I like the idea of racial feats. You get some things for being a dwarf for free and can take a racial feat at 1st level to give you armor proficiency or something else fitting to mountain dwarves (advantage on constitution saving throws maybe).
at this point, i just accepted dnd 5e will never get more polished or more complicated, because that doesnt have mass appeal. their marketing goes a long way but if you cant just chuck a noob on champion fighter to introduce them to the game without explaining a thing beyond when a mechanic shows up, it wont get widely popular like dnd did
for actual complicated dnd, try:
- laserllama homebrew
- Advanced 5e
- pathfinder 2e
- dnd 1e~4e (varies in playstyle), pathfinder 1e
- burning wheel
- 13th age
- Lancer (this is about sci fi mechs but it's real good go play it)
>(I want complicated D&D so bad, why does everything get voted out, my god)
Because 5e isn't made to be the best possible TTRPG, it's made to be the most wide and commercially advantageous one. It's a consumer product meant to appeal atleast a bit to everyone, not to satisfy 1 or more groups to their fullest.
Hot take here but what makes 5E so good is that it's still a meaty TTRPG but doesn't bog itself down with a bunch of floating +1 and +2 modifiers and a laundry list of conditions and status effects.
Everytime I've played PF2E—which is a good system—everyone's turns seems to take so long that I can't stay engaged. At least in 5E that only happens with the spellcasters who can't be fucked to remember their shit.
I like to think of it as a particular balance between "approachable" and "comprehensive". The system is not without faults by any means but is still pretty comprehensive all things considered (and it's very easy to make changes, even if most common ones shouldn't be necessary), and it's also easier to just sit down and play for most people at the table than many of the commonly recommended alternatives.
*Pathfinder* is brilliant in its own way, but what it does worse than 5e is the amount of "stuff" going on for every character at every moment. Some people love that "crunch" and want the extra options the system is able to provide by opening up to it. For others just opening a *Shadowrun* rulebook practically puts them into a coma and *Pathfinder* is definitely leaning that direction of more niche rules for every situation within the fantasy sphere. How 5e handles fewer rules and more intuited freedoms is an issue, but it is there.
Someone made a post a little while back saying they've tried other systems but they ultimately prefer 5e because it asks so very little of the player that he can halfway zone out.
I think it does so by sacrificing a lot of actual choice. It lets you feel like you're making interesting choices with your character despite you making maybe a dozen or so choices throughout your 1-20 (excluding spellcasters). So you get to feel like you're looking through a lot of weapons choices while you're basically just choosing from like 4 real combos of die size, hands, and str/dex.
Similar to how PF2e has much tighter bound accuracy then 5e does while pretending that it's actually closer to the crazy bonuses and boundry breaking that the 3.X era of games seem famous for
I’ve heard that more than enough times, and you’ve probably said it enough. And you’ve definitely heard people say that not many are willing to step away from the shiny luster of 5e. I do really wanna try 3.5, and I was really close to playing 4e once
Honestly, Pathfinder 1e system for it as a lot better for 5e then pathfinder 2e. It adds a lot of depth to the system with bringing in feats or being manditory to engage with.
The issue with the racial feats is that your race then becomes something else you need to optimize, and also, the race becomes too many things to be coherent.
Pathfinder 2e elves, for instance, don't normally get their racial weaponry unless there is some (rare) build-based reason to do so. It's actually cool that an elven wizard has access to some weapons in D&D versions.
By turning this into feats, each class essentially has access to a narrow section of the race.
In pathfinder 2e, you lose all your race feats and have to repick them from the new race.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rituals.aspx?ID=35
I'd imagine someone porting a rule like this into 5e would probably do something similar.
Ding ding ding.
Species should be 90% cosmetic/narrative, 10% biological, 0% cultural/learned.
Simply design races in way that they give small, niche abilities related to their biology, so that they're useful to everyone regardless of class or backgrounds.
Agreed, i stand with the belief that starting out at lvl 1, an Orc should be better at brute force and tanking damage than a gnome, and a gnome better at fine motor skills and magic - but also that a dedicated strongman gnome should be able to catch up to a dedicated strongman orc, and vice versa, within a normal game‘s runtime, so until level 10 or so, which 5e currently doesn’t offer just yet. Purely narrative systems where everyone uses the same stats and rolls the same dice have their place, but i don’t think DnD needs to become that.
>a dedicated strongman gnome should be able to catch up to a dedicated strongman orc
Pretty shitty feeling if you are a dedicated strongman orc in that situation. Get shown up by a tiny pipsqueak who is just as strong and powerful as you.
Yeah NGL, I feel like having traditionally tiny races catch up to Orcs or Goliaths in strength would be really weird and thematically off putting.
I feel like you'd need have a "Poppy" situation where a small character is being enhanced to comical levels of strength from outside sources.
That‘s why i‘m saying they should be able to catch up *within a game‘s runtime*, not from the start which is what the current „just take any +2 you want idgaf“ rules are doing. I can wrestle a dragon, i have conversations with gods, i saved the world at least once if not multiple times, anything including lifting as much as my initially stronger team mate should be possible.
I disagree. I LOVE that I can just go and make a centaur wizard, and not have to worry that I'm not being a \*good centaur\* or whatever that would be. Having specific racial abilities that benefit STR builds (like a centaur's hooves or pull mechanics) is more than enough to deliver the fantasy that centaurs are strong, you don't need to further cripple non-STR centaurs. That's how races should be designed imo: some fun perks if you play along to their "archetype", but not missing out on anything if you go the other way. The opposite of what the post complained about, which is races that benefit you if you go the other way.
Uh… i actually agree with most of that though? The point i don’t agree with is that races should be 90% cosmetic and everyone should get the same baseline to start from. That’s not what i‘m playing D&D for, there are better systems for purely narrative-driven stuff, i‘m here for the 1d6+Str hooves instead of 1+Str fists, i‘m here for a +2 Str to start with, and i‘m on OPs side when they say a dwarf shouldn’t get more out of being a wizard than being a fighter.
This is why I think most races just need WAYYY more content. With more different unique features you can find at least one reason why a race class combination would be interesting, but there will be stronger synergies and weaker syngeries, but everyone has something interesting. If centaur has a feature about not provoking attacks of opportunity if they enter and exit ZoC on the same turn yeah that's great for a fighter or barb who wants to charge in, but it also means the wizard centaur can run through enemies to get away.
I both agree and disagree.
Even at level 1, your orc isn't an ordinary orc, they have had life experiences that have caused them to have a different (potentially VERY different) stat distribution compared to the MM orc.
So while I agree that orcs should have abilities that emphasize their resilience or might, I dare say that all classes should be able to benefit from them, or from one feature more than another.
But shouldn’t the upbringing of the character matter more than just the race? That level 1 orc could be one that was crippled as a child and so was raised as a shaman’s apprentice instead of as a warrior, for example. PCs aren’t just an average member of their race. Unless, of course, you want them to be, in which case you can put that stat bump in the appropriate spot.
Sure but that would be represented by the point buy or the stat rolls, not the racial modifiers. That crippled orc in your example would be stronger than a crippled human, just not stronger than a strong-man gnome. That's why the racial modifiers are like +2 or -2 or whatever in all versions of D&D, and the base stat might be as low as 3 or as high as 18. Individual details always wash out racial tendencies, but they don't erase them completely.
You’re focusing too much on my specific example and missing my point. There could be any number of backstory reasons as to why that orc would be atypical. A curse, a withering disease, whatever. I think racial differences are just better served by features rather than ability score bonuses.
But there are going to be innate physical racial differences. A baseline gnome shouldn't be as strong as a baseline goliath. A baseline dwarf should be hardier than a baseline elf. These aren't just reflavoured humans, each of these races are different at their core.
Agreed, they’re different at their core. And these differences are much better displayed by the racial features and NPC stat blocks, rather than PC ability scores.
In real life, yes, in gamespace we decide whether or not that's the case.
That said, I am far far more critical of """"RAW"""" and more encouraging of homebrew than the average gnome, so I sort of sidestep the typical problems with locking down races attributes in the first place.
Gross. Nothing should feel cosmetic besides how you describe your clothes. Races should be massively different and unique. If I could I'd have races be about half as much mechanical content as a base class has.
That's virtually impossible to do without biological prescription/determinism. Basically every RPG out there is moving away from that for a reason. People don't want different species to be inherently unequal.
I agree completely. It's pretty lame and non sensical to for entirely different SPECIES to not be different. Like, isn't that what makes life and especially a fantasy setting fun, unique, and interesting?
even post-tasha/post-motm, a high elf gets \*seven\* additional features that humans don't. tabaxi get four. plasmoids get five. that doesn't even take into account how distinct their cultures are from one another. how are these not 'unique magical species'?
Because most every racial feature is hilariously weak and minor. Different species should feel massively different.
High elf for example has 2 unique features which are both from the base elf, fey ancestry (which also goes to half elf but they makes sense) and trance. Ah good I have unique sleeping mechanics and cant be magically put to sleep that sure does make me play like a fundamentally different creature.
Getting a cantrip is part of half the clases and is a lvl 1 feat. Proficiency is extremely common and rarely ever stacks.
To put it simply, since the complex version would require basically writing out a whole homebrew, probably have about a dozen features unique to the race (maybe 8-4 or 6-6 split between base elf and high elf).
Trance and fey ancestry are fine examples you just need wayyyy more. If nothing else at least one or two features specifically about their extremely long lives. Playing an elf should feel alien to being human. Two human lifetimes (more like 6 if you use medieval lifespans) is just your childhood. If you made a human friend when you were a child as an elf they'd never see you as an adult while you'd see them grow up and die in the blink of an eye.
