[Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

The next iteration of the Dungeons & Dragons game.
The Book-House: Find 5th Edition products.

Moderator: Blacky the Blackball

User avatar
pawsplay
Stone Giant
Posts: 715
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:58 am

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by pawsplay »

I think the racial options have to be more than just swapping out an ability score increase, as there are things like weapon proficiencies and such that are currently bound to race that really should be bound to upbringing.

User avatar
Hugin
Messenger of Odin
Posts: 4197
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 9:40 pm
Gender: male
Location: Fergus, Ontario

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by Hugin »

Coronoides wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:45 pm
Hugin wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:06 pm
I'm of the same opinion. What I don't need is a bunch more classes constantly being introduced. Having a few new subclasses pop up every now and then isn't too bad.

Even now it's incredibly hard to come up with a medieval-fantasy character concept that can't be portrayed with existing 5E classes, subclasses, multiclassing, and feats - for role-playing that is.

BUT, WotC has to put out products to sell or they won't stay in business. People can buy what they want and like, and leave the rest.
It’s actually pretty easy several archetypes of traditional European fantasy are missing: fairy (tiny), dragon, giant and talking animal.
If you are talking about non-humanoid characters, then yes, there are many. But now we're talking about non-traditional D&D races as opposed to classes for traditional humanoid player characters.

User avatar
Coronoides
Dragon Sage
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:18 am
Gender: male
Location: Mostly Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by Coronoides »

Hugin wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:11 pm
Coronoides wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:45 pm
Hugin wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:06 pm
I'm of the same opinion. What I don't need is a bunch more classes constantly being introduced. Having a few new subclasses pop up every now and then isn't too bad.

Even now it's incredibly hard to come up with a medieval-fantasy character concept that can't be portrayed with existing 5E classes, subclasses, multiclassing, and feats - for role-playing that is.

BUT, WotC has to put out products to sell or they won't stay in business. People can buy what they want and like, and leave the rest.
It’s actually pretty easy several archetypes of traditional European fantasy are missing: fairy (tiny), dragon, giant and talking animal.
If you are talking about non-humanoid characters, then yes, there are many. But now we're talking about non-traditional D&D races as opposed to classes for traditional humanoid player characters.
Well yes except you just added the restriction of humanoid. Note that 'traditional' humanoid characters are not traditional at all! The traditional myths and fairy tales that the modern fantasy genre grew out of usually had giants, talking animals etc in them. In European fairy tales the 'party' was typically one human and the rest talking animals, giants, etc. Many modern fantasy novels and films are also like this. It is only the medium of RPGs starting with D&D that are so restricted.
Need to convert races to D&D 5e? mathematical analysis of canon races and design rules: http://www.dmsguild.com/product/232813/ ... rs-Toolkit

Conversion & Review of Council of Wyrms with dragon PCs compatible with other 5e settings (at level 5+). DRAFT: Book 1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/3x30bz9qi4i0d ... 0.pdf?dl=0 and Book 2 https://www.dropbox.com/s/c0zjp7d2mtfwe ... 0.pdf?dl=0

User avatar
Big Mac
Giant Space Hamster
Posts: 26629
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:52 pm
Gender: male
Location: London UK
Contact:

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by Big Mac »

shesheyan wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 11:10 pm
Later this year, we will release a product (not yet announced) that offers a way for a player to customize their character’s origin, including the option to change the ability score increases that come from being an elf, a dwarf, or one of D&D's many other playable folk. This option emphasizes that each person in the game is an individual with capabilities all their own.
I've personally given up on the Edition Treadmill, so - unless these sort of changes are easily retroconverted to previous editions of D&D - I probably won't even notice them.

I would have thought that they would need to do something on the level of the 2e Player's Options books, the 3.5 Revised edition of D&D or those miniature books that came out for 4th Edition D&D, that I've forgotten the name of. I think it was something like "Essentials".

You are talking about a fundimental change to how PCs are created, and I don't think that's something for a random splatbook to do (because it needs to be retroactively applied to all other playable races).

I think they would also have to issue a patch for the SRD, otherwise 3rd Party Publishers could not use the new rules. (Normally, WotC gains financial advantage to locking down D&D, as it forces fans to buy their books, but - if they are advertising this a fix for what some fans say is tone-deaf content, then it wouldn't make sense to exclude 3rd Party Publishers from using your recommended solution.)
David "Big Mac" Shepheard
Please join The Piazza's Facebook group, The Piazza's Facebook page and follow The Piazza's Twitter feed so that you can stay in touch.
Spelljammer 3E Conversion Project - Spelljammer Wiki - The Spelljammer Image Group.
Moderator of the Spelljammer forum (and administrator). My moderator voice is green.

