Talk:5e Race Design Guide

Kydo, can I add things right in, or should I note things on this talk page first? Marasmusine (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2016 (MDT)

Dive in! My machines keep breaking down at work, so I don't have any more time today. --Kydo (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2016 (MDT)

Here is the guide I was talking about earlier https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ViqLSEN67mmd2Lo_OJ-H5YX0fccsfI97kFaqx7V1Dmw/pub I don't think coping it is a good idea, but linking it might be.Berzul (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2016 (MDT)

Cool! That's one heck of an invention! --Kydo (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2016 (MDT)

OK, so, races are not exactly my forte. I can make them, but as you guys saw with my centaur, I need a lot of help. I can see balance and imbalance in a race, but I can't really explain it very well. Actually, looking back, I think my centaur might actually be rather OP. In any case, I can not write this guide by myself like what I did with the backgrounds guide. Races are too big and complex for that. So, if anyone could offer to help, it would be very much appreciated. --Kydo (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2016 (MDT)

Languages

Tell me if you agree with this. It is common to see race designers list a unique language for their race. I think that wherever possible, one should stick to the standard languages. Firstly, so that the race's culture is easier to drop into any campaign. Secondly, the more extra languages are introduced, the more the language proficiencies (and the linguist feat) become diluted. Thirdly, it's probably unnecessary: don't think of D&D racial languages like real world where every nation has their own language, they are broader in scope than that. Finally, if you absolutely must give them a unique language, you must give us information about it, especially what script it uses (PHB p. 123) and what other races are likely to speak it. Marasmusine (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2016 (MDT)

I agree absolutely. I think the trend comes from the DMG and MM listing any race that can talk as having their own language that is just their name. But a lot of users here don't even name the language, they just state the name of a single individual of the race! It's like they have no concept of cultural possessive adjectives. What is up with that? I don't speak human, or england, or anglophone, I speak english! The style of presenting new languages in the PHB included descriptions of what that language sounds like. These were NOT comprehensive, and really just described how to speak gibberish the right way for the language. That's all it takes. I don't think what you're asking is too much. Put it in! --Kydo (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2016 (MDT)

I'd just like to express slight annoyance at the Names section, being as some races (Mimic (5e_Race) and Tsukumogami (5e_Race) in particular, though I doubt they're the only ones) represent creatures who are more flukes of nature or magic than members of an established species. These are creatures who almost necessarily are neither born nor raised in the company of other sapient creatures, a concept which I think should at least be recognized as a conceivable component of a player race. As it stands, the section implies (and takes a great many words to do so) that a race lacking its own naming tradition and example names is always a result of lazy writing. Knowlessman (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2016 (MDT)

Dang good point. There needs to be an exception made for races who really can not have had a cultural background, like constructs. --Kydo (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2016 (MDT)

This is an awfully good point. Quick question, though. Is there any particular reason why it isn't included on the main page? SirSprinkles (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobody's had the patience to do it. --Kydo (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Uh, somebody has. I'm looking at it right now. You wrote it last September, Kydo. ...Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "main page." :/ Knowlessman (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to say the high elf uses common, evish and one language of your choice, so don't feel the need to follow the common and on Lang. of your choice as used by the page. That's just what I know of, there are probably races with more than 3 languages.

Welcome aboard!

Hi! I don't know if one person has written all the rest of this, or a bunch of people have contributed, but either way, I am new here! I am a huge fan of D&D and love AD&D and 5e! Personally, I think that this would have been a great thing to have had in the AD&D books!

Hello! Welcome to the wiki, and thank you for your contribution to the guide! You made it whole! You have inspired me to finish the section on history. (Which is good, because I'm the one who left it an inappropriate mess) --Kydo (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2016 (MDT)

Preload

Perhaps in the Preload section we should mention that it is usually a bad idea to remove swathes of preload? SirSprinkles (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2017 (MST)

Yeah. Modifying and adding to the fluff sections is cool, but just blanking them out is dumb. --Kydo (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2017 (MST)

Unaligned

Writing unaligned for a race does not mean the characters are unaligned, only that the race lacks a fundamental bent toward any polarity. A race with a tendency toward neutral is not a race which lacks polarity, as neutrality is a specific polarity in the D&D system. --Kydo (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Unaligned only has one meaning in any of the core books, and I figure copypasting what the PHB says for humans, "They don't tend towards any particular alignment," is more intuitive than using the term the books use to describe mindless beasts and simple constructs. Fewer words isn't better when you end up giving a word conflicting meanings; unaligned shouldn't mean both "can have any alignment" and "can't have an alignment at all". Knowlessman (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe it means an impossibility of alignment, only the absence thereof. In older editions, that's what neutral WAS. There was no such thing as unaligned. When neutral became a distinct polarity with its own character, the term unaligned appeared in the game to fill the gap. Going back farther, there wasn't even an ethics polarization. Most of the books, outside of some class mechanics are non-prescriptive in regard to alignment. An alignment is descriptive of their actual character in play. An alignment line for a race would show their natural tendency. An absence thereof would be unaligned. --Kydo (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, just because something was a trend in a core book doesn't make it good. Even the designers have abandoned some of their clunkier terminology in later products- terminology I previously supported on a basis of it being "cannon". Things, as it turns out, were not as cut-and-dried at the time of release as WotC would like it to appear. --Kydo (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Failing all that, then, are we suggesting that people put a single word in the Alignment field of their homebrew race (I haven't read every single 5e race page, but I'm pretty sure most to all of them put a complete sentence in), or that they put something like "Whatsits tend to be unaligned" or "Whatsits have an Unaligned alignment tendency"? Volo's Guide to Monsters, released just last November, only lists beasts as "unaligned," and puts "any alignment" for NPCs with listed classes, so it doesn't look like they're in a hurry to phase out that particular terminology distinction. The fact that it didn't exist in previous editions has nothing to do with homebrew content made for this one. Knowlessman (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I always took "unaligned" to mean "incapable of alignment" - that is to say, most beasts. In my opinion, no PC should be described as unaligned. Marasmusine (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Mara's right. Unaligned is a specific term that shouldn't be used for humanoid races. "Many creatures of low intelligence have no comprehension of law or chaos, good or evil. They don't make moral or ethical choices, but rather act on instinct. These creatures are unaligned, which means they don't have an alignment," page 7 of the Monster Manual. (In my experience, a typical player will ignore racial alignment suggestions, anyway.) - Guy (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Race Meters