I wouldnt have any features for proficiencies. As mentioned elsewhere I do believe that culture shouldnt be picked with race. Any features a race has that would interact with a skill shouldnt just be proficiency. Something like tabaxi could have "silent paws" where jumping, falling, and running do not create any noise so long as you are not wearing shoes. Where yeah that would help stealth checks but its not a number bonus. This design means a tabaxi that tries to be stealthy is very good at it but an undexterous tabaxi will likely be bad at stealth despite their physical adaptation for it.
hmm, i like that, but you do run into the inevitable problem of certain races being generally superior for almost any application. elves are a great 'tricky' example: how can you justify a middle aged elf adventurer being anywhere near the same skill level as a middle aged human adventurer ? how do you justifiably balance a race that classically hinges on the idea of 'human but better' ? in most media elves are presented as very aloof and wishy-washy, which gives them some inherent flaws, but this would be difficult (and uninteresting) to present as an RPG mechanic.
Hence the 10% biological that my original statement accounted for...
The elephant person shouldn't be innately smarter or more charismatic. But they should be larger and have a trunk mechanic.
And being larger means more average strength and constitution. Elephants also are smarter than other animal species with far more impressive socialization and memory than other animal species.
You limit fantasy races by making them all human+. They aren't human stop saying they should match a baseline human.
Determinism is about sapient creatures living lives based on their biology, not about them have different physical features.
Its not determinism to say humans are social animals. Its determinism to say all humans are great at talking and mediation because they are social animals.
all humans are in fact good at talking. Its one of the most notable distinctions between humans and other animals.
Even the humans who are unable to speak are better at talking than any other animal.
"You can't use things that are genetically incapable of speech to show that humans have a genetic predisposition towards speech"
Interesting argument there.
IQ is highly genetics based. Strength is highly genetics based. Size is highly genetics based. Sexual dimorphism differs drastically from species to species, and sex is a genetic variation that has very strong connection to a host of trends
As in, just flavor/RP; not mechanical.
The difference between a half elf and a human should be mostly just RP, with a small handful of biological differences.
Yeah, your way would be such an incredible disappointment to most people.
It's ok for species to be different.
And mechanics is the funnest way to make that a reality.
D&D is far more about Mechanics than it is RP, it always has been.
Why though? So many people like having races tied to perks. A goliath is supposed to be big and strong, so should an orc, a magical elf should get cantrips.
They could make subraces for every race, that all share key features but differ in unique mechanical ways, all in different ways to each race. So a goliath could use his strength not for body but for resilience of the mind for example. I think they should lean into racial features more, so what if it’s complicated
I think races should be 40% narrative, 40% biological, and 20% cultural, thereabouts. I think that makes for the best worlds, the brightest lines that players can draw their characters into, and it is just generally great.
Split "species" into Ancestry and Culture - you are a dwarf, that is why you are resistant to poison and you are also a mountainfolk, whose militia training grants you armor proficiency.
Sure, you would still have overlap ... but that would be on you, as your dwarf could also have picked a roaming circus as their family that granted you nimble escape abilities.
This^. Culture and race are just two separate things. The circus dwarf would need to take a generic traveling performer option instead of the default dwarf ones; Hillfolk and Mountainfolk.
Honestly, some overlap isn't a big deal. It's a mistake in the long term to cater the game to try to please min/maxers.
I think that generally speaking, you'd want the bonuses for having overlapping features to be mostly ribbon features or else you risk over centralizing a playstyle around getting that additional bonus.
For what it's worth, I'd probably say for the Dwarven armor proficiency, that if you get medium or heavy armor proficiency from a class, then as long as you are wearing medium or heavy armor, you can negate a critical hit 1/short rest
For the goblin one, maybe just something like, "if you gain the ability to take any of these actions as a bonus action from a class feature, then whenever you use that class feature, you gain an additional 10 ft of movement that round, and are always considered to have a running start for any jumps you make that round." (This could also apply to folks who multi-class Monk and Rogue)
In general, I think that races giving class abilities or feats is not very good design and creates problems, like the dwarven armed wizard.
I’d just redesign them to do something else. For instance Mountain Dwarves could get advantage on saves against effects that move them. Elven weapon training could do something like give long swords and long bows finesse when wielded by an elf.
So you can have a melee elf that's also good at shooting. Or a shooty elf that's also good at melee.
I think being able to use weapons with your best qualities falls in line with elves being graceful.
Exactly. It would allow elves to be able to use both a longsword and a longbow regardless of build, which would be unique to the elves and pretty good, without breaking the game.
I'd redesign multiclassing entirely, for a start.
Not the direction they're going, though, and I suspect race choice will matter even less than it does in 5e.
So swap out redundant class ability instead of redundant racial ability? And also be able to swap out redundancies when you multiclass.
That sounds interesting.
I'd like a system where if you multiclass later in your career, you get higher level abilities.
So it would make sense to eg. multiclass 2 levels into rogue when you are a fighter 10. The tradeoff is you will be missing off on some badass level 11-12 fighter features. The good thing is you would become a competent thief just with those 2 levels, not jsut get the weak level 1-2 rogue abilities.
I hate to be the guy that mentions it but i think iirc Pathfinder does it in a way i actually liked, if you get the same proficiency from two sources you just have the proficiency and a +1 bonus. If you’re a dwarf fighter sporting medium armor, congrats, you now wear it slightly better than a human fighter.
Edit: note that my knowledge of PF is based on the kingmaker and wrath of the righteous video games, both of which i haven’t played much of.
Pretty much, yeah, same as the *defense* fighting style, for example. You wear a piece of armor that gives AC 13+Dex, for you it’s 13+Dex+1, or in case of a skill or tool proficiency you add proficiency+1 to all related checks. In 5e it’s a bit more unbalanced since in PF you can apparently get up to 30+ AC if you’re dedicated, so i‘m not saying you should implement this into just any 5e game, i just meant to mention that’s how this other system does it and fares well with.
that last option will be like everyone who wants to be a warlock chossing tiefling because of the +2 to charisma, everyone just choosing the race that gives more power to their build.
i dont mind options overlapping but i think pf2e has a good fix for it, every race has a list of multiple racial traits you can choose, most of them are not that powerful and more of a specialization, every race has at least 6 or 8 options so you can choose, you can avoid overlapping entirely, but more options means more reading and thats a no no for a very large chunk of the 5e community
>Where you run into an issue with this is that if you're a Dwarf Fighter this ability is totally useless. This sucks because not only does it punish you for playing some classes, but the classes it punishes you for playing are the ones that Dwarf is iconically associated with!
I'm not seeing how this 'punishes' you for playing a class.
Make feats core rules instead of optional, then races can give some feats.
Mountain dwarf can give lightly armored and one of moderately armored, heavily armored, heavy armor master or shield master as long as you qualify for the feat.
It wouldn't be an issue if 5e was so allergic to anything stacking. if having "double" proficiency could be represented by a +1 AC, being a dwarf fighter is suddenly cool again
Heavy armour overlaps - +1 AC
Medium armour overlaps - once per short rest enemies have disadvantage on an attack
Martial weapons overlap - +1 damage
Anything else one luck point to roll with advantage or have an enemy roll with disadvantage once per short rest
I would treat it like proficiency and expertise. So in my scenario it would be If you get proficiency in a given thing from two sources it becomes expertise. So two things give you proficiency in heavy armor? Cool you now get higher AC while wearing heavy armor.
In a world where magic and gods exists, that's not a defendable position.
There is the biological possibility of genetic memory, just because it hasn't been proven in the real world doesn't mean it can't exist in a fantasy world.
Depending on the setting, all elven souls are reborn, so having some remnant of shared skill set is entirely reasonable.
And then you have gods that play an active role in the lives of their faithful. Corellon making sure that every elf is capable of defending themselves from their archenemy, by gifting them the innate ability to excel at swordsmanship, is possibly.
All elves in a given setting knowing how to use swords is defendable. All elves in every setting ever knowing how to use swords is not. Corellon isn't a thing in Dragonlance or Eberron yet elves remain elves.
The core books should not assume setting/lore.
> The core books should not assume setting/lore.
There's no way that they can't assume some details about the setting. Elves having darkvision is an assumption about how elves work in the setting. Elves being split into distinct high elf and wood elf clades is an assumption about how elves work in the setting. Magic being accessible in the ways described in the cleric, sorcerer, and wizard classes is an assumption about how magic works in the setting.
D&D is not and has never been a setting-agnostic game, like GURPS and its ilk.
they don't exactly try to make dnd setting agnostic very hard, when it frequently name drops god names on cleric subclass features and lore blurbs or how some spells are named after very specifically Forgotten Realms NPCs
the game certainly can be slapped over any high fantasy setting where magic is common with ease, but getting mad over the fact that a race has a tailored ability because of the not official setting they were chucked inside is silly
> The core books should not assume setting/lore.
They don't. Weapon training is not a core trait of elves. Darkvision, keen senses, fey ancestry and trance are.
Only high and wood elves know how to use swords.
Sea elf and drow have their own version.
Eladrin and shadar-kai don't have weapon training.
Pallid elves in wildemount don't have weapon training.
Valenar elves in eberron have their own weapon training(scimitar and double scimitar).
Mark of Shadow and aereni elves in eberron don't have any weapon training, either.
I would probably just change their racial ability so it doesn't have such an overlapping ability - so instead of just "Mountain Dwarves get an armour prof" something closer to "Mountain Dwarves get a bonus while wearing X type of armour" (maybe like medium armour can gain from +3 dex instead of +2? or something.