User avatar
Coronoides
Dragon Sage
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:18 am
Gender: male
Location: Mostly Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by Coronoides »

Personally, I’m against the change. We are talking about different species here, there should be consistent differences in physical and mental capabilities.

(Unless you want to stop denying that dwarves are actually just racist caricatures of low land Scots.)
Need to convert races to D&D 5e? mathematical analysis of canon races and design rules: http://www.dmsguild.com/product/232813/ ... rs-Toolkit

Conversion & Review of Council of Wyrms with dragon PCs compatible with other 5e settings (at level 5+). DRAFT: Book 1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/3x30bz9qi4i0d ... 0.pdf?dl=0 and Book 2 https://www.dropbox.com/s/c0zjp7d2mtfwe ... 0.pdf?dl=0

User avatar
shesheyan
Cardboard Hero
Posts: 3129
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Gender: male
Location: Montreal

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by shesheyan »

Big Mac wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:49 am
shesheyan wrote:
Mon Jun 22, 2020 11:10 pm
Later this year, we will release a product (not yet announced) that offers a way for a player to customize their character’s origin, including the option to change the ability score increases that come from being an elf, a dwarf, or one of D&D's many other playable folk. This option emphasizes that each person in the game is an individual with capabilities all their own.
I've personally given up on the Edition Treadmill, so - unless these sort of changes are easily retroconverted to previous editions of D&D - I probably won't even notice them.

I would have thought that they would need to do something on the level of the 2e Player's Options books, the 3.5 Revised edition of D&D or those miniature books that came out for 4th Edition D&D, that I've forgotten the name of. I think it was something like "Essentials".

You are talking about a fundimental change to how PCs are created, and I don't think that's something for a random splatbook to do (because it needs to be retroactively applied to all other playable races).

I think they would also have to issue a patch for the SRD, otherwise 3rd Party Publishers could not use the new rules. (Normally, WotC gains financial advantage to locking down D&D, as it forces fans to buy their books, but - if they are advertising this a fix for what some fans say is tone-deaf content, then it wouldn't make sense to exclude 3rd Party Publishers from using your recommended solution.)
They won't do a 5.5 edition. That is not how 5e is built. The design of 5e allows for optional rules without breaking the game. The new character race rules will be optional rules. It will be up to each group to decide if they adopt them or not. That is the philosophy of 5e. It is similar to 2e. A solid core with many choices to be made by the DM and the players to customize how the game is played at their table.
Last edited by shesheyan on Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

agathokles
Red Dragon
Posts: 8248
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 6:42 pm
Gender: male
Location: Milan, Italy
Contact:

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by agathokles »

shesheyan wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:28 pm
They won't do a 5.5 edition. That is not how 5e is built. The design of 5e allows for optional rules without breaking the game. The new character race rules will be optional rules. It will be up to each group to decide if they adopt it or not. That is the philosophy of 5e. It is similar to 2e. A solid core with many choices to be made by the DM and the players to customize how the game is played at their table.
I agree. A new edition or half edition just for changing the races seems a bit too much, especially since 5e races are not super-heavy mechanically.
An optional subsystem for building races or switching out some parts of them doesn't need more than a chapter in a Xanathar-like book.

Of course, a full separation of species-related aspects (e.g., darkvision) and culture-related aspects (e.g., languages and proficiencies) is likely beyond the scope of 5e as well.

GP

User avatar
shesheyan
Cardboard Hero
Posts: 3129
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Gender: male
Location: Montreal

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by shesheyan »

Big Mac wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:49 am
You are talking about a fundimental change to how PCs are created, and I don't think that's something for a random splatbook to do (because it needs to be retroactively applied to all other playable races).
Also, Xanathar's 2.0 (and Xanathar's) are not a random splatbooks. WoTC no longer use the term Player's handbook II, PHB III, DMG II and DMG III. These books are a mix of DM and Player options and rules. It'd brilliant in terms of sales and it reduces the number of total of core books for the edition.