I like the idea of the race meters. This, like on 3.5e Classes, would give players an informed balance score. If we finish a meter, with subraces, ability, and progression meter parameters, then how do users feel about using it policy wide on 5e Races? --Green Dragon (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I assume this is a meter designed to gauge a race's balance, like the meters I've seen posted on a few different races? I would be concerned about a race meter becoming ingrained in pre-established traits or scores, or being taken as an absolute measurement. Every race "meter" I've seen (for 5e, 3.5e, PF, or otherwise) is clearly not ideal for every combination of racial traits, let alone a race that is deliberately trying to exploit the limits of a given measurement system.

I'm not completely opposed to a meter system for 5e races, but I feel it's something that at best should be placed on a talk page as guidance—instead of the race page itself as if it was an absolute ruling. - Guy (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Granting Items/Gold as Traits

I noticed that the guide does not bring up granting equipment/items as traits, and as such, should a section on not allowing PC's to have traits that grant them gold/items be added to the guide? If not, is there a 1st party race that grants items/gold as traits?--Blobby383b (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2018 (MST)

I don't think they should get them as gold and equipment is something PC's get from their class and background. Receiving an additional source of such temporary resources shouldn't be allowed in a race, nor does it make sense imo. ConcealedLight (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2018 (MST)

Wiki Wide Meter Placement

Between comments on the wiki and discord chat discussions, I don't see a reason to ignore the placing of Musicus Meter as an issue. It is requested to be placed on the discussion page if you used this scale for your creation but I don't understand the request if any user (any user, I do NOT intend to single out with this) is going to be placing it on every page OR telling people to fix their work if they don't adhere to it's standard, which it's not. It IS however being used to enforce maintenance stubs. I have looked over the meter changes and its extensive and well done, very well done. I don't agree with the "crusade" approach of it being placed on everything, or everything NEEDING to adhere to it. It is a guideline. It couldn't be on the front page because it would seem like the wiki endorsed it, but I am of the opinion if it ends up on the majority of the pages the same message it sent. I don't see an issue directing people to the meter, but the current practice I don't see as healthy. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2018 (MST)

I've only used the meter as a way to communicate the standard for which I have balanced a race on. In terms of maintenance templates, I link it to exhibit the proper wording a trait should follow or as a suggestion for users to follow linked alongside the 5e race design guide. Now, this is now the third time I have to justify my use of the meter and I'd like to add that I'm still waiting for your reply to my most response to your various pings on discord. Finally, I will outline again that it is ultimately my goal to clean up the 5th edition homebrew race section to make the wiki a better place and improve that nasty reputation it has. The musicus meter, due to the robustness of its design and my workings with James Musicus leads it to be the tool I've chosen to balance the over 1000 homebrew race articles on the wiki. Once again, if you have any suggestions please let me know. -- ConcealedLight (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2018 (MST)

A page I had been working on got a needsbalance template because it didn't fit the standards of the meter you use. I do not recall links. You are justifying something because I believe there is an issue with your goal. I think it conflicts with the spirit of the wiki. I do not doubt your ability/desire to clean up 5e homebrew for the sake of the name the site has, it is my goal as well. We are on the same side! :) By the way, ask me something and I will reply, otherwise you may weight awhile. I do not see progress in talking with you because you don't seem willing to acknowledge my position of views, hence, this isn't on your talk page but that of the issue on hand. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2018 (MST)

{{needsbalance}} needs to be justified. Even if a page may be un-balanced, the template needs to state a workable reason for it to be on the page. This workability is nothing new, but it is the most important part of the improving, reviewing, and removing templates.

Can you please give a link to the race(s) we are discussing?

I noticed that ConcealedLight gives a reason for the Musicus meters on some talk pages (a breakdown of the score), while on others he does not. I have not checked, but do the breakdown pages have a needsbalance template based off the Musicus meter? The core problem is that balance is not a mathematical formula. ConcealedLight is trying his best to apply a balanced ruleset (Musicus) to the races. BigShotFancyMan likely encountered a hiccup with the Musicus scoring, and he feels powerless now.