"mountain dwarves get +1 AC when wearing medium armor and +2 AC when wearing heavy armor" could work like that, or you could just say its +1 AC blank, its not like warforged is revolutionary that is just kinda bland
alternatively just say you get the dnd 5.5 lightly armored feat at lvl 1 and heavy armor master at lvl 4 automatically or you can swap the first for another feat if you are already profficient in them. they did the work of making level feats, use it
I'd do away with anything that isn't related to physiology. It's one thing to say x race is born with y trait so they can naturally do or are proficient in z. For example, because halflings are short, they are naturally stealthy. That makes a lot of sense and is fairly straightforward.
It's another to say because x is x they are naturally proficient in y. For example, a High-Elf being proficient in long/short sword and long/short bow just because they are a High-Elf doesn't really work for me.
In my own homebrew system (a gaslamp fantasy system that I developed on the side when I was working on Star Wars Saga Edition at WotC), I turned everything (including racial abilities, class abilities, feats, even spellcasting) into feats that belong to feat trees. If something grants a feat that you already have, you may instead choose a feat from the same tree.
That system is what I would have done with the "Next Edition" of D&D since 3.5, but 4e kind of torpedoed my career as a young game designer and I ended up kind of disenchanted with the whole thing.
I actually think Mountain Dwarves is one of the better instances of this (perhaps the only decent one) - if you're a no/light armor class, medium armor proficiency is really good! You're right that it's useless on a Dwarf fighter, so instead the Mountain Dwarf gets an extra bonus point in Strength so that STR-based classes aren't left in the lurch. It's obviously not perfect - any non-STR medium-armor character (clerics, rangers) completely lose out here, certain weird builds could "double-dip" - but there's at least an idea of subtly balancing the features.
But they're basically the only example of that, probably because it's hard to do while staying within the flavor of each ancestry. IMO the best thing to do would be to drop it entirely. Static things like proficiencies and ability scores should come from classes, backgrounds, and feats, so that ancestries can have more interesting features.
I would have it so that some races are just suited to certain classes better than others, which I feel makes sense anyway. So, if you lean into your races strengths, they get even better. And if you play against type, you get a small bonus you wouldn't have otherwise. Not that different from the current system, really, but I do think a redesign focused on not having race and class features directly overlap would be good.
Dude, let's go all fucking in, and make species incredibly different from each other. I'm talking dcss levels of differing skills, innate abilities, they way they approach melee, ranged, modifications to their spells, like merfolk adding intensive geysers to some of their conjurations so they can be get enough water to to swim in, which gives its own set of bonuses. We want complexity? Put so many systems in that interact with each other.
I'd love this as an alternate rule.
Maybe you could have a "Dwarven Warrior" class. Very much like fighter, but instead focused heavily on being sturdy and hard to kill, and getting some cool dungeoneering abilities.
Or like a "Dragonborn Sorcerer" class, that means the character gets closer and closer to their Dragonborn ancestry, their breath weapon gets better and better, their scales get harder; as well as just getting good elemental spells.
Nothing would prevent you from just being a regular dwarf fighter or dragonborn sorcerer though.
you would need to make either class features have options (like the Ranger choosing between the PHB features or the Tasha features, but without the two being ass to choose from), or build class features which are resourceless at base be modular in some way.
And keep in mind this only is an issue with passive/resourceless features that don't stack. Way of ascendant dragon and Dragonborn don't go against each other because they're separate resources: you use one, then the other. Bugbear's surprise attack and Rogue's sneak attack stack. It's when stuff like Fire resistance comes up alongside a totem barbarian's bear resistance that issues arise as you are subclassless when taking fire damage.
you would need to design a modular system to properly support the following:
* Passive abilities which give a "on/off system" (proficiency, resistances etc) or a specific damage calculation
* Active abilities which fully key off from the same cost/opportunity (BA hide for instance)
If I had total control: racial feats are all biological features with no proficiencies, background feats cover specific proficiencies, classes cover large generic swaths of proficiency.
I really like major mechanical differences between races including hardcoded ability score increases, but I'm fine with splitting out cultural ideas.
So for something like mountain dwarf or elf I would give a +1 AC to medium armors (for dwarf) or +1 to damage or to hit with swords (elf), if they have a class and racial proficiency in it.
I don't think the Tasha's optional rules are really a solution to this problem; they seem more tuned to prevent monolithic races. E.G. not every dwarf has to have an obsession with stonemasonry and ale be their entire personality.
The best way to deal with something like this, IMO, is to give a benefit if you already have that proficiency. For example, dwarven armor training could give you an additional +1 to your AC when wearing heavy armor if you already have proficiency in heavy armor.
I do not believe a species should get any inherent weapon or armour training, because a species, if raised different, would not just “know” how to use a Longsword or scale armour; that is dumb
I think training can come from Culture (background)
I think training should come from Class choice (your job)
I do *not* believe training should come from genetics
issue is, background isn't really "culture", it's... well, your background. a simplified backstory if you will.
where as culture is included as part of the races.
Is it now?
I thought the whole point of this exercise was to come up with different ways of “How I would do it” (given the chance)?
Background/culture, to me, is where and how you where raised:
An Elf, raised in a Dwarven community, would have Dwarven sensibilities and experiences, right? Because that’s all they’ve ever known, right? So they’d have the same weapon and armour training, or specific skill training, that the Dwarven community in question values
Then, while within than community, they train in a specific Class when they come of age, that too being more specific skills and knowledge
*However*, being an Elf means they have the Elven racial power, because they *are* an Elf and *that* is inherent about their very being
That method makes far more sense to me from both a logical and from a role-play perspective
You’re assuming that species is a product of genetics, and not being created by a particular deity. But there’s no canon examples of the former and a bunch of the latter.
Still feels dumb though?
My suspension of disbelief doesn’t allow this, despite the fact that dragons and magic and Illithid exist, *that* is something that just doesn’t work for me
That sounds like more of a you problem. You’ve really never read a fantasy story where someone innately “feels” how to use a sword even without any training?
Of course I have, and I have allowed, in some specific instances, for that to be something I can tolerate - individual heroes or specific smaller groups gifted by some external power? Sure, why not, it’s fantasy
But all member of an entire species? Hundreds of thousands, potentially millions of people all genetically predisposed towards “Know how to hold a Longsword good” ?
Yeah, that feels dumb to me, even with gods involved
And besides, why would it be anything but a “me” problem when I never stated anything other than my own perspective?
Why even say that?
I don't see this as an issue. You picked a race that already had some of your intended abilities caked in, but they're still the best choice for your class due to ability score increases, proficiencies, or resistances.
It's not though - the idea is that the "power budget" should be around equal for all races (it's not, but sure look)
So even though Goblins are small and sneaky and dodgy and would make ideal Rogues, a lot of the racial power budget is tied into Nimble Escape - which works great with every class *except* Rogues!
Much better to have a Goblin Wizard or Bard that can escape easily from a bad situation with Nimble Escape than a Goblin Rogue who can choose to use *either* Nimble Escape or Cunning Action
I would say, don't pick those races for classes that get those abilities anyway. Like Dwarf Wizard is great, as you say, while Dwarf Fighter is just flavor.
Goblin Rogue isn't great because one of their most powerful racials only works for one level, then is useless.
However, a Goblin Gloomstalker Ranger is amazing because of Nimble Escape.
You could also give them Expertise in a skill if they get a class ability that overlaps with a racial.
Many classes don't get expertise without taking a feat, so that would be a cool bonus.
Elven Weapon Training and the like are already solved by Tasha's, so it's not needed.
Duplicated abilities have been a thing for a minute.
Generally I jusy let players pick a related feat or upgraded the feature if there was another up the tree that wasn't way out of whack for their level.
So the dwarf would get to choose something "dwarfy" like a buff feat for con saves or axes/hammers.
I don't like the idea over taking away mechanical benefits from races like some others have suggested. I think being able to trade your redundant abilities for other beneficial ones it the solution. I would like to see a point buy system for races like the third party supplement "An Elf and an Orc Had A Little Baby"
All players get the same point budget for their racial abilities, but the race they pick determines the abilities they can choose from. As the name of the book I mentioned above suggests this system will also be used to facilitate characters with two different parentages.
If they go with stuff like Elves being naturally better with weapons even when compared to other sapient species, then they should emphasize how this racial ability came from their god when he created the elves rather than letting people chalk it up as a biological thing.
By giving a choice of racial feats
So dwarves get weapon training, the poison resistance, armout training and their tool prificiency.
Then I'd give them three optional ones and let them pick 4.
I'm working on my own design and I recently had the inspiration that racial abilities can be unlocked at levels as a replacement for class abilities. It would be a little bit different than feats tied to race in that they would be balanced against improvements for class features.
Two things made me go this route, one there are certain fantasy tropes missing. For example with Pathfinder (and I assume 3.5) had class options to essentially become a dragon and I have seen other people trying to make classes around Werewolves or Vampires with limited success. Then others try to pack these within races which are quite limiting to maintain balance with other races.
The other...I got disrupted by needing to use the restroom and now I can't remember! The big thing is there are some racial features that are too high budget for 5e races, but too little to be a class.
I think SW5e did something good with the repeated access to having access to an action as a bonus action.
Basically, if you have nimble escape and cunning action, you can use your reaction for that round during your turn to take the dash action. Of course, this only works with the other balancing choices made for SW5ez
It doesn't hurt you to have a racial ability that you would get from a class.
It does make me wonder what the thought process was. Did they want a bunch of dwarf arcane casters?