User avatar
Hugin
Messenger of Odin
Posts: 4197
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 9:40 pm
Gender: male
Location: Fergus, Ontario

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by Hugin »

Coronoides wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:16 pm
Hugin wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:11 pm
If you are talking about non-humanoid characters, then yes, there are many. But now we're talking about non-traditional D&D races as opposed to classes for traditional humanoid player characters.
Well yes except you just added the restriction of humanoid.
Fair enough. I guess I just naturally assume traditional (core?) D&D races which are always humanoid. And yes many other races have made it into the rules through the editions, they are the non-traditional (again, non-core) races. I think it's safe to say that I'm using "traditional medieval-fantasy character concept" within the framework of D&D and not medieval literature. After all, when I started playing D&D there was only humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings for PC races. This obviously influences my mental picture of what a traditional D&D party might look like.

However, while I do seem to limit the traditional player races to being humanoids, there is essentially a never ending limit to the character concept behind that PC. Granted, most will be found in the story narrative as opposed to mechanics.
Note that 'traditional' humanoid characters are not traditional at all! The traditional myths and fairy tales that the modern fantasy genre grew out of usually had giants, talking animals etc in them. In European fairy tales the 'party' was typically one human and the rest talking animals, giants, etc. Many modern fantasy novels and films are also like this. It is only the medium of RPGs starting with D&D that are so restricted.
While this may be true (I don't know of any like that), in my mind (and influenced by traditional D&D) these all show up as the NPCs within the story that the main protagonists interact with. This could also perhaps be the result of the difference between the fairy tale genre and the sword and sorcery genre.

So, yes, your final concluding statement is generally true. But then again, we *are* talking about D&D specifically here, aren't we? I'll just end by saying that you were correct and that I should have specifically stated a "D&D medieval-fantasy character concept".

User avatar
talsine
Priest of Syrinx
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 1:01 am
Gender: male
Location: Phoenix Metro, Arizona

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by talsine »

Coronoides wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:16 pm
Well yes except you just added the restriction of humanoid. Note that 'traditional' humanoid characters are not traditional at all! The traditional myths and fairy tales that the modern fantasy genre grew out of usually had giants, talking animals etc in them. In European fairy tales the 'party' was typically one human and the rest talking animals, giants, etc. Many modern fantasy novels and films are also like this. It is only the medium of RPGs starting with D&D that are so restricted.
What you are talking about are not what the hobby is rooted in. The hobby is rooted in wargaming, which doesn't really focus on these things. I mean, you can certainly integrate that if you want, but I wouldn't expect to see talking animals and giants as playable races / ancestries in any game i play that doesn't specifically focus on emulating fairy tales or folklore.

agathokles
Red Dragon
Posts: 8248
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 6:42 pm
Gender: male
Location: Milan, Italy
Contact:

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by agathokles »

I think at this point D&D only emulates D&D.

Sure, it may have originated in wargaming in a Tolkien inspired setting, but that was almost 50 years ago.
Sure, D&D can still be used to run skirmishes out of a wargame, or to play in Middle Earth.
It can also be used for fairy tale style role-playing. But that is certainly not the focus of D&D as published in the last 30 years.

GP

User avatar
Coronoides
Dragon Sage
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:18 am
Gender: male
Location: Mostly Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by Coronoides »

I agree with everyone above. I was responding to a specific implied challenge
“ Even now it's incredibly hard to come up with a medieval-fantasy character concept that can't be portrayed with existing 5E classes, subclasses, multiclassing, and feats - for role-playing that is.”
Which has a broader scope than the later added D&D restriction. Anyway my point is simply that existing 5e D&D does a very good job of covering D&D concepts but there is still room for growth within the medieval fantasy genre. Supplementary materials for editions BECMI AND 1 - 3 did exactly that. We are talking about what could be in future supplementary books. You are right though that most concepts in typical Tolkienesque fantasy are already covered. I also don’t think more sub-classes or classes are needed.
Need to convert races to D&D 5e? mathematical analysis of canon races and design rules: http://www.dmsguild.com/product/232813/ ... rs-Toolkit

Conversion & Review of Council of Wyrms with dragon PCs compatible with other 5e settings (at level 5+). DRAFT: Book 1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/3x30bz9qi4i0d ... 0.pdf?dl=0 and Book 2 https://www.dropbox.com/s/c0zjp7d2mtfwe ... 0.pdf?dl=0

agathokles
Red Dragon
Posts: 8248
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 6:42 pm
Gender: male
Location: Milan, Italy
Contact:

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by agathokles »