Without examples, I consider it fair for any page with a Musicus-based {{needsbalance}} template to request a balanced breakdown of the scoring as a groundwork for the discussion, and without this information the removal of the template is warranted. Would this make your problem any different now? --Green Dragon (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2018 (MST)

I can think of one instance where an incident arose, at Talk:Aurochs (5e Race)#Thick Skinned. I don't know the full story, but from what I can make out it appears that ConcealedLight placed a needsbalance template on the page, citing the Thick Skinned trait, which at the time increased the size of the character's hit die by one. BSFM seemed to agree that that trait should probably be changed, but the disagreement arose when BSFM wanted the trait to give 2 HP/level and ConcealedLight wanted it to give 1 HP/level. ConcealedLight did not want the race to have a trait that was worth 3 points on the scale, and felt that it would make the race too powerful. I agree with him that the race as it was was probably too strong, but I don't feel a trait worth 3 points alone should be considered a balance problem as long as the race is designed keeping in mind that that trait is very powerful. After some discussion in the Discord server, we (I, CL, and BSFM) came to a consensus on the current version of the race, and I thought the issue resolved, until it was brought up in my RfA about three weeks later. I might be missing some parts from that story, have some parts wrong, or be showing bias, but that's my point of view on the incident.

I agree with you that a needsbalance template based solely on a race's Musicus score is an inappropriate use of the meter, and needs more detail than just the score. Keep in mind both the mountain dwarf and the yuan-ti pureblood both score an 8, yet the former fits in perfectly with the rest of the PHB and the latter is obnoxiously, game-warpingly broken. A high score on the meter doesn't necessarily mean something's overpowered, though it might be a good indication. As I edited into the template earlier today, the meter is a guideline, not a rule, and it's important to use your own judgment alongside it. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 23:40, 22 January 2018 (MST)

I think Geo does a good job explaining a specific example of this and chronologically as well.

While I'd like to concede that if the templates addition to a page were after it is complete it would be okay, I'd still see the template as a "stamp of approval". I don't see an issue with linking the meter when discussing issues of races deemed unbalanced. That is not this so. The meter will be on EVERY race, and CL is going to fix this wiki and give it a reputable name by using the meter as his standard. These are his words folks. Essentially, if you don't create content using this meter, you better learn to. There seemed/seems to be some dismissal that no one is else is speaking up about this and I don't feel that is fair. Just because the majority don't see an issue doesn't mean there isn't one here. It seems because of the good that CL is doing that we can ignore the bad that is/could be caused. Umbra was the first to mention (Geo's RfA) an issue with the meter, and via discord chat, some users may not have the issue I am having with this but they acknowledge and understand and see my point. (They also explain my issue much better than I am able to).

I've stated before and here it is again. I do not have an issue with CL, or the meter, rather that it appearing on every race is my issue and/or it being used to validate needsbalance template. I will look for examples (frustrating I must do this to be taken seriously, or at least that's how it feels) and try to post soon. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2018 (MST)

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Crystallite_(5e_Race) What is the wiki standard? I think semantics are being used here. I look a the race and see nothing inherently wrong with it, yet it has a needsbalance template without explaining what is wrong, just refer to design guide and guess what else, the Musicus Meter "for word structure and phrasing". Give me a break, can we all admit those words are place holders for the true intent of directing traffic to the meter and getting people to use it AND to keep CL clear of imposing a standard. I mean, it's 8:22 my time and this edit was 7:39 my time. This is after many talks and discussions about the appropriateness of the meter. I'll continue searching but I found this within 5 minutes of posting I'll look for examples. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2018 (MST)

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Talk:5e_Race_Design_Guide The conversation with Triple A. “Follow this meter” basically. AAA even gives some push back on this.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Brute_(5e_Race) This page had needsbalance originally simply because Musicus score. It now has needsbalance only because of lore and wording?

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Coldskin_(5e_Race) The talk page. Again, edits without discussing (ruffles a lot of users not familiar with active contributors) Needsbalance template no added because CL made edits as saw fit, including changing the names of traits. The user clearly had an issue and the talk page reflects a disregard because of standard he uses, the musicus meter.

Having done this, it feels like a witch hunt. This is not fun, but examples are asked for. I believe that was my first 50 results, and 4 examples that I researched. I found 2? that were fair (meter still there but I'm not arguing for a ban of the meter). I hope this helps with what I have been trying to say.

@CL, I am sorry that this is what is. I've spoken with you, you are nice. You do good work and I like you. I am not trying to drag you through the mud. My issue is the "mission" if you will and the demeanor/attitude behind accomplishing it. I hope we're able to work on things at some point. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2018 (MST)

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Cyk%27n_(5e_Race) darn near perfect example of what I was use to seeing on this wiki. A thorough explanation of things that would be considered unbalanced. Gives the user ample feedback and also will help them in future with their creations as well as helping others in the future (possibly taking the load of others). I am sure CL used the meter while assessing the creation but there is no hint!! Very tasteful vs a robotic meter system. Would it be agreed there is a difference in flavor, spirit, and method of using the template over & over and this is wonderful example here? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2018 (MST)

If you could put down your pitchfork and torch for a few moments and read the compromise I've proposed and agreed to on the discord. You will find that since posting it I've only made edits to that abide by that. Also, I would like to add that I feel that you have violated the behavioural policy on the wiki through your regular and incessant comments that are "dragging me through the mud". I am certain that if you had discussed this issue with me on the discord instead of ranting about it in a largely aggressive and rude way we could have come to the same conclusion without the stress and conflict. --ConcealedLight (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2018 (MST)

The Discord server is wholly unofficial and run for the benefit of those editors who wish to use it. It should not be treated as an official channel, and no one should be held at fault for not routinely checking it. If you wish to suggest compromises to wiki matters, you should post them to the wiki where pre-existing discussions are already taking place.--GamerAim (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2018 (MST)

Copy-pasted from #help in Discord:

"ConcealedLight - Today at 7:20 AM

T^T

I was just writing up my response to this.