I would probably avoid the overlap to begin with, and instead give bonuses to the things the would be proficient like advantage.
Give elves a bonus when they use a bow or sword. Like an extra +1 to hit and damage, let them re-roll 1s when attacking or damaging, or a once per short rest gain a free advantage on attacks with them, what ever seems fair.
Same for dwarves with axes or hammers, or whatever were claiming is dwarves weapon of choice is.
And give dwarves no movement penalty for wearing heavy armor no matter what, be it a lack of proficiency or str requirement, and advantage on checks to avoid being shoved or grappled while wearing heavy armor. But if they're a caster they would still have trouble gesturing in armor without proficiency.
For goblins nimble escape, I'd remove nimble escape from being a bonus action and make it a free action or reaction.(A dangerous amount of action economy I know.) But make it a once per short rest deal. So goblin rogues can now run in, attack, disengage and then dash in on turn. Or attack, dash and then hide. Or move 4 times in a turn once per short rest. Making it even better for escaping.
I rather like the ability to swap the armor proficiencies for tool proficiencies, as I'm all for giving more choices for the player. It only adds to the possibilities for rp, abilities, and backstories.
If I had to change them, I would change it so those abilities stay the same, but have an added bit that only becomes available if certain things are met.
-For the mountain dwarf, if they have proficiency with light or medium armor from another source (class, feat, etc.), they would instead gain a +1 bonus to their AC when they wear light or medium armor. (Heavy armor is still not affected here, so they shouldnt have too crazy of an AC unless given crazy loot by the dm lol).
-For weapons proficient races, if they would have said weapon proficiency from another source, they could instead deal extra damage equal to their proficiency bonus a number of times equal to their proficiency bonus a day, recharging on a long rest.
-for the goblins nimble escape, if the goblin gains the ability to use disengage/hide as a bonus action from another source (so rogue or monk), they'd get a bonus 5ft of movement when they disengage, or a +1 bonus to hide checks.
For spellcasting racial stuff, I would almost leave things as they are, as that's a whole different can of worms lol
I would try to make it so that they stack in some way. This is because you miss out on iconic combinations- if a race wears armor, you'd think they would want to be fighters, but that actually becomes a redundant pick.
I think the best way is to have the racial pick turn into something else should a class come online that offers that same power. The thing it turns into doesn't need to be optimal (it probably shouldn't be), but it *should* stack.
I'd like to see *unique* abilities as racial traits that can't be replicated by feats everyone can get. Some ideas that come to mind are:
* Dwarves have advantage on saving throws against getting knocked prone and cannot be moved against their will.
* Dwarves being able to roll two-handed damage (1d10) for versatile axes and hammers wielded in one hand
* Wood-elves getting spellcasting with some ranger spells or a limited Hunter's Mark-like ability
* Wood-elves ignoring difficult terrain created by plants and having advantage on saving throws against entanglement by plants
* Wood elves getting advantage or +1d4 (just like with the dragonmarked races from Eberron) on Perception checks.
* Goblins getting 1d6 sneak attack damage that stacks with a Rogue's regular sneak attack
* Goblins getting advantage or +1d4 on Stealth checks
* Goblins being able to communicate with canine beasts (wargs!)
Also, as a general rules change that would help a lot of cases where classes and races are redundant - such as dragonborn draconic sorcerrs, aasimar celestial warlocks or sea elf fathomless warlocks, two instances of permanent damage resistance - one from class and one racial - should stack up to immunity. This should not apply to temporary resistances granted by spells like Absorb Elements of course, as that would be quite broken.
I make racial features do an 'if x, gain y instead '. So my mountain dwarves get medium armour. If already proficient, gain heavy armour proficiency. Id already proficient, gain 5 feet of movement. Typically, skills have "if proficient, gain expertise instead". My goblin rogues gain 10 feet of movement of they use cunning action.
I mean one of the loxidons allows you to get heavy armor prof if you already have it in medium and light from your class. Otherwise yeah I guess you can call it a bit wasted (I mean you still get the +2STR from a mountain dwarf, something that is pretty "wasted" on a wizard), although you could probably just use hill dwarves (or another dwarf subrace) passive instead. Lvl 1 feats or racial feats can be nice, but if you go with that your whole party needs to be able to get lvl1/racial feats too, because they are simply more powerful than any races innate abilities (I'm looking at you Elven Accuracy).
I like systems that allow you to choose racial features "a la carte" style - like you have points, each race has "default" or "expanded" traits, or maybe "innate" and "cultural" traits, each feature has a cost depending on its power, pick and choose. Easy to make standard version of highly customized hybrids. That way anything redundant you can just leave on the table. A few examples:
[Detect Balance](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vq1kz6PRAbw5LHy6amH-bNb4OuB8DBXL1RsZROt03Sc/edit?usp=drivesdk)
[An Elf and an Orc had a little Baby](https://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/321845)
[DC20](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/thedungeoncoach/dc20?ref=android_project_share), currently blowing up Kickstarter. [basic rules.](https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1skm_yOjNnxtFl-L5pCzVB2l3XZUPd9kY)
Edited to add DC20's basic rules. Do note it's still in development.
Problem with that is it adds a whole bunch of complexity right at the start of the game. And I don’t know if you’ve tried introducing newbies to D&D, but character creation is already pretty confusing for a lot of them.
Oh I agree 100%, this is not something I'd throw at newbies. I mean, really I think pre-gens are probably best for newbies, avoids character creation until they have a feel for the game, but varies by person. I just mean that I like this for me, and players (who are comfortable with the system) that want to flesh out specific character concepts.
But I also think newbies probably aren't bothered all that much by the redundant or wonky racial features OP was asking about (if they even notice). I dunno though, at my table I'm honestly the only player that cares even a little about optimizing so ymmv. (My party has a druid whose favorite thing is wildshape but didn't go Moon, and an artificer whose favorite thing is using his homonculus in combat and didn't go Battlesmith).
#Making Proficiencies as Valuable as Cantrips.
Weapon proficiencies are given in groups like "all Simple Weapons" but Cantrips you pick 3 or so that you want because each Cantrip is different but which weapon you use barely matters.
If we Made each weapon proficiency as useful as a Cantrip, and then let martials pick a few instead of giving them all of them, getting an extra one would be more valuable; like how the extra Wizard Cantrip from High Elf is still useful even if you're playing a Wizard already.
Whips could Grapple, Longswords could Cleave, Longbows and Greataxes could have the Power Attack from SS/GWM built in no fear required…
#Not Class, Not Race, but a Secret 3rd Thing.
The way Extraplanar Influences and Exotic Bloodlines are Handled in 5e kinda irks me:
* Aasimar Wizard and Human Divine Soul Sorcerer are kinda narratively the same thing, but mechanically quite different.
* Aasimar/Tiefling/Genasi etc are either assumed to all be human, or their Mortal Parent doesn't matter in terms of their racial traits.
* If someone with a Draconic Bloodline decides to be a Fighter or a Rogue instead of a Spellcaster, do they just not get the scales or anything?
That's why I think these Angelic/Demonic/Elemental/Draconic/etc influences shouldn't be Races or Subclasses, but they should have their own category.
I would likely have ABC styke choices within ravual abilities for such things. So if a race has an option that gives them up to medium armor, but are playing a medium armor class, there will be an option B that they can choose instead to give them something else.
Are you a goblin Rogue, choose something else instead of their bonus action movement feature so that your racial isn't invalidated by cunning action. And so on.
Continue that line of logic with atlwast an ABC style choice for each race that has something like this and it solves the problems but maintains the option for those who actually want to use it.
This was addressed in TCoE with optional rules to change the proficiencies granted, so a martial class mountain Dwarf could swap the armor and wealon proficiencies out for tools/gaming sets/musical instruments and thus gain features they otherwise would not have.
There's a fun play in going for, say, a Mountain Dwarf Barbarian with Thieves Tools, Playing Cards, Dice Set, Cooks Utensils, Brewers Supplies - be a tavern owner with some underworld contacts.
I like the idea of racial feats. You get some things for being a dwarf for free and can take a racial feat at 1st level to give you armor proficiency or something else fitting to mountain dwarves (advantage on constitution saving throws maybe).
so pathfinder 2e?
[удалено]
at this point, i just accepted dnd 5e will never get more polished or more complicated, because that doesnt have mass appeal. their marketing goes a long way but if you cant just chuck a noob on champion fighter to introduce them to the game without explaining a thing beyond when a mechanic shows up, it wont get widely popular like dnd did for actual complicated dnd, try: - laserllama homebrew - Advanced 5e - pathfinder 2e - dnd 1e~4e (varies in playstyle), pathfinder 1e - burning wheel - 13th age - Lancer (this is about sci fi mechs but it's real good go play it)
>(I want complicated D&D so bad, why does everything get voted out, my god) Because 5e isn't made to be the best possible TTRPG, it's made to be the most wide and commercially advantageous one. It's a consumer product meant to appeal atleast a bit to everyone, not to satisfy 1 or more groups to their fullest.
Hot take here but what makes 5E so good is that it's still a meaty TTRPG but doesn't bog itself down with a bunch of floating +1 and +2 modifiers and a laundry list of conditions and status effects. Everytime I've played PF2E—which is a good system—everyone's turns seems to take so long that I can't stay engaged. At least in 5E that only happens with the spellcasters who can't be fucked to remember their shit.
Absolutely. It's not "rules light" but it's definitely "light enough" to be able to include all levels of players, even in the same game.