Coronoides wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:46 am
I agree with everyone above. I was responding to a specific implied challenge
“ Even now it's incredibly hard to come up with a medieval-fantasy character concept that can't be portrayed with existing 5E classes, subclasses, multiclassing, and feats - for role-playing that is.”
Which has a broader scope than the later added D&D restriction. Anyway my point is simply that existing 5e D&D does a very good job of covering D&D concepts but there is still room for growth within the medieval fantasy genre. Supplementary materials for editions BECMI AND 1 - 3 did exactly that. We are talking about what could be in future supplementary books. You are right though that most concepts in typical Tolkienesque fantasy are already covered. I also don’t think more sub-classes or classes are needed.
I agree with your assessment, indeed. As for non-Tolkienesque/D&D races, I suspect they might not be that common in future books. Particularly very large or otherwise physically different races from the baseline humanoid mold (Tolkienesque or not).

GP

User avatar
Coronoides
Dragon Sage
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:18 am
Gender: male
Location: Mostly Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by Coronoides »

agathokles wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:53 am
Coronoides wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:46 am
I agree with everyone above. I was responding to a specific implied challenge
“ Even now it's incredibly hard to come up with a medieval-fantasy character concept that can't be portrayed with existing 5E classes, subclasses, multiclassing, and feats - for role-playing that is.”
Which has a broader scope than the later added D&D restriction. Anyway my point is simply that existing 5e D&D does a very good job of covering D&D concepts but there is still room for growth within the medieval fantasy genre. Supplementary materials for editions BECMI AND 1 - 3 did exactly that. We are talking about what could be in future supplementary books. You are right though that most concepts in typical Tolkienesque fantasy are already covered. I also don’t think more sub-classes or classes are needed.
I agree with your assessment, indeed. As for non-Tolkienesque/D&D races, I suspect they might not be that common in future books. Particularly very large or otherwise physically different races from the baseline humanoid mold (Tolkienesque or not).

GP
I suspect you are correct but hope you are wrong.
Need to convert races to D&D 5e? mathematical analysis of canon races and design rules: http://www.dmsguild.com/product/232813/ ... rs-Toolkit

Conversion & Review of Council of Wyrms with dragon PCs compatible with other 5e settings (at level 5+). DRAFT: Book 1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/3x30bz9qi4i0d ... 0.pdf?dl=0 and Book 2 https://www.dropbox.com/s/c0zjp7d2mtfwe ... 0.pdf?dl=0

User avatar
timemrick
Hekatonkhieres
Posts: 1713
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:33 am
Gender: male
Location: Emirate of Kobara
Contact:

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by timemrick »

WotC has avoided Large PC races because they're pretty much impossible to balance in 5E. That extra die of damage on *every* attack is a (ahem) huge advantage. That's while the centaurs and minotaur were designed as Medium races, each with its own special minor advantage from being at the big end of the size category.
Tim Emrick, Green Ronin Freebooter and Keeper of the Freeport Errata
Time of the Tarrasque: My homebrew Pathfinder campaign (2017-).
Studded Plate: My blog about RPGs and LEGO.
Thastygliax's Vault: My other gaming pages.

User avatar
Coronoides
Dragon Sage
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:18 am
Gender: male
Location: Mostly Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by Coronoides »

timemrick wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:22 am
WotC has avoided Large PC races because they're pretty much impossible to balance in 5E. That extra die of damage on *every* attack is a (ahem) huge advantage. That's while the centaurs and minotaur were designed as Medium races, each with its own special minor advantage from being at the big end of the size category.
Yes, the mechanics of 5e are very restrictive. IF WOTC were to ever release Large or bigger (or Tiny) races it would be a major add on to the rules, probably part of a hardback rules book like Xanathar's or Volos. If they ever do Large races then they may be in that 'grey area' that the Aarakocra dwells in. I remember people saying that WOTC will never release a flying race, which seemed like a reasonable prediction at the time. Ditto for a race with natural armour or one with an ability score penalty. So who knows what they are going to do.

After reverse engineering their race design system, I had to write a second part to my book where I suggest balanced ways around their limits. The extra die of damage for Large (two for Huge) PCs really restricts them to later 'Tiers of Play' only, never starting characters. If you want to see some of how I handle Size and other limitations check out my Ostoria and Council of Wryms conversion threads here. If you want to look under the hood of how I did it see the link to my book in my signature.
Need to convert races to D&D 5e? mathematical analysis of canon races and design rules: http://www.dmsguild.com/product/232813/ ... rs-Toolkit

Conversion & Review of Council of Wyrms with dragon PCs compatible with other 5e settings (at level 5+). DRAFT: Book 1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/3x30bz9qi4i0d ... 0.pdf?dl=0 and Book 2 https://www.dropbox.com/s/c0zjp7d2mtfwe ... 0.pdf?dl=0

agathokles
Red Dragon
Posts: 8248
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 6:42 pm
Gender: male
Location: Milan, Italy
Contact:

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by agathokles »

Coronoides wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:20 am
If they ever do Large races then they may be in that 'grey area' that the Aarakocra dwells in.
What do you mean by "grey area" in this case? That they are not in a "core" book?