So to summerize things with the meter.

1. It shouldn't be used in a maintence template to justify change.

2. It should't be put on talk pages for which I have done a small contribution on, such as just adding SRD's or fixing an image link.

3. If it is to be added on the talk page it should be for pages I have made a ligitamate contribution in terms of balancing."

I feel this should be an acceptable compromise, but I'm not the one that has the issue. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 15:42, 23 January 2018 (MST)

I saw this as soon as I was off work, and subsequently Geo’s post here. I’ve been mulling it over for anything that could be missed but I really don’t have any issues with what’s being said. I’m skeptical of a loophole somewhere but perhaps we’ll cross that bridge with more tact than we’ve used the last couple days. Cheers to better communication in the future. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2018 (MST)

I will respond in more depth later, but I want to point out now that anyone can discuss articles how they want. This is what talk pages are for, they are not regulated for certain metrics and meters. This is the case since they are open channels, e.g. ConcealedLight may learn something about robotic meter placements, and other people may learn something from the robotic meter placements. Thus #2 and #3 above are not the case. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2018 (MST)

I believe there is a difference in discussing articles and imposing metric by which to balance articles. I could see placing the meter on talk pages, and if the race has a score of 10, leave it be unless there is a obvious overpowered aspect. Dwarf and Yuan-Ti keep being mentioned. One clearly more powerful. Sometimes things happen and I don't think every page that doesn't fall within the "standards" of the meter needs to be "balanced". This is how I thought the meter to be all along. If people visited the site, the could see a race had a score and understand by this metric its power level. When these pages become stubbed and forced to adhere to the meter, I take an issue. I don't like the idea of creating a mold and making everything fit into it. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2018 (MST)

Luckily this discussion has seemed to reach a concensus. Being, that we cannot use the Musicus Meter to define balance. Rather, the Musicus Meter helps users navigate, choose, and compare various races. I propose the following:

1. Musicus Meters can be posted on all race's talk pages.
2. {{needsbalance}} can interpret the Musicus Meter, while giving useful advice on the unbalanced traits the Meter brought into focus.
3. If a user wants more information than a focused Musicus Meter's interpretations, then they may ask for this information. Without an un-metered explanation, they may remove {{needsbalance}} from the page in question.
4. If the situation escalates, then a warning will be issued to the Musicus reviewer for misuse of a Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles template.

Does this seem fair, and in concurrence with what we have been discussing? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2018 (MST)

I do believe that's fair. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 23:30, 24 January 2018 (MST)

1. Does a user have the option to remove the template from content they create? or as a talk space and it being a talking point, need not be taken down?

2. late man's terms?

BigShotFancyMan (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2018 (MST)

I think the template should, at least, have a variable added that changes the text to "This race was not written with the Musicus Meter in mind, but its rating is X" or something along those lines. That would at least clear up my issues with misleading viewers into thinking every race with the template was built with it in mind. I understand that this variable might not ever get used, but it'd give me some peace of mind if we enforced it in applicable pages.--GamerAim (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2018 (MST)

I don't fully grasp your questions. Every user has the right to remove maintenance templates from pages where the listed issue is no longer present. Thus, if the Musicus Meter's focus is dealt with, and a user requests a non-metered balance breakdown, he may remove the template at that point.

GamerAim, I totally agree with your suggestion. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2018 (MST)

My question is not about maintenance templates, it's about a user's desire to not have the Musicus template as part of the talk page on an article they've worked on. You mentioned talk pages aren't regulated by metrics or measures. So I guess I am asking to get confirmation that users have no choice about the meter being on everything if it is someone's wish to do that since a talk page is open to all things. It's a good question because that means Concealed Light can continue with his goal. In which case, I don't like hypotheticals but, more meters become available. Mara has one and someone really likes it and wants it to be on there. So now there's two meters. Someone comes up with THEIR own way of gauging power and wants to rate everything. Talk pages just become littered with meters displaying scores? I think this is very rare circumstance and highly unlikely but still find it worth bringing up for my issue with the Musicus Template becoming a wiki talk page staple on races.

Needsbalance can interpret the musicus meter, aka the meter can be used to justify why traits are more/less powerful than others. That is my understanding. I am asking if you could explain it another way or what do you mean by the needsbalance template "interpreting" the musicus meter. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2018 (MST)

"Regulating" talk pages hints strongly at censorship. Since D&D Wiki is run off policies and transparency, user rights and freedom, let's not censor talk pages. If you want to implement a policy for a meter, like having a seperate page with a race's rating and last scored date, that is something different. This would possibly be a lot more useful. Does anyone have a strong opinion about such a list page? --Green Dragon (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2018 (MST)

A list is already started. It doesn't have scores or last date scored but it does exist. I think it could be a useful tool (like how the creatures are listed by CR). I also think that all of this is moot point now that the ruling has come down talk pages aren't to be censored (barring malicious/vulgar things that violate the wiki). It is nice the air is cleared on the relationship between needsbalance/musicus template, but again, the rest is just moot in my opinion. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2018 (MST)

