Races

For my first post, I'll talk about the races.

First of all, I really liked the descriptions of the race, they have all that D&D feeling I learned to love, and that 4E got watered down (but it's a great game, really! it's just more in line with MMO than P&P).

The descriptions are reminiscent of Tolkien, though I would like more variety in the description. Why not redheaded dwarves, and pale (ghostly so) mountain dwarves? Or tanned (even an outright wood-color skin) and redread or blonde wood elves? But all in all, the descriptions are great.

Then there comes the traits. Dwarves and elves are all great and fine for the most part, and even halflings. But before I talk about humans, let's talk about them, starting with the halflings.

Halflings

The halfling are a good race, and their traits are cool for their niche, but I still can not like their Lucky trait.

Maybe it's only a silly dislike from my part (I still must see how this will play in the playtest), but a reroll to any attack, check or saving (even when the original roll was made with advantage) seems to me much more powerful than the mainly situational dwarf and elf traits, and probably I would replace it with three advantages per day in any attack, check or save the halfling want.

However, this being probably only a dislike from me, I have to concede that while the dwarf subraces and the high elves grant really good traits, and the wood elves gain two situational ones, the halfling subraces gain each one only a situational trait each.

Still, the stout subrace is basically imune to fear, once it can take an action (the next turn?). Though he must sacrifice an action to this, why not just declare that a stout always have advantage in a save against fear (and any disadvantages aren't considered for them) and can reroll the save in the next turn (with an advantage) in case of failure?

Demihumans

Not dwarves, not elves... Demihumans in general. All of them have a +1 ASA (Ability Score Adjustment) according to its subrace, all great and good. But why not a -1 ASA too, like in the old editions (AD&D1E, AD&D2E and AD&D3E)? Halflings are as strong as an dwarf or elf, or as a non-ASA human? Come on! Don't fear "nerfing" so much, it's a P&P game after all, there is more than powergaming to it.

First of all, I would give all the non-human subraces a -1ASA. For hill dwarves, it would be a -1 Cha (they are grouches after all), and for mountain dwarves a -1 Dex (less prone to action, dislike long-range weapons, or simply "because in FR is so"). For both elf subraces, it would be a -1 Con (they are mor fragile than humans), and for both halfling subraces, it would be a -1 Str (come on!).

Now, I don't know if I would mantain the bonuses as they are, or if I would get them bigger. But if the humans remain with those big bonuses of them (as it is now),I would increase the ASA bonuses of the other races to +2. Hill dwarves would get +2 Con, while mountain dwarves +2 Wis, high elves +2 Int, wood elves and lightfoot halflings +2 Dex, and stout halflings +2 Cha. Otherwise, with the humans as they are now, the ASA from other races don't make any  sense (every dwarve is weaker than a human, and every elf is uglier)!

Humans

Ah... Humans... I love them! (really, I love!)

The race that dominates almost every single D&D campaign setting, since that old dusty edition from Gary Gygax, that started it all not only for D&D but for RPG itself.

And why they dominate? In the basic rulebooks from CD&D, because they were more numerous. In CD&D BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D 1E and 2E, because their level cap was greater. In 3E because they rubbed everyone noses with their bonus feat. And in 4E, well, I don't know, but surely there is some explanation.

Now, in the D&D5E, it's because they are better in every single thing. Your high elf is intelligent? My human is as intelligent as your high elf, and stronger, wiser, more charismatic (even prettier), more agile and (maybe as a nod to previous editions) more robust too! And if he really wants, he is even smarter than your high elf!

My complaint about humans isn't that they are bland. Humans are supposed to be bland! Neither that they are too generic, as they are also supposed to be this. Neither too powerful, as they get none of those goodies the other races have. My complaint is that they simply don't make sense as baseline if they are as they are now.

My solution? I don't have a solution... But I have an alternative, with many nods to 3E, and that allows the creation of human sub-races to those DMs who so desire, as you'll see below:

Human Traits

ASA: +1 to two or +2 to one. Reduced because of all those other nifty things.

ASA (optional): +1 to one. This trait is used if you add the negative ASA for demihumans (as shown above) without also rising their positive ASA.

Human WT: When you attack with any two weapons you chose at character creation with which you are proficient, the damage die for that weapon increases by one step: from d4 to d6, d6 to d8, d8 to d10, d10 to d12, and d12 to 2d6. This trait makes humans more in line with the other races, as they all have WT (Weapon Training).

Skilled: You are trained in two extra skills you chose at character creation. An obvious nod to 3E, and to "humans as jack-of-all-trades".

Jack-of-all-Trades: Once per day, when you make a check with a skill you don't have, you can add your skill die nevertheless. Exactly what it says in the tin.

Destiny: Once per day, when you make an attack roll, check, or saving throw, you can, after rolling, roll an extra 1d6 destiny die and add the number rolled to the result. Just to enforce the trope "humans are great/destined to greatness".

Adaptability (Optional): You gain an extra feat. This trait replace Destiny, and is only valid if feats become the norm in DDN. Besides, is an unabashed nod to 3E.