[techwizrd]

Why interview solely the grognards? Even OSE options like Shadowdark have adopted terms like ancestry over race. It sorta feels like this article is trying to create an issue where none exists.

Changing race to species has not been a concern for myself, my players, or those I know. We're more concerned with improving the mechanics and speed of gameplay, balancing martials and casters, improvements to the core books, backgrounds, bastions, and impactful changes.

We want more variety at the table, not just everyone choosing the same optimized builds from RPGBOT. I think Crawford in the article puts it well: “People really wanted to be able to mix and match their species choice with their character-class choice. They didn’t want choosing a dwarf to make them a lesser wizard.”

[ineptech]

I find this mystifying. I think of "choosing a dwarf makes you a lesser wizard" as being a pretty core part of D&D. Have they released specifics on this? If race/species is going to become purely cosmetic, have they explained what will replace it, mechanically?

[WorldMaker]

That's kind of the problem with it was it was mechanically implementing something that was more setting/background cosmetics specific in the first place. Not all settings think dwarves should have a harder time becoming a wizard. Forgotten Realms, the modern "default" for D&D thinks anyone can do anything if they want, classes are just "jobs" available to anyone. Those settings that do care, including throwback settings, generally make it a story telling device about why things are the way they are ("dwarves are closer to the earth and have a hard time learning illusions") and the hardships exceptions face ("it took a lot more work and they lost access to some of their home community") and making it a mechanical disadvantage doesn't do anything more interesting than the storytelling tools already inherent in the setting.

[zzo38computer]

> I think of "choosing a dwarf makes you a lesser wizard" as being a pretty core part of D&D.

I agree that you should be able to make suboptimal choices if you wish, but I think that shouldn't be the issue.

Your character will be more than just a dwarf and a wizard (otherwise the game will be too simple), in addition to those things, so if a dwarf will be more likely to have an advantage at something else that is independent of classes, then you can have that, and still be a wizard, even if a "greater wizard" lacks what your character will have.

(There might also be the possibility, that if dwarf wizards are not very common (for whatever reason; there are many possibilities, depending on the story), then someone might not expect you to be a wizard so might be possible for some surprise if you are disguised by mundane means.)

[Neonlicht]

Every game has rules. As kids we learn not to peep when playing hide and seek...

But this is D&D in the end it's all up to the DM.

[EarthMephit]

The change is a good one, and there's still abilities that differentiate species, so dwarves still have toughness, and a bunch of other abilities.

Previously a Dwarven wizard was just a really bad choice, and you'd be noticeably less powerful than say an Elven wizard so no-one ever played one.

Now an Elven Wizard for instance has a few bits and pieces that might make them a bit better, but still leave a Dwarven Wizard as a viable choice.

This makes the game far more interesting in every way: players have more interesting builds, more character choices, and can play whatever combinations that they want.

[grraaaaahhh]

I mean, if you go far back enough "dwarves cannot be wizards" was a core part of D&D as well.

[jltsiren]

I'm kind of surprised that optimized builds even exist, at least outside competitive games.

Back in the day when I was playing tabletop RPGs, the standard GM approach was that meaningful advantages must be balanced with meaningful disadvantages. Encounters where the characters had to face their weaknesses were supposed to be common. It didn't really matter if your characters were optimized as not.

Character builds as a concept were just some video game nonsense that had no place in actual role-playing games. At least among the people I used to play with.

[caeril]

It depends on the complexity of your campaign. Back in the day when I played D&D, we had a DM who would throw together typical hack-and-slash-and-loot campaigns, in which you wanted to maximize your STR, CON, DEX, and INT( if you were a magic-using class ). Nobody wanted to assign points to anything else, as they would be a waste.

It takes a good DM to balance a campaign, especially for years. And I suspect most DMs are pretty bad (I'm guessing, haven't played in over a decade now).

[sdwr]

I've been playing Grim Dawn recently, and feeling the tension between optimizing and exploring, between pre-built and puzzled out.

If you can manage to forget about the answer key lurking on every forum, the core experience of finding synergy, figuring out a build, balancing resistances is surprisingly fun.

> Why interview solely the grognards?

And, I know it's a rhetorical question, but the answer is:

> So the article can serve double duty as a Nat Geo-style jungle expedition, providing glimpses of unwashed tribespeople to intrigued middle Americans.

[drewcoo]

> Why interview solely the grognards

When D&D players are described as grogs, Eurotrash has won.

[Ntrails]

> Changing race to species has not been a concern for myself, my players, or those I know.

Largely the same, I acknowledge it's not being done for me and definitely doesn't impact me. Shrug (or eyeroll if so inclined) and move on.

> “People really wanted to be able to mix and match their species choice with their character-class choice. They didn’t want choosing a dwarf to make them a lesser wizard.”

Ok, but IMO nobody has more fun by doing 13 damage a round instead of 10. The consequence of chasing optimality is it simply leads a DM to tune encounters appropriately.

> We want more variety at the table, not just everyone choosing the same optimized builds from RPGBOT.

So instead everyone is using the same optimised builds but with more species variety? Does that really improve the state of games in your experience?

I sort of want disparate builds, playing to aptitudes. Balancing spell lists and feats etc to make lots of viable builds is a hard problem to solve though (I've not played the 2024 rules so have no idea how well they've done?).

[rcxdude]

I think the main thing, stat-wise, that leads to un-fun is when there's imbalance within a party. It's dull to play a power fantasy game where the other players are significantly more powerful than you. Balance is the main concern.

Now, a good DM can house-rule around a lot of these things, but designing rules for balance is quite hard, as is learning new rules, which is why these systems are a thing in the first place, so ideally the rules should by default allow this kind of creativity and flexibility without creating large power imbalances, both between players and between players and monsters (also something that's more difficult than it looks, hence things like challenge ratings and pre-built adventures).

(I'd argue the fairly high variance of D&D combat also causes problems here, both for fun and balance, because it's no fun when a powerful character completely bricks in a fight against a lesser opponent because of cursed dice, and it also makes it harder for the DM to get useful feedback to balance encounters)

[jandrese]

On one hand many people don't want to be dead weight when the dice start rolling. On the other hand it can be more fun to be the Half-Ork Wizard with 7 INT trying to role play a big dumb guy who's only love is setting things on fire with his mind and getting paid for it.

There's the age old role play vs. roll play argument. With a good DM it shouldn't matter but if you're running some prebuilt campaign then it might lead to unexpected struggles.

[rayiner]

> Largely the same, I acknowledge it's not being done for me and definitely doesn't impact me. Shrug (or eyeroll if so inclined) and move on

Who is it being done “for” if not for the people who play this game? Don’t you have the same stake in changes to the game as anyone else?