True, I forgot about Musicus Meter (5e Guideline)/List of Races by Musicus Score. Its nice to know that you do not feel offended with this compromise. If there are not anymore opinions on this matter, then I will update the necessary policy pages. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2018 (MST)

Having addition columns on that table like you suggested would be useful. Such who and when they were placed and if that additional argument is going to be added to the template that that too should be added to it. In regards to the policy, I have no qualms about its implementation, though it should be noted that I believe the scoring method of the meter shouldn't be changed and should be kept to the original that James Musicus recommends. ConcealedLight (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2018 (MST)

I implemented the changes that we discussed. Do we agree that these policies represent the points above? --Green Dragon (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2018 (MST)

I think it skirts/dances around the idea that it can't be used for needsbalance template. It states the meter can be used for focused needsbalanced, but needsbalance can be removed if a detailed breakdown isn't given. I see a point being made that someone simply breaks down how the meter makes it need balance rather than the points discussed above, if it should needsbalance than justify that template without using musicus meter. e.g. this meter cannot be used to enforce needsbalance template. (which I kind of thought that was going to be the direction) either way, I know where this issue/GD stands and wait to see the next guy bring it up being that this has become "hot topic" twice within 4 months. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2018 (MST)

Hmm, now I'm thinking we shouldn't let any meters be referenced in a needsbalance template, even if a detailed breakdown of where the race stands on that meter is provided. This is because not all pages can be expected to conform to any meter, and should be approached on the whole, not taken apart bit by bit. If you can't argue that a page is unbalanced with using arbitrary trait scores, you probably shouldn't be adding needsbalance templates to races in the first place. You can never assume that a page will conform to your balance meter, nor should you assume that other editors are interested in how it scores on that meter, or if it's balanced on that meter.--GamerAim (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2018 (MST)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Can you please give me an example for what wording will not lead to the confusion it now brings? --Green Dragon (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2018 (MST)

I first want to say that I think the meter has been used well by most users (a min/maxer in the ranks but, meh). I am not voicing any complaints or issues with it. I missed GD's questions and I am replying to it, sorry I didn't see it. The wording I think that would lessen confusion is "this meter cannot be used to enforce needsbalance template". Again, I've taken no issues with current use, I feel bad not answering a question. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2018 (MST)

Multiple Creature Types

I've tried having this discussion or pointing out an issue with this concept and things keep getting swept under the rug. I'm going to present links to precedent to help show what I am talking about with this, and maybe ask a few questions to help spur a conversation. Ultimately, I think the guideline should include that races are of one type, not multiple.

Precedent

• Dragonborn’s Draconic Ancestry
• Elf’s Fey Ancestry
• Half-Elf’s Fey Ancestry
• Tiefling’s Infernal Legacy or Hellish Resistance
• Aasimar’s Celestial Resistance
  

All these examples impart a quality of their ancestry or heritage but don't grant an additional creature type like the following.

Homebrew

• Embodied Mouther’s Aberrant Origin
• Earth Giant’s Giantkin
• Alraune’s Plant
• Chimeran’s Monstrosity
• Drakiin's Draconic Nature

I understand there are some featured articles here, but I did try to mention this concept before they passed. I am not attempting to rescind their nominations or alter them (though I think it correct), but get the guideline to show precedent and that precedent be followed based on reasons below.
In 3.5e, races had subtypes and so you could get some crossover. But it still was core content that no creature had two types. Half-Elfs were considered Elves, which were still humanoid. Half-Giants were considered giant and not effected by humanoid spells, similar with other races that were like humanoids, but were categorized as something else e.g aasimar and tiefling both outsiders.
I've seen in other areas exceptions to precedent allowed out of necessity (round counting) but are otherwise typically met with much opposition. As a very open minded person to creativity, what need is there to break multiple editions of precedent of only one creature type?

Insert meme "Multiple creatures types are wrong. Change my mind" ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2018 (MDT)

I forgot to mention, I think simply adding a creature type instead doing what WotC has done is boring. By tying an effect to the ancestry/heritage trait it help adds more flavor to the race. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2018 (MDT)

I recall us already speaking about duel creature types in the past over discord. However, I'll reiterate the conclusion of the conversation and expand upon it with my own opinion. Fundamentally, it comes down to how humanoid the race is to give it a different creature type. Every first party example you've given had their 'split' from their original creature type a very long time ago(or in the aasimars case, were not given enough divinity to make them celestials at birth). Whereas, in the case of every homebrew example you've given the 'split' never happens at any point in their history and or the races are still heavily base of their other creature type. The Alraune doesn't even have legs, for example, simply a bulb with roots that it uses to walk around, it roots itself into the ground and gains direct nourishment from the sun, its still very much a plant. However, races need the humanoid type to still be affected by a number of spells and not gain significant advantages over other races in the form of spell immunities since the game is designed that way. It is by giving them both of these creature types that we don't have to deal with players gaining these unforeseen benefits and we have races like this one still being affected by spells that within the context of the game would make sense for them to be affected by. Else we have the issue of asking, "Why isn't the Angel race affected by a paladin's Divine Sense" or "Why can't they be held by a magic circle but a Solar can?". No official 5e WotC content thus far has stepped into this territory and as it currently stands I think it is an eloquent and suitable compromise to simply giving the race a non-humanoid creature type. Consider your mind changed. --ConcealedLight (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2018 (MDT)

Far from changed :p

I know you said it was your opinion, but whenever a race “split” is completely speculation and doesn’t justify how many creature types a monster should have.

