty cool. Wining the long grind instead of the occasional no sell.

[Psyren]

I know 5e is the current edition, but beyond that I don't really know a lot about it...but I have heard about this issue. Isn't this kind of hand-in-hand with the whole "bumpy forehead" or "let's make sure everyone is the same bland, because we don't want to be accused of making some kind of generalized statement about things outside of our game"?

Yes, there exist people seemingly incapable of critically evaluating mechanically distinct racial features who view the shift towards floating ASIs in this way. I do not consider those people remotely persuasive.

If we were to think about "dwarfiness" we might identify 3 - 5 common themes or characteristics. Coming up with a Thingum for each, and then letting the player choose which applies could be cool. Some game somewhere must have already done this...it is just "feat selection" but for races instead of levels.

The level 1 feat already accomplishes this though. Want a "Craftsdwarf?" Grab a bunch of tools with your base proficiencies and replenish them with Skilled (or maybe the 5.5e version will let you take both), or take Artificer Initiate. Want a "Hardy" dwarf? Grab Tough, Magic Initiate (Resistance+Blade Ward), or Lucky. Want a "Delver" or "Mountain Ranger" dwarf? Grab Skilled (Survival / Perception / Nature).

[Mordar]

Yes, there exist people seemingly incapable of critically evaluating mechanically distinct racial features who view the shift towards floating ASIs in this way. I do not consider those people remotely persuasive.

Not sure I understand this...are you commenting on the idea that floating ASIs do/do not increase homogeneity, or commenting on the potential link to interpretations outside the game?

The level 1 feat already accomplishes this though. Want a "Craftsdwarf?" Grab a bunch of tools with your base proficiencies and replenish them with Skilled (or maybe the 5.5e version will let you take both), or take Artificer Initiate. Want a "Hardy" dwarf? Grab Tough, Magic Initiate (Resistance+Blade Ward), or Lucky. Want a "Delver" or "Mountain Ranger" dwarf? Grab Skilled (Survival / Perception / Nature).

I know I should have more 5e familiarity to have this discussion...but aren't those just bonuses to skills or saves or whatever? That is very much what I am trying to avoid.

Also, if it is just a feat those damn dirty elves can take, then it isn't special.

- M

[Psyren]

Not sure I understand this...are you commenting on the idea that floating ASIs do/do not increase homogeneity, or commenting on the potential link to interpretations outside the game?

I'm saying they do not. To look at modern race design - say, Shadar-Kai vs Plasmoids vs Harengon vs Githyanki, and declare it "homogenous" - is ludicrous on its face.

I know I should have more 5e familiarity to have this discussion...but aren't those just bonuses to skills or saves or whatever? That is very much what I am trying to avoid.

Skilled gives skill bonuses, fittingly enough, but all the other ones I listed do other things.

Also, if it is just a feat those damn dirty elves can take, then it isn't special.

- M

There are no race-locked level 1 feats, no. (Why such a thing would even be desirable is beyond me...?)

Rather, what drives feats races are likely to select would be emphasizing strengths or mitigating gaps from their other racials. For example, a High Elf would probably be less likely to pick Magic Initiate since they can get a wizard cantrip without it, but it's not like they'd get zero benefit.

[icefractal]

There's (at least) two angles a player could come from when choosing to be a Dwarf / Plasmoid / whatever.

1) They already have an existing character concept that includes being a Dwarf. In this case, it's good for the system to "get out of the way" and make being a Dwarf as modular as possible. And it's not a problem if they could achieve the exact same result by being an Elf.

2) They don't have a concept in mind yet, and want the Dwarf rules to inspire them to be a Dwarf (or not). Now for some players, having good enough flavor alone is enough, the mechanics don't matter. But for others, they do want to be inspired mechanically as well. They want features that say "this is a distinct difference that will have a concrete effect in play, specifically because you're playing a Dwarf."

To an extent, these are opposed objectives.

[Mordar]

I'm saying they do not. To look at modern race design - say, Shadar-Kai vs Plasmoids vs Harengon vs Githyanki, and declare it "homogenous" - is ludicrous on its face.

Certainly I can agree with that...there have always been games that are far more expansive in flavor (not just in numbers) of options like that, even back to the halcyon days of TSR and boxed RPGs (Star Frontiers, I still look at you fondly...and knowing nothing contrary, I say definitively that Plasmoids are just re-skinned Dralasites!). But in terms of mass numbers, how many games and (more importantly) gamers participate with a list like that? I see that 5e has 9 base races, so even that is better than the before-time, and then I see an astounding 84 additional choices from different expansions/settings/worlds. So clearly there is an overwhelming array of racial choices.

But between the flex rules and Savage Species and all of that, 3e ended up with probably as many races. How rare or common were the non-core?

And do we care? Do we care if the 7/9 are all tiny variations from one another in the face of Shadar-Kai, Plasmoids and the rest? I mean, I care...but should the collective care? Totally unintentional Borg joke there

I enjoy that this thread is exposing me to more of 5e. Will almost certainly still never play it, but neat to see.