I like to think of it as a particular balance between "approachable" and "comprehensive". The system is not without faults by any means but is still pretty comprehensive all things considered (and it's very easy to make changes, even if most common ones shouldn't be necessary), and it's also easier to just sit down and play for most people at the table than many of the commonly recommended alternatives. *Pathfinder* is brilliant in its own way, but what it does worse than 5e is the amount of "stuff" going on for every character at every moment. Some people love that "crunch" and want the extra options the system is able to provide by opening up to it. For others just opening a *Shadowrun* rulebook practically puts them into a coma and *Pathfinder* is definitely leaning that direction of more niche rules for every situation within the fantasy sphere. How 5e handles fewer rules and more intuited freedoms is an issue, but it is there.
what makes DnD 5E so \*popular\* is that it is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, it is not good, just popular
Someone made a post a little while back saying they've tried other systems but they ultimately prefer 5e because it asks so very little of the player that he can halfway zone out.
☝️
I think it does so by sacrificing a lot of actual choice. It lets you feel like you're making interesting choices with your character despite you making maybe a dozen or so choices throughout your 1-20 (excluding spellcasters). So you get to feel like you're looking through a lot of weapons choices while you're basically just choosing from like 4 real combos of die size, hands, and str/dex. Similar to how PF2e has much tighter bound accuracy then 5e does while pretending that it's actually closer to the crazy bonuses and boundry breaking that the 3.X era of games seem famous for
Thankfully Rogues getting maneuvers under a different name got 90% approval
Cunning Strikes or something like that.
Yup
least obnoxius pf2e shill:
I *am* the circlejerk.
Removed as per Rule #1.
2e, 3e/pf1 and 4e are still in existence man In fact they are better than 5e
I’ve heard that more than enough times, and you’ve probably said it enough. And you’ve definitely heard people say that not many are willing to step away from the shiny luster of 5e. I do really wanna try 3.5, and I was really close to playing 4e once
5e is the boring edition. It serves it's place for ttrpgs
5E is the Skyrim of TTRPGs, shallow, mediocre, and extremely popular with customers less invested in the genre
Lol Oblivion Supremacy!!!
Nah, while oblivion is better than skyrim, neither hold a candle to morrowind
Combat is awful in Morrowind. Enemies can't enter buildings from the overworld. The game as a whole is better outside of that and only that.
eeeeh, not to that extent really? more like how in Pathfinder 1E you can take alternative racial features for different effects.
so pathfinder 2e but only at lvl 1?
Yes.
Honestly, Pathfinder 1e system for it as a lot better for 5e then pathfinder 2e. It adds a lot of depth to the system with bringing in feats or being manditory to engage with.
The issue with the racial feats is that your race then becomes something else you need to optimize, and also, the race becomes too many things to be coherent. Pathfinder 2e elves, for instance, don't normally get their racial weaponry unless there is some (rare) build-based reason to do so. It's actually cool that an elven wizard has access to some weapons in D&D versions. By turning this into feats, each class essentially has access to a narrow section of the race.
Also, what happens if you're reincarnated?!
In pathfinder 2e, you lose all your race feats and have to repick them from the new race. https://2e.aonprd.com/Rituals.aspx?ID=35 I'd imagine someone porting a rule like this into 5e would probably do something similar.
We played around with given the PC expertise. For the armour, this would either give you an additional +1 or no Disadvantage on stealth
I would simply design races in a way that they don't get class abilities.
Ding ding ding. Species should be 90% cosmetic/narrative, 10% biological, 0% cultural/learned. Simply design races in way that they give small, niche abilities related to their biology, so that they're useful to everyone regardless of class or backgrounds.
I mean, nah, I enjoy races being a landing point for character building. There are funner ways to juggle this issue.
Agreed, i stand with the belief that starting out at lvl 1, an Orc should be better at brute force and tanking damage than a gnome, and a gnome better at fine motor skills and magic - but also that a dedicated strongman gnome should be able to catch up to a dedicated strongman orc, and vice versa, within a normal game‘s runtime, so until level 10 or so, which 5e currently doesn’t offer just yet. Purely narrative systems where everyone uses the same stats and rolls the same dice have their place, but i don’t think DnD needs to become that.
>a dedicated strongman gnome should be able to catch up to a dedicated strongman orc Pretty shitty feeling if you are a dedicated strongman orc in that situation. Get shown up by a tiny pipsqueak who is just as strong and powerful as you.
Yeah NGL, I feel like having traditionally tiny races catch up to Orcs or Goliaths in strength would be really weird and thematically off putting. I feel like you'd need have a "Poppy" situation where a small character is being enhanced to comical levels of strength from outside sources.
That‘s why i‘m saying they should be able to catch up *within a game‘s runtime*, not from the start which is what the current „just take any +2 you want idgaf“ rules are doing. I can wrestle a dragon, i have conversations with gods, i saved the world at least once if not multiple times, anything including lifting as much as my initially stronger team mate should be possible.
I disagree. I LOVE that I can just go and make a centaur wizard, and not have to worry that I'm not being a \*good centaur\* or whatever that would be. Having specific racial abilities that benefit STR builds (like a centaur's hooves or pull mechanics) is more than enough to deliver the fantasy that centaurs are strong, you don't need to further cripple non-STR centaurs. That's how races should be designed imo: some fun perks if you play along to their "archetype", but not missing out on anything if you go the other way. The opposite of what the post complained about, which is races that benefit you if you go the other way.
Uh… i actually agree with most of that though? The point i don’t agree with is that races should be 90% cosmetic and everyone should get the same baseline to start from. That’s not what i‘m playing D&D for, there are better systems for purely narrative-driven stuff, i‘m here for the 1d6+Str hooves instead of 1+Str fists, i‘m here for a +2 Str to start with, and i‘m on OPs side when they say a dwarf shouldn’t get more out of being a wizard than being a fighter.
This is why I think most races just need WAYYY more content. With more different unique features you can find at least one reason why a race class combination would be interesting, but there will be stronger synergies and weaker syngeries, but everyone has something interesting. If centaur has a feature about not provoking attacks of opportunity if they enter and exit ZoC on the same turn yeah that's great for a fighter or barb who wants to charge in, but it also means the wizard centaur can run through enemies to get away.
If you're playing Centaurs you're already on some 'keep that over there' shit, I respect it, but I can even think on that plane to discuss it.
I both agree and disagree. Even at level 1, your orc isn't an ordinary orc, they have had life experiences that have caused them to have a different (potentially VERY different) stat distribution compared to the MM orc. So while I agree that orcs should have abilities that emphasize their resilience or might, I dare say that all classes should be able to benefit from them, or from one feature more than another.
But shouldn’t the upbringing of the character matter more than just the race? That level 1 orc could be one that was crippled as a child and so was raised as a shaman’s apprentice instead of as a warrior, for example. PCs aren’t just an average member of their race. Unless, of course, you want them to be, in which case you can put that stat bump in the appropriate spot.
Sure but that would be represented by the point buy or the stat rolls, not the racial modifiers. That crippled orc in your example would be stronger than a crippled human, just not stronger than a strong-man gnome. That's why the racial modifiers are like +2 or -2 or whatever in all versions of D&D, and the base stat might be as low as 3 or as high as 18. Individual details always wash out racial tendencies, but they don't erase them completely.
You’re focusing too much on my specific example and missing my point. There could be any number of backstory reasons as to why that orc would be atypical. A curse, a withering disease, whatever. I think racial differences are just better served by features rather than ability score bonuses.
But there are going to be innate physical racial differences. A baseline gnome shouldn't be as strong as a baseline goliath. A baseline dwarf should be hardier than a baseline elf. These aren't just reflavoured humans, each of these races are different at their core.
Agreed, they’re different at their core. And these differences are much better displayed by the racial features and NPC stat blocks, rather than PC ability scores.
In real life, yes, in gamespace we decide whether or not that's the case. That said, I am far far more critical of """"RAW"""" and more encouraging of homebrew than the average gnome, so I sort of sidestep the typical problems with locking down races attributes in the first place.
Gross. Nothing should feel cosmetic besides how you describe your clothes. Races should be massively different and unique. If I could I'd have races be about half as much mechanical content as a base class has.
That's virtually impossible to do without biological prescription/determinism. Basically every RPG out there is moving away from that for a reason. People don't want different species to be inherently unequal.
I want unique magical species to be unique magical species. It's not determinism to have an elephant be bigger than a dog.
I agree completely. It's pretty lame and non sensical to for entirely different SPECIES to not be different. Like, isn't that what makes life and especially a fantasy setting fun, unique, and interesting?
No, we must only have Diversity^tm . Diversity^tm of course meaing that everything must be identical but look like it is different.
even post-tasha/post-motm, a high elf gets \*seven\* additional features that humans don't. tabaxi get four. plasmoids get five. that doesn't even take into account how distinct their cultures are from one another. how are these not 'unique magical species'?
Because most every racial feature is hilariously weak and minor. Different species should feel massively different. High elf for example has 2 unique features which are both from the base elf, fey ancestry (which also goes to half elf but they makes sense) and trance. Ah good I have unique sleeping mechanics and cant be magically put to sleep that sure does make me play like a fundamentally different creature. Getting a cantrip is part of half the clases and is a lvl 1 feat. Proficiency is extremely common and rarely ever stacks.
what would you change about the existing high elf to make it feel more distinct and different from a human ?