Now, 5th uses “tags” to include monsters for the purpose of effects; so Alarune are humanoid (alarune) which would follow all the other races that are humanoid (something). All the details above describe its plant life without legs, and the roots being necessary for life yet it still has one creature type as 1st party examples do. This would lend to my idea a trait should give some benefit for their “tag”. “while in sunlight, alarune gain extra hit points when resting” or “alarune are not affected by difficult terrain in forests”. Maybe those examples help my cause?? Maybe I'd have better luck if I started with the trait should build off the tag? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2018 (MDT)

Soooooo I gotta point out, even though WotC had multiple types in their UA for minotaur and centaur, the official print (Guild Masters Guide to Ravnica) followed precedent! :D Of course none of you all care and will continue to taint the wiki with atrocious abomination creature types!! /this is a humorous tone fyi, no hate or ill will meant by it :-) ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2018 (MST)

I'm not sure if I mentioned this before, but could we just slap a design disclaimer on all dual-type races and call it a day?--GamerAim (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2018 (MST)

I mean, I could do that - if I were the one creating things with multiple creature types. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2018 (MST)

But we could force others to do it if we come to consensus on it. I guess we can wait a few days, and if no one disagrees, we can start enforcing design disclaimers based on this consensus?--GamerAim (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2018 (MST)

Since it's not conventional, I agree that {{Design Disclaimer}} would be appropriate with a reason like "For balance issues, this race has two unique creature types. Spells, attacks, abilities, etc which effect either creature type affect this race." --Green Dragon (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2018 (MST)

I disagree that such a standard needs to be made or enforced. As I said before when this topic was brought up I believe dual creatures types to be an acceptable and a perfectly valid solution to the creature type issue. —ConcealedLight (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2018 (MST)

I agree that it is acceptable and have told BSFM as much. But he has compelling evidence that suggests it deviates from an intentional design philosophy in 5e, just like large sized races. Ergo, design disclaimer :) --GamerAim (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2018 (MST)

He didn't say anything different or mention any of his previous points. Just a pointed joke about how an eloquent solution is tainting the site at large. If you haven't already read the UA which he refers to I'd recommend doing so. —ConcealedLight (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2018 (MST)

The UA upholds high standards. Although it's a test-bed of sorts for WotC, I agree that a homebrew D&D site finds it to be a useful reference.

I'm indifferent to requiring a {{Design Disclaimer}} template for pages with multiple types. I can see how users would find the information that a page uses two types useful, but following UA standards also isn't a deviation. My concensus goes either way, since for me it becomes a question of what the {{Design Disclaimer}} template means for users. How this discussion stands, I don't see that we have reached concensus about requiring a notice for pages with multiple types. What do we think about using {{Design Note}}? --Green Dragon (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2018 (MST)

WotC is quite clear that UA is unofficial, illegal, playtest material. I agree that it has high standards that there's nothing wrong with basing content off of it, but I think BSFM is right that WotC has made a point of not wanting them as a thing in the system. Our personal opinions on whether we think it's fine isn't relevant here, because I'm not proposing we kick it off D&D Wiki, but the established precedent of D&D 5e's official rules is that races shouldn't have multiple creature types, and UA is for all intents and purposes homebrew.

It's no different than when they formally called subclasses subclasses and we changed the terminology on D&D Wiki, to remain consistent with the official rules. It's also no different than putting disclaimers on large-sized races, flying races or content that breaks bounded accuracy; there's no rule that says you can't do those things, but examination of the content reveals that WotC's designed the system in a particular way (though they do have an official flying races, but that's neither here nor there).

This is all to say that I'm fine with using the design note template. But as I said, basing content off of UA is still basing it off of unofficial, potentially-unbalanced playtest documents, and such content should be marked with a disclaimer so that users understand WotC has a track record of intentionally not endorsing multiple race types.--GamerAim (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2018 (MST)

GA, are you playing music? Because that’s what my ears hear. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2018 (MST)

I mean, yes, but that was after I replied. Why do you ask? I have no issues with multiple race types, as I've said, but I agree that they contradict established precedent for official 5e material, and as such demand disclaimers. That is to say, the content demands disclaimers, not I. All I did was cite facts and precedent from both D&D Wiki and WotC.--GamerAim (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2018 (MST)

To note, classes without subclasses only use the {{Design Note}}. I think think that this is wholly sufficient for pages with multiple types. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2018 (MST)

Based on Mara’s definition, I feel like Disclaimer is appropriate as this breaks rules and isn’t part of any sourcebook.

I do know this GA, and Im happy when people can compromise even if it is something they don’t agree with. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2018 (MST)

I've never understood the tangible difference between the two templates, but is this consensus that multiple creature type races need a design note?