GP

User avatar
Coronoides
Dragon Sage
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:18 am
Gender: male
Location: Mostly Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by Coronoides »

agathokles wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:13 am
Coronoides wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:20 am
If they ever do Large races then they may be in that 'grey area' that the Aarakocra dwells in.
What do you mean by "grey area" in this case? That they are not in a "core" book?

GP
Published in an official WOTC free PDF “Elemental Evil Player’s Companion” then soon after declared not-legal for their organised play program (Adventurers’ League).
Need to convert races to D&D 5e? mathematical analysis of canon races and design rules: http://www.dmsguild.com/product/232813/ ... rs-Toolkit

Conversion & Review of Council of Wyrms with dragon PCs compatible with other 5e settings (at level 5+). DRAFT: Book 1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/3x30bz9qi4i0d ... 0.pdf?dl=0 and Book 2 https://www.dropbox.com/s/c0zjp7d2mtfwe ... 0.pdf?dl=0

User avatar
talsine
Priest of Syrinx
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 1:01 am
Gender: male
Location: Phoenix Metro, Arizona

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by talsine »

agathokles wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:13 am
Coronoides wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:20 am
If they ever do Large races then they may be in that 'grey area' that the Aarakocra dwells in.
What do you mean by "grey area" in this case? That they are not in a "core" book?

GP
They are a PC race with natural, always on flight. Which is basically getting a free undispellable lvl 3 spell. Flight tends to "break" low level play a lot. And even mid-level play if you have it all the time.

agathokles
Red Dragon
Posts: 8248
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 6:42 pm
Gender: male
Location: Milan, Italy
Contact:

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by agathokles »

talsine wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:06 pm
They are a PC race with natural, always on flight. Which is basically getting a free undispellable lvl 3 spell. Flight tends to "break" low level play a lot. And even mid-level play if you have it all the time.
Yes, that's the reason why in 4e there was a strong resistance against true flying races. I was more referring to why Coronoides refers to Aaracockra in 5e are in a "grey zone" -- it is that they are unbalanced, or there is some "official" grey zone (I don't know, like not legal for organized play or that kind of stuff).

G

User avatar
Coronoides
Dragon Sage
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:18 am
Gender: male
Location: Mostly Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by Coronoides »

agathokles wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:50 pm
talsine wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:06 pm
They are a PC race with natural, always on flight. Which is basically getting a free undispellable lvl 3 spell. Flight tends to "break" low level play a lot. And even mid-level play if you have it all the time.
Yes, that's the reason why in 4e there was a strong resistance against true flying races. I was more referring to why Coronoides refers to Aaracockra in 5e are in a "grey zone" -- it is that they are unbalanced, or there is some "official" grey zone (I don't know, like not legal for organized play or that kind of stuff).

G
I don't think Aarokocra are unbalanced. There are some limits to their flight (Armour use etc) and they get little else. A balanced flying race playable at first level should have very little else. However, flying characters are tough on new DMs (one character can circumvent some obstacles) and players (sure you can just fly up the cliff to the lair but then your unarmored weak self is there all alone). Personally, I'm fine with flying characters that are balanced.
Need to convert races to D&D 5e? mathematical analysis of canon races and design rules: http://www.dmsguild.com/product/232813/ ... rs-Toolkit

Conversion & Review of Council of Wyrms with dragon PCs compatible with other 5e settings (at level 5+). DRAFT: Book 1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/3x30bz9qi4i0d ... 0.pdf?dl=0 and Book 2 https://www.dropbox.com/s/c0zjp7d2mtfwe ... 0.pdf?dl=0

User avatar
talsine
Priest of Syrinx
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 1:01 am
Gender: male
Location: Phoenix Metro, Arizona

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by talsine »

Coronoides wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:03 pm
agathokles wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:50 pm
talsine wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:06 pm
They are a PC race with natural, always on flight. Which is basically getting a free undispellable lvl 3 spell. Flight tends to "break" low level play a lot. And even mid-level play if you have it all the time.
Yes, that's the reason why in 4e there was a strong resistance against true flying races. I was more referring to why Coronoides refers to Aaracockra in 5e are in a "grey zone" -- it is that they are unbalanced, or there is some "official" grey zone (I don't know, like not legal for organized play or that kind of stuff).