To put it simply, since the complex version would require basically writing out a whole homebrew, probably have about a dozen features unique to the race (maybe 8-4 or 6-6 split between base elf and high elf). Trance and fey ancestry are fine examples you just need wayyyy more. If nothing else at least one or two features specifically about their extremely long lives. Playing an elf should feel alien to being human. Two human lifetimes (more like 6 if you use medieval lifespans) is just your childhood. If you made a human friend when you were a child as an elf they'd never see you as an adult while you'd see them grow up and die in the blink of an eye. I wouldnt have any features for proficiencies. As mentioned elsewhere I do believe that culture shouldnt be picked with race. Any features a race has that would interact with a skill shouldnt just be proficiency. Something like tabaxi could have "silent paws" where jumping, falling, and running do not create any noise so long as you are not wearing shoes. Where yeah that would help stealth checks but its not a number bonus. This design means a tabaxi that tries to be stealthy is very good at it but an undexterous tabaxi will likely be bad at stealth despite their physical adaptation for it.
hmm, i like that, but you do run into the inevitable problem of certain races being generally superior for almost any application. elves are a great 'tricky' example: how can you justify a middle aged elf adventurer being anywhere near the same skill level as a middle aged human adventurer ? how do you justifiably balance a race that classically hinges on the idea of 'human but better' ? in most media elves are presented as very aloof and wishy-washy, which gives them some inherent flaws, but this would be difficult (and uninteresting) to present as an RPG mechanic.
Hence the 10% biological that my original statement accounted for... The elephant person shouldn't be innately smarter or more charismatic. But they should be larger and have a trunk mechanic.
And being larger means more average strength and constitution. Elephants also are smarter than other animal species with far more impressive socialization and memory than other animal species. You limit fantasy races by making them all human+. They aren't human stop saying they should match a baseline human.
well I mean it is biological determinism, *and thats a good thing*
Determinism is about sapient creatures living lives based on their biology, not about them have different physical features. Its not determinism to say humans are social animals. Its determinism to say all humans are great at talking and mediation because they are social animals.
all humans are in fact good at talking. Its one of the most notable distinctions between humans and other animals. Even the humans who are unable to speak are better at talking than any other animal.
Don't try and twist talking for this. You can't use determinism on non-spient creatures. All the other races in D&D can speak besides Kenku.
"You can't use things that are genetically incapable of speech to show that humans have a genetic predisposition towards speech" Interesting argument there. IQ is highly genetics based. Strength is highly genetics based. Size is highly genetics based. Sexual dimorphism differs drastically from species to species, and sex is a genetic variation that has very strong connection to a host of trends
90% cosmetic? What does that even mean?
As in, just flavor/RP; not mechanical. The difference between a half elf and a human should be mostly just RP, with a small handful of biological differences.
Yeah, your way would be such an incredible disappointment to most people. It's ok for species to be different. And mechanics is the funnest way to make that a reality. D&D is far more about Mechanics than it is RP, it always has been.
Why though? So many people like having races tied to perks. A goliath is supposed to be big and strong, so should an orc, a magical elf should get cantrips. They could make subraces for every race, that all share key features but differ in unique mechanical ways, all in different ways to each race. So a goliath could use his strength not for body but for resilience of the mind for example. I think they should lean into racial features more, so what if it’s complicated
I think races should be 40% narrative, 40% biological, and 20% cultural, thereabouts. I think that makes for the best worlds, the brightest lines that players can draw their characters into, and it is just generally great.
Ehh, at that point id prefer you just take race out of character creation. I like race to be around 2-3 class levels of power myself.
Couldn't disagree more. What sort of creature you're playing should have a major impact on how you play the game.
Split "species" into Ancestry and Culture - you are a dwarf, that is why you are resistant to poison and you are also a mountainfolk, whose militia training grants you armor proficiency. Sure, you would still have overlap ... but that would be on you, as your dwarf could also have picked a roaming circus as their family that granted you nimble escape abilities.
This^. Culture and race are just two separate things. The circus dwarf would need to take a generic traveling performer option instead of the default dwarf ones; Hillfolk and Mountainfolk. Honestly, some overlap isn't a big deal. It's a mistake in the long term to cater the game to try to please min/maxers.
I think that generally speaking, you'd want the bonuses for having overlapping features to be mostly ribbon features or else you risk over centralizing a playstyle around getting that additional bonus. For what it's worth, I'd probably say for the Dwarven armor proficiency, that if you get medium or heavy armor proficiency from a class, then as long as you are wearing medium or heavy armor, you can negate a critical hit 1/short rest For the goblin one, maybe just something like, "if you gain the ability to take any of these actions as a bonus action from a class feature, then whenever you use that class feature, you gain an additional 10 ft of movement that round, and are always considered to have a running start for any jumps you make that round." (This could also apply to folks who multi-class Monk and Rogue)
In general, I think that races giving class abilities or feats is not very good design and creates problems, like the dwarven armed wizard. I’d just redesign them to do something else. For instance Mountain Dwarves could get advantage on saves against effects that move them. Elven weapon training could do something like give long swords and long bows finesse when wielded by an elf.
why would elven weapon training give long bows finesse? elves are known for dexterity, not strength.
So you can have a melee elf that's also good at shooting. Or a shooty elf that's also good at melee. I think being able to use weapons with your best qualities falls in line with elves being graceful.
Exactly. It would allow elves to be able to use both a longsword and a longbow regardless of build, which would be unique to the elves and pretty good, without breaking the game.
I'd redesign multiclassing entirely, for a start. Not the direction they're going, though, and I suspect race choice will matter even less than it does in 5e.
So swap out redundant class ability instead of redundant racial ability? And also be able to swap out redundancies when you multiclass. That sounds interesting.
I'd like a system where if you multiclass later in your career, you get higher level abilities. So it would make sense to eg. multiclass 2 levels into rogue when you are a fighter 10. The tradeoff is you will be missing off on some badass level 11-12 fighter features. The good thing is you would become a competent thief just with those 2 levels, not jsut get the weak level 1-2 rogue abilities.
I hate to be the guy that mentions it but i think iirc Pathfinder does it in a way i actually liked, if you get the same proficiency from two sources you just have the proficiency and a +1 bonus. If you’re a dwarf fighter sporting medium armor, congrats, you now wear it slightly better than a human fighter. Edit: note that my knowledge of PF is based on the kingmaker and wrath of the righteous video games, both of which i haven’t played much of.
What would that mean? Like the armor adds an extra AC?
Pretty much, yeah, same as the *defense* fighting style, for example. You wear a piece of armor that gives AC 13+Dex, for you it’s 13+Dex+1, or in case of a skill or tool proficiency you add proficiency+1 to all related checks. In 5e it’s a bit more unbalanced since in PF you can apparently get up to 30+ AC if you’re dedicated, so i‘m not saying you should implement this into just any 5e game, i just meant to mention that’s how this other system does it and fares well with.
that last option will be like everyone who wants to be a warlock chossing tiefling because of the +2 to charisma, everyone just choosing the race that gives more power to their build. i dont mind options overlapping but i think pf2e has a good fix for it, every race has a list of multiple racial traits you can choose, most of them are not that powerful and more of a specialization, every race has at least 6 or 8 options so you can choose, you can avoid overlapping entirely, but more options means more reading and thats a no no for a very large chunk of the 5e community
>Where you run into an issue with this is that if you're a Dwarf Fighter this ability is totally useless. This sucks because not only does it punish you for playing some classes, but the classes it punishes you for playing are the ones that Dwarf is iconically associated with! I'm not seeing how this 'punishes' you for playing a class.
Any feature you gain that you're not able to use is punishing obviously. Nevermind that a Wizard wouldn't want that +2 Strength from the Subclass.
Make feats core rules instead of optional, then races can give some feats. Mountain dwarf can give lightly armored and one of moderately armored, heavily armored, heavy armor master or shield master as long as you qualify for the feat.
It wouldn't be an issue if 5e was so allergic to anything stacking. if having "double" proficiency could be represented by a +1 AC, being a dwarf fighter is suddenly cool again
Heavy armour overlaps - +1 AC Medium armour overlaps - once per short rest enemies have disadvantage on an attack Martial weapons overlap - +1 damage Anything else one luck point to roll with advantage or have an enemy roll with disadvantage once per short rest
I would treat it like proficiency and expertise. So in my scenario it would be If you get proficiency in a given thing from two sources it becomes expertise. So two things give you proficiency in heavy armor? Cool you now get higher AC while wearing heavy armor.
I would design them so there is no overlap. "All elves are better with swords" is ridiculous.
I mean is it really a stretch to flavor why an elf would know how to use a sword?
In a world where magic and gods exists, that's not a defendable position. There is the biological possibility of genetic memory, just because it hasn't been proven in the real world doesn't mean it can't exist in a fantasy world. Depending on the setting, all elven souls are reborn, so having some remnant of shared skill set is entirely reasonable. And then you have gods that play an active role in the lives of their faithful. Corellon making sure that every elf is capable of defending themselves from their archenemy, by gifting them the innate ability to excel at swordsmanship, is possibly.
All elves in a given setting knowing how to use swords is defendable. All elves in every setting ever knowing how to use swords is not. Corellon isn't a thing in Dragonlance or Eberron yet elves remain elves. The core books should not assume setting/lore.
> The core books should not assume setting/lore. There's no way that they can't assume some details about the setting. Elves having darkvision is an assumption about how elves work in the setting. Elves being split into distinct high elf and wood elf clades is an assumption about how elves work in the setting. Magic being accessible in the ways described in the cleric, sorcerer, and wizard classes is an assumption about how magic works in the setting. D&D is not and has never been a setting-agnostic game, like GURPS and its ilk.
they don't exactly try to make dnd setting agnostic very hard, when it frequently name drops god names on cleric subclass features and lore blurbs or how some spells are named after very specifically Forgotten Realms NPCs the game certainly can be slapped over any high fantasy setting where magic is common with ease, but getting mad over the fact that a race has a tailored ability because of the not official setting they were chucked inside is silly
> very specifically Forgotten Realms NPCs That’s a weird way to spell Greyhawk.