Edit: Thanks, BSFM :) Most compromises ask nothing from either side, so why not do it when everyone wins?--GamerAim (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2018 (MST)

Not yet. We need to wait a little to see what other users say, before we reach concensus. Most importantly the users who have taken part in this discussion make their comments. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2018 (MST)

I don't feel strongly about it, but I see no reason to oppose it, versus several perfectly acceptable reasons to support it. Varkarrus (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2018 (MST)

It is clear now that {{Design Note}} is appropriate for 5e pages with multiple types. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2018 (MST)

Standard Number of Traits

Going through needsbalance templates and got 2 almost back to back referring to too many traits. I admit I skimmed vs thoroughly went through for a standard number of traits, but I didn't see anything here or here referring to this or this. Any help or source to understand the limit, not balance or power, to traits would be helpful. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2018 (MDT)

For these pages specifically, I don't believe those races have too many traits, they just too long/hard to understand, when they should be short and straightforward. As for the maximum amount of traits, I don't think their is a stated maximum, but the race template on the wiki can only hold 10 traits, and 1st party content has a maximum of 5 traits(Firbolg, Tortle, Lizardfolk, ect.) for races and 4 traits(drow, water genasi, ect.)for subraces.--Blobby383b (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2018 (MDT)

If it's me that's left the message "too many traits", I'm implying that some need to be removed for the race to be balanced, rather than the quantity itself being the issue. Also, for me, the theoretical limit is 9 traits - each worth 0.5 using my rating (in which 4.5 is balanced) (although could be 10 traits with nonstandard ability score improvements), although I imagine this would make for a poor design. Marasmusine (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2018 (MDT)

Hey Mara, I think it’s been multiple people and I try not to point unless I’m asked for examples, but I’m happy to understand what it means if I see that you’ve made the comment. Good eye on referencing those books Blobby, definitely tuck that in my pocket too! BigShotFancyMan (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2018 (MDT)

Proficiency Wikilink

In response to recent edits: why should we not link proficiency? Proficiency has a technical meaning, and that meaning could be quite esoteric for someone unfamiliar with D&D 5e. It's easily more of a technical meaning than advantage, Strength, or other common SRD wikilinks.
I ask this as the one who created Template:5a, Template:5e, etc., and seem to have unintentionally started this SRD-linking practice in the first place. - Guy (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2018 (MDT)

I mean, yeah. I thought it made sense as a technical term, so that's why I did it. Same with a lot of my edits to existing pages on this wiki. --ZarHakkar (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2018 (MDT)

Just so you know, SRD-linking was always standard practice. It's the reason we have Template:Wikify. I think you just made it easier to do so people had less excuse to be lazy about it XD --GamerAim (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2018 (MDT)

It's as I stated in the summary, things like conditions, spell lists, class pages you'll always be referencing throughout play, you'll get practical use out of. Whether you're just starting out or if you're a veteran player something as fundamental and simple as the proficiency bonus doesn't need to be referenced because realistically you know it. So while you're free to reference whatever you'd like I'd like to avoid referencing for none other than the point of referencing. Also, Zar, speaking of those edits you know you're meant to capitalize on skills, right? Revision. —ConcealedLight (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2018 (MDT)

Yet advantage is linked all the time. I doubt anyone would believe "roll two dice and use the highest result" needs to be referenced less than proficiency. Then again, I don't think that comparison even needs to be made.

Honestly, I am not sure I've never seen someone remove a valid wikilink for a technical term before, on this wiki or any other. I don't understand the purpose of such an edit. By providing that wikilink, no one is enforcing a rule or guideline that "proficiency" needs to be linked every time it comes up. Blue text doesn't "look bad." I don't find the arguments against this wikilink to be justifiable.

I'm going to add the wikilink back in; as you said yourself, "you're free to reference whatever you like." If there's ever a place to add redundant wikilinks, it seems the most-used guide on the wiki would be one of them. (At least, given the quantity of 5e races, I certainly hope it is the most used.) - Guy (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2018 (MDT)

I'm with Guy and ZarHakkar on this one. Not much else to say than that. Good reasoning and Zar's edit should not have been reverted o/ --GamerAim (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2018 (MDT)

Oi! A lot happened today. Um, this was weird. Someone got told to not reference stuff? I wouldn't say peeps gotta do it, but discouraging it doesn't sit right. Glad to see Zar's edit agreed on. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2018 (MDT)

Referencing

I think that the Referencing header isn't specific enough. What is being referenced? What kind of references? I changed it to Referencing Terminology and ConcealedLight changed it back, so I am starting a discussion here. I understand that he has a lot of references (:P) to that header, but I'm thinking about the future. I think it's more important that people link to a more descriptive header in the future than worry about a few broken links now. Progress shouldn't be held back just because of a few broken links to a header that could stand to be improved. After all, the point of linking to this page is to clearly convey the expectations of 5e race articles to users, and I think that my minor change furthers that goal :) --GamerAim (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2018 (MDT)

The term "references" doesn't mean much by itself. Users on the Wiki almost always use it to mean hyperlinks. As in, hyperlinking to the SRD. On some occasions, it can refer to citations. But traditionally, D&D Wiki has used the proper term "hyperlinks" when referring to the majority of "references." Otherwise, we can use the term citations, since that what they are. The 5e race design guide should conform to the standards that D&D Wiki and the rest of the web have been using. We should be educating users on articles like this, not giving them confusing or misleading terminology. It is, ultimately, to the detriment of our users. My updates to that section will help a lot, I'm sure, but I would also prefer that the heading was changed to reflect to propriety of the body.--GamerAim (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2018 (MDT)

I think there is a bigger issue than the header. I think I wanted to change this verbiage some time ago and wasn't heard or it wasn't thought a problem. "reference" is simply the term throughout the site. You'd have to reprogram the way it is used. I also think reference might be used because it relates to system reference document. I don't know if that is true but if so I find it a poor reason to keep using reference as a term. So, I think to answer your question: changing the header would look better, but only on this one instance. It would cause issues throughout many templates, and it wouldn't even scratch the surface of the issue. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2018 (MDT)