- M

[Witty Username]

There are no race-locked level 1 feats, no. (Why such a thing would even be desirable is beyond me...?)

That is a pretty easy question to answer, even if dwarven fortitude and elven accuracy are poor examples of it.

It is for when a feat contains abilities that fits one particular species over any other, but the abilities are too strong to include in the species stat block.

For example poison Immunity is very indicative of the cool factor of Yuan-Ti, but was cut for balance reasons. Adding it back into the play space as a feat serves both needs.

For Dwarves this could be uping the ante on resistances, connection to living rock, improving on tremorsense or darkvision, etc.

A 3.5 example, Adamantine Body, restriction: warforged. Why, because a dwarf cannot be made of forged Adamantinium. 5e's solution is warforged wear armor, as opposed to having armor as part of their body, at least in a mechanical sense.

[Psyren]

But between the flex rules and Savage Species and all of that, 3e ended up with probably as many races. How rare or common were the non-core?

And do we care? Do we care if the 7/9 are all tiny variations from one another in the face of Shadar-Kai, Plasmoids and the rest? I mean, I care...but should the collective care? Totally unintentional Borg joke there

Respectfully, I don't know what you can base "tiny variations" on if by your own admission you don't even know what these races' features are.

There's (at least) two angles a player could come from when choosing to be a Dwarf / Plasmoid / whatever.

1) They already have an existing character concept that includes being a Dwarf. In this case, it's good for the system to "get out of the way" and make being a Dwarf as modular as possible. And it's not a problem if they could achieve the exact same result by being an Elf.

2) They don't have a concept in mind yet, and want the Dwarf rules to inspire them to be a Dwarf (or not). Now for some players, having good enough flavor alone is enough, the mechanics don't matter. But for others, they do want to be inspired mechanically as well. They want features that say "this is a distinct difference that will have a concrete effect in play, specifically because you're playing a Dwarf."

To an extent, these are opposed objectives.

For #2, I think the upcoming dwarf does a better job than the 2014 one, but that's just me. I could picture a dwarf cave ranger that hunts subterranean monsters and uses their ability to sense vibrations in stone, repair their own damaged gear far from civilization, resist poison and just be generally hardy to be very good at their job, for instance.

[Mordar]

Respectfully, I don't know what you can base "tiny variations" on if by your own admission you don't even know what these races' features are.

Mostly the experience with 4e and 3e and 1e, and my perception of decreasing difference across those editions. Since this is the game- and edition-agnostic section of the forum I feel this applies, and the discussion isn't just 5e.

That being said, I am reading the 5e materials just to participate. I assume the dndbeyond.com material is current, but based on some mentions in thread am wondering if there are updates.

From this, I see some traits that are very much aligned with what I like (Halfling's Lucky or Nimbleness, Gnome cunning) but a lot are still just skill bonuses. Now, maybe the whole bounded accuracy thing makes those more valuable than in the past? Also, what I read looks like the attribute modifiers are fixed and not offset...am I missing something here?

Aside: Bonus skill proficiency and bonus feat worth +1 to four stats? For a lot of 3e I could see that being the case.

- M

[Jophiel]

I'm saying they do not. To look at modern race design - say, Shadar-Kai vs Plasmoids vs Harengon vs Githyanki, and declare it "homogenous" - is ludicrous on its face.

Truly, the spectrum across "pointy-eared person who gets Misty Step", "pointy-eared person who gets to jump" and "pointy-eared person who gets Jump at level 3 and Misty Step at level 5" is nothing short of creatively staggering

[Psyren]

Mostly the experience with 4e and 3e and 1e, and my perception of decreasing difference across those editions. Since this is the game- and edition-agnostic section of the forum I feel this applies, and the discussion isn't just 5e.

That being said, I am reading the 5e materials just to participate. I assume the dndbeyond.com material is current, but based on some mentions in thread am wondering if there are updates.

From this, I see some traits that are very much aligned with what I like (Halfling's Lucky or Nimbleness, Gnome cunning) but a lot are still just skill bonuses. Now, maybe the whole bounded accuracy thing makes those more valuable than in the past? Also, what I read looks like the attribute modifiers are fixed and not offset...am I missing something here?

It's current if you bought the books there, otherwise you're stuck with Basic, and those races are using the 10-year-old design rather than the modern design I was referring to (FToD and later.)

Truly, the spectrum across "pointy-eared person who gets Misty Step", "pointy-eared person who gets to jump" and "pointy-eared person who gets Jump at level 3 and Misty Step at level 5" is nothing short of creatively staggering

Which pointy-eared person who gets misty step is that? The one that can teleport their allies into the fray instead of themselves, the one that gets to resist all damage when they move, the one that can freeze enemies in fear, or the one that has psychic resistance and can become proficient with any weapon?

(Among many other differences)