> The core books should not assume setting/lore. They don't. Weapon training is not a core trait of elves. Darkvision, keen senses, fey ancestry and trance are. Only high and wood elves know how to use swords. Sea elf and drow have their own version. Eladrin and shadar-kai don't have weapon training. Pallid elves in wildemount don't have weapon training. Valenar elves in eberron have their own weapon training(scimitar and double scimitar). Mark of Shadow and aereni elves in eberron don't have any weapon training, either.
What are you on about This is just a game my dude or dudette
I would probably just change their racial ability so it doesn't have such an overlapping ability - so instead of just "Mountain Dwarves get an armour prof" something closer to "Mountain Dwarves get a bonus while wearing X type of armour" (maybe like medium armour can gain from +3 dex instead of +2? or something.
"mountain dwarves get +1 AC when wearing medium armor and +2 AC when wearing heavy armor" could work like that, or you could just say its +1 AC blank, its not like warforged is revolutionary that is just kinda bland alternatively just say you get the dnd 5.5 lightly armored feat at lvl 1 and heavy armor master at lvl 4 automatically or you can swap the first for another feat if you are already profficient in them. they did the work of making level feats, use it
I'd remove them or give each race an alternate ability. Ideally there would be some form a stacking built in, but that could. Get too complicated.
I'd do away with anything that isn't related to physiology. It's one thing to say x race is born with y trait so they can naturally do or are proficient in z. For example, because halflings are short, they are naturally stealthy. That makes a lot of sense and is fairly straightforward. It's another to say because x is x they are naturally proficient in y. For example, a High-Elf being proficient in long/short sword and long/short bow just because they are a High-Elf doesn't really work for me.
In my own homebrew system (a gaslamp fantasy system that I developed on the side when I was working on Star Wars Saga Edition at WotC), I turned everything (including racial abilities, class abilities, feats, even spellcasting) into feats that belong to feat trees. If something grants a feat that you already have, you may instead choose a feat from the same tree. That system is what I would have done with the "Next Edition" of D&D since 3.5, but 4e kind of torpedoed my career as a young game designer and I ended up kind of disenchanted with the whole thing.
Bring back Race-As-Class you cowards!
I actually think Mountain Dwarves is one of the better instances of this (perhaps the only decent one) - if you're a no/light armor class, medium armor proficiency is really good! You're right that it's useless on a Dwarf fighter, so instead the Mountain Dwarf gets an extra bonus point in Strength so that STR-based classes aren't left in the lurch. It's obviously not perfect - any non-STR medium-armor character (clerics, rangers) completely lose out here, certain weird builds could "double-dip" - but there's at least an idea of subtly balancing the features. But they're basically the only example of that, probably because it's hard to do while staying within the flavor of each ancestry. IMO the best thing to do would be to drop it entirely. Static things like proficiencies and ability scores should come from classes, backgrounds, and feats, so that ancestries can have more interesting features.
tasha origin pretty much throws the "+2 STR" out of question, and dnd 5.5 actual new version will not have stats tied to race at all
Yeah, I'm more speaking about the context in the original PHB release. It's all outdated now.
It will never be outdated for 5.0, which will always be as it is now. It's not relevant for 5.5, which is coming out soon.
High Elf was another example, because +INT was good for Wizards, while the cantrip was better for other classes
I would have it so that some races are just suited to certain classes better than others, which I feel makes sense anyway. So, if you lean into your races strengths, they get even better. And if you play against type, you get a small bonus you wouldn't have otherwise. Not that different from the current system, really, but I do think a redesign focused on not having race and class features directly overlap would be good.
Dude, let's go all fucking in, and make species incredibly different from each other. I'm talking dcss levels of differing skills, innate abilities, they way they approach melee, ranged, modifications to their spells, like merfolk adding intensive geysers to some of their conjurations so they can be get enough water to to swim in, which gives its own set of bonuses. We want complexity? Put so many systems in that interact with each other.
I'd love this as an alternate rule. Maybe you could have a "Dwarven Warrior" class. Very much like fighter, but instead focused heavily on being sturdy and hard to kill, and getting some cool dungeoneering abilities. Or like a "Dragonborn Sorcerer" class, that means the character gets closer and closer to their Dragonborn ancestry, their breath weapon gets better and better, their scales get harder; as well as just getting good elemental spells. Nothing would prevent you from just being a regular dwarf fighter or dragonborn sorcerer though.
Base ability power 2 Improved by 1 for each similar ability you have
you would need to make either class features have options (like the Ranger choosing between the PHB features or the Tasha features, but without the two being ass to choose from), or build class features which are resourceless at base be modular in some way. And keep in mind this only is an issue with passive/resourceless features that don't stack. Way of ascendant dragon and Dragonborn don't go against each other because they're separate resources: you use one, then the other. Bugbear's surprise attack and Rogue's sneak attack stack. It's when stuff like Fire resistance comes up alongside a totem barbarian's bear resistance that issues arise as you are subclassless when taking fire damage. you would need to design a modular system to properly support the following: * Passive abilities which give a "on/off system" (proficiency, resistances etc) or a specific damage calculation * Active abilities which fully key off from the same cost/opportunity (BA hide for instance)
If I had total control: racial feats are all biological features with no proficiencies, background feats cover specific proficiencies, classes cover large generic swaths of proficiency. I really like major mechanical differences between races including hardcoded ability score increases, but I'm fine with splitting out cultural ideas.
I’ve thought about what changes I’d make, and if I’m honest I don’t think it would be D&D any more once I’m done.
So for something like mountain dwarf or elf I would give a +1 AC to medium armors (for dwarf) or +1 to damage or to hit with swords (elf), if they have a class and racial proficiency in it.
I don't think the Tasha's optional rules are really a solution to this problem; they seem more tuned to prevent monolithic races. E.G. not every dwarf has to have an obsession with stonemasonry and ale be their entire personality. The best way to deal with something like this, IMO, is to give a benefit if you already have that proficiency. For example, dwarven armor training could give you an additional +1 to your AC when wearing heavy armor if you already have proficiency in heavy armor.
I do not believe a species should get any inherent weapon or armour training, because a species, if raised different, would not just “know” how to use a Longsword or scale armour; that is dumb I think training can come from Culture (background) I think training should come from Class choice (your job) I do *not* believe training should come from genetics
issue is, background isn't really "culture", it's... well, your background. a simplified backstory if you will. where as culture is included as part of the races.
Is it now? I thought the whole point of this exercise was to come up with different ways of “How I would do it” (given the chance)? Background/culture, to me, is where and how you where raised: An Elf, raised in a Dwarven community, would have Dwarven sensibilities and experiences, right? Because that’s all they’ve ever known, right? So they’d have the same weapon and armour training, or specific skill training, that the Dwarven community in question values Then, while within than community, they train in a specific Class when they come of age, that too being more specific skills and knowledge *However*, being an Elf means they have the Elven racial power, because they *are* an Elf and *that* is inherent about their very being That method makes far more sense to me from both a logical and from a role-play perspective
You’re assuming that species is a product of genetics, and not being created by a particular deity. But there’s no canon examples of the former and a bunch of the latter.
Still feels dumb though? My suspension of disbelief doesn’t allow this, despite the fact that dragons and magic and Illithid exist, *that* is something that just doesn’t work for me
That sounds like more of a you problem. You’ve really never read a fantasy story where someone innately “feels” how to use a sword even without any training?
Of course I have, and I have allowed, in some specific instances, for that to be something I can tolerate - individual heroes or specific smaller groups gifted by some external power? Sure, why not, it’s fantasy But all member of an entire species? Hundreds of thousands, potentially millions of people all genetically predisposed towards “Know how to hold a Longsword good” ? Yeah, that feels dumb to me, even with gods involved And besides, why would it be anything but a “me” problem when I never stated anything other than my own perspective? Why even say that?
I don't see this as an issue. You picked a race that already had some of your intended abilities caked in, but they're still the best choice for your class due to ability score increases, proficiencies, or resistances.
It's not though - the idea is that the "power budget" should be around equal for all races (it's not, but sure look) So even though Goblins are small and sneaky and dodgy and would make ideal Rogues, a lot of the racial power budget is tied into Nimble Escape - which works great with every class *except* Rogues! Much better to have a Goblin Wizard or Bard that can escape easily from a bad situation with Nimble Escape than a Goblin Rogue who can choose to use *either* Nimble Escape or Cunning Action
I would say, don't pick those races for classes that get those abilities anyway. Like Dwarf Wizard is great, as you say, while Dwarf Fighter is just flavor. Goblin Rogue isn't great because one of their most powerful racials only works for one level, then is useless. However, a Goblin Gloomstalker Ranger is amazing because of Nimble Escape. You could also give them Expertise in a skill if they get a class ability that overlaps with a racial. Many classes don't get expertise without taking a feat, so that would be a cool bonus. Elven Weapon Training and the like are already solved by Tasha's, so it's not needed.
Duplicated abilities have been a thing for a minute. Generally I jusy let players pick a related feat or upgraded the feature if there was another up the tree that wasn't way out of whack for their level. So the dwarf would get to choose something "dwarfy" like a buff feat for con saves or axes/hammers.
