[ineptech]

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

[WorldMaker]

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

[ineptech]

The problem is that some racial bonuses are things that can be plausibly explained away by background (stat bonuses, mental abilities, humans getting a feat) but a lot aren't (aarakocra flight, dragonborn breath weapons, halflings being able to hide more easily), and they're all balanced against each other. Does an aarakocra raised by humans get human bonuses, and still get to fly? Does a human raised by aarakocra lose their human bonuses but grow wings?

[WesternWind]

That's almost exactly the split they made actually, with things like feats and flight still species based, but statu bonuses and backgrounds (with maybe some small exceptions) not being species based.

They did some work to balance it, but really species have never been the biggest balance issue, it's always been class stuff, or magical vs. martial issues, or the fact that ranger is thematically cool if you like LOTR, but sucks mechanically compared to other classes.

[ineptech]

Have the details been published anywhere? I looked briefly and only see stuff describing it in general and saying it is yet to be released.

[WorldMaker]

These changes were a part of the 2024 edition of the Player's Handbook (PHB) and Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG), both now published, with more of it to come in other updated books. (Or "5.2E" if you prefer the simple decimal point of the 2024 updated Systems Reference Document [SRD] over "5E (2024)".)

[xyzzy_plugh]

You're conflating physical properties with other abilities/characteristics. Does a dwarf have a physical limitation preventing them from wielding magic? This is the argument.

I don't see anything innately wrong with a human who can breathe fire, or has wings, or a dwarf with four arms, so long as you're willing to RP it. It does seem silly to say that no, it's actually against the rules, your dwarf can't learn magic.

[ineptech]

Not sure how familiar you are with the rules of D&D, but "lesser wizard" in this context means suboptimal stat bonuses, not limitations on magic.

[zzo38computer]

There are different versions of D&D. At least in some versions, you have some control over assigning some of the stats, and so you could assign some of them as you wish if you want better bonuses for magic.

It shouldn't limit you from using magic, and it doesn't, and that is good.

But, sometimes you will want to do things other than just casting spells (especially if you have run out of spells or if there is anti-magic preventing casting spells), so you can decide if you want to be good at one thing, or good at other things too but perhaps not as much.

[Jensson]

> It shouldn't limit you from using magic, and it doesn't, and that is good.

But it does limit how good you can be at magic since you can't get as high magic stat, hence lesser wizard.

[dotancohen]

Then why have races at all?

[WorldMaker]

That's actually a really good question. It's certainly one of the key debated questions at the heart of what WotC is doing here (and as others point out, somewhat lagging the rest of the TTRPG industry, many of which got bored of "races" in the D&D mechanical sense a long time, in one way or another).

Are they archetypes for builds? Why are they archetypes for builds? Is it problematic if they are archetypes for builds? Are they just flavor for settings and character backgrounds and other storytelling needs? Should they be? Why have "races" at all and not just "backgrounds"?

It's an interesting ongoing debate.

[zzo38computer]

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

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

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

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

[Neonlicht]

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

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

[danudey]

The frustrating thing here is that the people in the article are complaining that Wizards isn't 'leaving it up to the DM', but that's one of the main things that WotC always drives home - and still is. If you want to fill your world with racist, ableist, sexist asshats and tell your players that their orc character is going to be inherently stupider than other races because they're inherently (genetically?) inferior, you still can.

What they're really saying, as always, is 'why does inclusivity have to be opt-out instead of opt-in?'

[bloqs]

Because it's a fantasy game and all humans are equal in it already? This feels a lot like simply corporate virtue signalling (all while exporting US culture wars)

Suggesting that grizzy bears as a category are bigger and stronger than humans isn't controversial, Neither is a hulking half orc, until now apparently?

[dartos]

This hit the nail on the head.

Racial stat bonuses were never a thing anyone cared about. It’s the easiest thing in the world to change if a DM’s setting called for really smart orcs, or strong lumbering elves.

Spending so much time thinking about the political implications of racial bonuses in a game where the DM gets final say anyway is just some sort of advertising.

We’re talking about it on the front page of HN after all.

[Jensson]

> If you want to fill your world with racist, ableist, sexist asshats and tell your players that their orc character is going to be inherently stupider than other races because they're inherently (genetically?) inferior, you still can.

Maybe people are angry over all this judgmental crap? Orcs are so dumb that they weren't a PC class before, you just fought them as monsters, its like saying its racism to call bears dumber than humans.

If you judge people like this, expect them to judge you back and call you names as well.

> What they're really saying, as always, is 'why does inclusivity have to be opt-out instead of opt-in?'

The game is still not inclusive, the people who wanna play as a bugbear or a mindflayer still have to do opt-in etc. There will always be monsters that the players cannot play unless you change the entire game to the core.

There is no reason Orcs should be a player race, them doing that is just because they see Orcs as black people, so who is the racist here?

[harimau777]

I'm not sure what you're saying is accurate.

While technically, the player race is "half orcs", in practice I haven't seen virtually anyone differentiate between the two. It's just "the stats for players who want to be orc" and "the stats for orcs as enemies".

It's quite common for people to play as races like bugbears or mindflayers. It's more a limitation of being able to create player stats for every humanoid monster.

I've never seen a critic of how D&D handles race argue that orcs are meant to represent black people. I think you might be reading into things.

[EarthMephit]

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

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

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

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

[grraaaaahhh]

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