G
I don't think Aarokocra are unbalanced. There are some limits to their flight (Armour use etc) and they get little else. A balanced flying race playable at first level should have very little else. However, flying characters are tough on new DMs (one character can circumvent some obstacles) and players (sure you can just fly up the cliff to the lair but then your unarmored weak self is there all alone). Personally, I'm fine with flying characters that are balanced.
a dex race with 50 foot flight and no medium armor is not "balanced". They can just fly outside of every melee combat, and shoot a bow. That's not even taking into account avoiding difficult terrain or infinite hover that you get with flight in 5E. Aarokocra are very strong for any class that mains dex and wis, and for many that aren't.

At least 4E didn't let it's one flying race (the pixie, which i have other issues with) get hover.

paladinn
Bugbear
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:53 pm
Gender: male

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by paladinn »

a) Please don't let them call it "Xanathar 2.0"

b) I'd like to see them do something with the "Sidekicks" concept. With a little tweaking they could be the "generic classes" for 5e. A little modular design could go a long way.

c) I Love, love, love the "alternate class features" from a recent UA. Definitely include them!

Just my $.02

User avatar
Coronoides
Dragon Sage
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:18 am
Gender: male
Location: Mostly Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by Coronoides »

talsine wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:34 pm
Coronoides wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:03 pm
agathokles wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:50 pm
talsine wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:06 pm
They are a PC race with natural, always on flight. Which is basically getting a free undispellable lvl 3 spell. Flight tends to "break" low level play a lot. And even mid-level play if you have it all the time.
Yes, that's the reason why in 4e there was a strong resistance against true flying races. I was more referring to why Coronoides refers to Aaracockra in 5e are in a "grey zone" -- it is that they are unbalanced, or there is some "official" grey zone (I don't know, like not legal for organized play or that kind of stuff).

G
I don't think Aarokocra are unbalanced. There are some limits to their flight (Armour use etc) and they get little else. A balanced flying race playable at first level should have very little else. However, flying characters are tough on new DMs (one character can circumvent some obstacles) and players (sure you can just fly up the cliff to the lair but then your unarmored weak self is there all alone). Personally, I'm fine with flying characters that are balanced.
a dex race with 50 foot flight and no medium armor is not "balanced". They can just fly outside of every melee combat, and shoot a bow. That's not even taking into account avoiding difficult terrain or infinite hover that you get with flight in 5E. Aarokocra are very strong for any class that mains dex and wis, and for many that aren't.

At least 4E didn't let it's one flying race (the pixie, which i have other issues with) get hover.
That’s certainly not how it’s played out for the many flying characters in my campaigns. Can only very rarely fly out of combat because of ceilings, walls, forest canopy. When they do missile weapons are weaker than melee and you can run out of ammo. When flight is occasionally a real advantage they frequently end up in trouble alone,
Let’s agree to disagree on this one. I suspect it’s a case of table to table variation
Need to convert races to D&D 5e? mathematical analysis of canon races and design rules: http://www.dmsguild.com/product/232813/ ... rs-Toolkit

Conversion & Review of Council of Wyrms with dragon PCs compatible with other 5e settings (at level 5+). DRAFT: Book 1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/3x30bz9qi4i0d ... 0.pdf?dl=0 and Book 2 https://www.dropbox.com/s/c0zjp7d2mtfwe ... 0.pdf?dl=0

User avatar
Coronoides
Dragon Sage
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:18 am
Gender: male
Location: Mostly Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: [Speculation] Xanathar 2.0

Post by Coronoides »

Oops
Last edited by Coronoides on Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Need to convert races to D&D 5e? mathematical analysis of canon races and design rules: http://www.dmsguild.com/product/232813/ ... rs-Toolkit

Conversion & Review of Council of Wyrms with dragon PCs compatible with other 5e settings (at level 5+). DRAFT: Book 1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/3x30bz9qi4i0d ... 0.pdf?dl=0 and Book 2 https://www.dropbox.com/s/c0zjp7d2mtfwe ... 0.pdf?dl=0

Post Reply

Return to “D&D 5th Edition”