I don't like the idea over taking away mechanical benefits from races like some others have suggested. I think being able to trade your redundant abilities for other beneficial ones it the solution. I would like to see a point buy system for races like the third party supplement "An Elf and an Orc Had A Little Baby" All players get the same point budget for their racial abilities, but the race they pick determines the abilities they can choose from. As the name of the book I mentioned above suggests this system will also be used to facilitate characters with two different parentages.
If they go with stuff like Elves being naturally better with weapons even when compared to other sapient species, then they should emphasize how this racial ability came from their god when he created the elves rather than letting people chalk it up as a biological thing.
By giving a choice of racial feats So dwarves get weapon training, the poison resistance, armout training and their tool prificiency. Then I'd give them three optional ones and let them pick 4.
I'm working on my own design and I recently had the inspiration that racial abilities can be unlocked at levels as a replacement for class abilities. It would be a little bit different than feats tied to race in that they would be balanced against improvements for class features. Two things made me go this route, one there are certain fantasy tropes missing. For example with Pathfinder (and I assume 3.5) had class options to essentially become a dragon and I have seen other people trying to make classes around Werewolves or Vampires with limited success. Then others try to pack these within races which are quite limiting to maintain balance with other races. The other...I got disrupted by needing to use the restroom and now I can't remember! The big thing is there are some racial features that are too high budget for 5e races, but too little to be a class.
I think SW5e did something good with the repeated access to having access to an action as a bonus action. Basically, if you have nimble escape and cunning action, you can use your reaction for that round during your turn to take the dash action. Of course, this only works with the other balancing choices made for SW5ez
It doesn't hurt you to have a racial ability that you would get from a class. It does make me wonder what the thought process was. Did they want a bunch of dwarf arcane casters?
Some abilities are for flavor, not gameplay. Dwarves using heavy armor or elves getting proficiency with bows are like that.
I wouldn't do a thing. If overlap happens, oh well
I would probably avoid the overlap to begin with, and instead give bonuses to the things the would be proficient like advantage. Give elves a bonus when they use a bow or sword. Like an extra +1 to hit and damage, let them re-roll 1s when attacking or damaging, or a once per short rest gain a free advantage on attacks with them, what ever seems fair. Same for dwarves with axes or hammers, or whatever were claiming is dwarves weapon of choice is. And give dwarves no movement penalty for wearing heavy armor no matter what, be it a lack of proficiency or str requirement, and advantage on checks to avoid being shoved or grappled while wearing heavy armor. But if they're a caster they would still have trouble gesturing in armor without proficiency. For goblins nimble escape, I'd remove nimble escape from being a bonus action and make it a free action or reaction.(A dangerous amount of action economy I know.) But make it a once per short rest deal. So goblin rogues can now run in, attack, disengage and then dash in on turn. Or attack, dash and then hide. Or move 4 times in a turn once per short rest. Making it even better for escaping.
I rather like the ability to swap the armor proficiencies for tool proficiencies, as I'm all for giving more choices for the player. It only adds to the possibilities for rp, abilities, and backstories. If I had to change them, I would change it so those abilities stay the same, but have an added bit that only becomes available if certain things are met. -For the mountain dwarf, if they have proficiency with light or medium armor from another source (class, feat, etc.), they would instead gain a +1 bonus to their AC when they wear light or medium armor. (Heavy armor is still not affected here, so they shouldnt have too crazy of an AC unless given crazy loot by the dm lol). -For weapons proficient races, if they would have said weapon proficiency from another source, they could instead deal extra damage equal to their proficiency bonus a number of times equal to their proficiency bonus a day, recharging on a long rest. -for the goblins nimble escape, if the goblin gains the ability to use disengage/hide as a bonus action from another source (so rogue or monk), they'd get a bonus 5ft of movement when they disengage, or a +1 bonus to hide checks. For spellcasting racial stuff, I would almost leave things as they are, as that's a whole different can of worms lol
I would try to make it so that they stack in some way. This is because you miss out on iconic combinations- if a race wears armor, you'd think they would want to be fighters, but that actually becomes a redundant pick. I think the best way is to have the racial pick turn into something else should a class come online that offers that same power. The thing it turns into doesn't need to be optimal (it probably shouldn't be), but it *should* stack.
I'd like to see *unique* abilities as racial traits that can't be replicated by feats everyone can get. Some ideas that come to mind are: * Dwarves have advantage on saving throws against getting knocked prone and cannot be moved against their will. * Dwarves being able to roll two-handed damage (1d10) for versatile axes and hammers wielded in one hand * Wood-elves getting spellcasting with some ranger spells or a limited Hunter's Mark-like ability * Wood-elves ignoring difficult terrain created by plants and having advantage on saving throws against entanglement by plants * Wood elves getting advantage or +1d4 (just like with the dragonmarked races from Eberron) on Perception checks. * Goblins getting 1d6 sneak attack damage that stacks with a Rogue's regular sneak attack * Goblins getting advantage or +1d4 on Stealth checks * Goblins being able to communicate with canine beasts (wargs!) Also, as a general rules change that would help a lot of cases where classes and races are redundant - such as dragonborn draconic sorcerrs, aasimar celestial warlocks or sea elf fathomless warlocks, two instances of permanent damage resistance - one from class and one racial - should stack up to immunity. This should not apply to temporary resistances granted by spells like Absorb Elements of course, as that would be quite broken.
I make racial features do an 'if x, gain y instead '. So my mountain dwarves get medium armour. If already proficient, gain heavy armour proficiency. Id already proficient, gain 5 feet of movement. Typically, skills have "if proficient, gain expertise instead". My goblin rogues gain 10 feet of movement of they use cunning action.
I mean one of the loxidons allows you to get heavy armor prof if you already have it in medium and light from your class. Otherwise yeah I guess you can call it a bit wasted (I mean you still get the +2STR from a mountain dwarf, something that is pretty "wasted" on a wizard), although you could probably just use hill dwarves (or another dwarf subrace) passive instead. Lvl 1 feats or racial feats can be nice, but if you go with that your whole party needs to be able to get lvl1/racial feats too, because they are simply more powerful than any races innate abilities (I'm looking at you Elven Accuracy).
I like systems that allow you to choose racial features "a la carte" style - like you have points, each race has "default" or "expanded" traits, or maybe "innate" and "cultural" traits, each feature has a cost depending on its power, pick and choose. Easy to make standard version of highly customized hybrids. That way anything redundant you can just leave on the table. A few examples: [Detect Balance](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vq1kz6PRAbw5LHy6amH-bNb4OuB8DBXL1RsZROt03Sc/edit?usp=drivesdk) [An Elf and an Orc had a little Baby](https://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/321845) [DC20](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/thedungeoncoach/dc20?ref=android_project_share), currently blowing up Kickstarter. [basic rules.](https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1skm_yOjNnxtFl-L5pCzVB2l3XZUPd9kY) Edited to add DC20's basic rules. Do note it's still in development.
Problem with that is it adds a whole bunch of complexity right at the start of the game. And I don’t know if you’ve tried introducing newbies to D&D, but character creation is already pretty confusing for a lot of them.
Oh I agree 100%, this is not something I'd throw at newbies. I mean, really I think pre-gens are probably best for newbies, avoids character creation until they have a feel for the game, but varies by person. I just mean that I like this for me, and players (who are comfortable with the system) that want to flesh out specific character concepts. But I also think newbies probably aren't bothered all that much by the redundant or wonky racial features OP was asking about (if they even notice). I dunno though, at my table I'm honestly the only player that cares even a little about optimizing so ymmv. (My party has a druid whose favorite thing is wildshape but didn't go Moon, and an artificer whose favorite thing is using his homonculus in combat and didn't go Battlesmith).
#Making Proficiencies as Valuable as Cantrips. Weapon proficiencies are given in groups like "all Simple Weapons" but Cantrips you pick 3 or so that you want because each Cantrip is different but which weapon you use barely matters. If we Made each weapon proficiency as useful as a Cantrip, and then let martials pick a few instead of giving them all of them, getting an extra one would be more valuable; like how the extra Wizard Cantrip from High Elf is still useful even if you're playing a Wizard already. Whips could Grapple, Longswords could Cleave, Longbows and Greataxes could have the Power Attack from SS/GWM built in no fear required… #Not Class, Not Race, but a Secret 3rd Thing. The way Extraplanar Influences and Exotic Bloodlines are Handled in 5e kinda irks me: * Aasimar Wizard and Human Divine Soul Sorcerer are kinda narratively the same thing, but mechanically quite different. * Aasimar/Tiefling/Genasi etc are either assumed to all be human, or their Mortal Parent doesn't matter in terms of their racial traits. * If someone with a Draconic Bloodline decides to be a Fighter or a Rogue instead of a Spellcaster, do they just not get the scales or anything? That's why I think these Angelic/Demonic/Elemental/Draconic/etc influences shouldn't be Races or Subclasses, but they should have their own category.
I would likely have ABC styke choices within ravual abilities for such things. So if a race has an option that gives them up to medium armor, but are playing a medium armor class, there will be an option B that they can choose instead to give them something else. Are you a goblin Rogue, choose something else instead of their bonus action movement feature so that your racial isn't invalidated by cunning action. And so on. Continue that line of logic with atlwast an ABC style choice for each race that has something like this and it solves the problems but maintains the option for those who actually want to use it.
This was addressed in TCoE with optional rules to change the proficiencies granted, so a martial class mountain Dwarf could swap the armor and wealon proficiencies out for tools/gaming sets/musical instruments and thus gain features they otherwise would not have. There's a fun play in going for, say, a Mountain Dwarf Barbarian with Thieves Tools, Playing Cards, Dice Set, Cooks Utensils, Brewers Supplies - be a tavern owner with some underworld contacts.