It'd be a start, at least. It's not the term used "throughout the site." As I said, it's inconsistent with what's used on other areas of the site, as well as the rest of the internet. It's liable only to cause confusion if we use confusing terminology. If there are templates that need changed, we can change them. I mean, heck, if it's all that big of an issue, I'm sure SgtLion could change all the links in like 30 seconds with his bot. There's really no insurmountable technical issue here. People are free to use whatever confusing terminology they want in private, as unfortunate as that may be; however, articles like this, and maintenance templates from administrators, should use the proper terminology. It's what we and everyone else always used. Is there any good reason this shouldn't be changed back?--GamerAim (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2018 (MDT)

At SgtLion's suggestion, I used this as a workaround that preserves the hyperlinks while changing the name. Since broken links was the only objection cited, I changed the heading name again :) --GamerAim (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2018 (MDT)

Clarity

I noticed GamerAim edited things for clarity for users, but was undone because users need to comply with maintenance templates? I don’t quite follow the undoing of a page when the terminology is changed to help users. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2018 (MDT)

I do not know what I saw. Thanks to CL for pointing it out to me, but their undo was only the header. Not that my approval is necessary, but I see no issues with recent edits. Very sorry for this. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2018 (MDT)

But where do you stand on the header change?--GamerAim (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2018 (MDT)

Flying + Large Races Edit

I can't log in at the moment due to problems on the D&D wiki: doing so makes the site inaccessible. As such, I can't implement an edit I want to add. For the "mitigating suggestions," I feel there can be a mention of the Labored Flight racial trait that began on EpicBoss's Stylvixi, which I feel is a great way to use the concept. Just a "You can use an action to gain a flight speed for one turn," racial trait is a really great way to give the sheer utility of unlimited flight without making them untargetable in combat. Varkarrus 142.55.0.18 19:04, 6 December 2018 (MST)

Okay there's actually a second thing too. Since now it's become common convention on D&Dwiki to use the Large Races variant rule, it also deserves a mention on this page. Varkarrus 142.55.0.18 19:06, 6 December 2018 (MST)

"As a community guideline, this page will forever be incomplete. Feel free to jump in and add your wisdom and insight to the community's standards!!" --Green Dragon (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2018 (MST)

Yeah, I know. I can't edit the page since I can't browse the site while logged in (due to the server problems) and the page is protected. Varkarrus 142.55.0.18 11:53, 7 December 2018 (MST)

This sentence is bad.

"So why is your race innately better at doing that thing that all other races that are known for being good at that thing?"

I am not sure who wrote it in the first place, possibly me, but it looks like an editing error or just poor grammar. As it is, it makes little sense. I have three solutions.

• "So why is your race innately better at doing that thing than all other races that are known for being good at that thing?" (This one compares the race to all other races)

• "So why is your race innately better at doing that thing that all other races are also good at?" (This one eliminates the redundant "that" referencing at the end of the sentence.)

• "So why is your race innately better at doing that thing than all other races?" (Maximally simplified to a pure comparison of relative capability.)

I am not sure why we would preserve a clumsy and inelegant sentence when it can be clearer and simpler. --Kydo (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2018 (MST)

I like your second option. If we want to make the comparisons plural, then in my opinion the first is better than the third choice. --Green Dragon (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2018 (MST)

Flying Height Cap

I've a question about flying height caps as it has been recently introduced to me. If you apply a flying height cap to a creature of say 20 feet and that creature tried to cross a chasm roughly 40 feet deep, would they fall to a minimum of 20 feet (because the maximum altitude relative to the ground would be 20 feet) or would they remain 20 feet over the chasm (because the altitude would be only relative to the takeoff position)? PunnyDM12 (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2019 (MST)

Can you link these height caps? ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2019 (MST)

5e_Race_Design_Guide#Flying_Races See under Mitigation Suggestions: "An altitude limit of 5 to 10 feet. This is the method used by the official Pixie race in 4th edition." I would like to know if the altitude is relative to the terrain or takeoff position. PunnyDM12 (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2019 (MST)

If you take 4e's rule literal, "You fall at the end of your turn if you are using your racial fly speed and are more than 1 square above the ground", then I would say you fall if the ground level changes. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2019 (MST)

Fair enough. I'm not familiar with 4e in the slightest, so thanks for the input. PunnyDM12 (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2019 (MST)

Same here. Just learned about 4e flying rules now. It also mentions when the creature is falling, it will fall to its fly speed safely if it can. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2019 (MST)

Huh. Neat. That's an interesting mechanic. PunnyDM12 (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2019 (MST)

Vision is Implied

The vision sub-category of race traits seems to me like it is unprecedented and unnecessary. I understand the need for darkvision and the like to be marked down as a trait but the way the text is worded makes it seem like you have to mark down at least one type of sight. This is not justifiable, as no race in the PHB has "normal sight" marked in its traits. Correct me if I am wrong but vision is implied. The page ironically mentions that things like arms and legs are implied, so why isn't sight? TeslaFistforge (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2020 (MDT)

In addition, having to say a race has normal vision uses up one of the race's trait slots, when it could be used for something more interesting. Arquebus (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2020 (MDT)

I've edited the guide to say that you don't need to specify a vision type if your race has nothing special. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 23:29, 16 September 2020 (MDT)