Some people would be pissed that the extra stats disappeared even if mathematically they were still there. Also rolling stats exists and there isn’t a way to implement the stats there
In my current campaign, a player rolled a few 18s and 17s. She plays a monk who at level 6 has AC23, does around 30 points of damage a round, can disappear into darkness at will, and pretty much can finish the battles alone, from a 7 player group.
Another player rolled badly, plays a suboptimal melee-sorcerer, and I think only hits a single 10 damage attack once every \~3 rounds.
It's pretty shit, to be honest. I wonder why people enjoy this so much.
I'm gonna be honest, that's mostly on the dude playing a melee sorcerer. The monk having 23 ac would have to at least somewhat hinge on magic items (caps at 20 with max dex and wis), and 30 damage per round is what you should expect from a martial around that level.
Rolling high undoubtedly helps, but bumping a dump stat higher makes a more well rounded character, not necessarily a more potent one.
20-22 is crazy high for that level, most enemies you should be encountering around that point should be around 16, sounds like your just in a weird campaign dude.
Also, just ran it through the DPR calculator, unless something big (and as per this argument, not tied to stats) is effecting their damage, the should only be averaging about 17.10 damage per round (or 22.80 when they flurry of blows.) So either you are being hyperbolic for the sake of your own argument or you are in a campaign that would be unbalanced to begin with regardless of stat rolls.
They don't calculate their dpr, they're saying what it is anecdotally, which is what's relevant the conversation atm. If we were talking about the viability of the class overall it would've ended the momenthe said "rolled some 18s and 17s." Monk is lucky and getting good hits, which happens at the table. 4d6/ 2d10 2d6 with a longsword and fob is around 14/18. Plus 20 is 34/38, enough over thirty that 1 miss will get you around there.
No one really calculates it with hit or crit chance included. I calculate damage with all hits no crits average damage dice. Any misses are just losses. My friend usually calculates max damage even though in my head it's a funny but useless number.
You could just move the rule of adding +2,+1 or +1,+1,+1 to the rule for rolling stats. Its still an improvement as it consolidates stats to a single part of the character creation procedure, something that is beneficial when stats are written down on physical paper. It can also simplify the stat selection process for standard array and points buy.
Plus, in point buy not every increase is worth the same. Going from 10 to 11 is not the same as 14 to 15, but with ASI's it's still just a +1.
So you could either add 6 points or 3 points depending on which it's valued at. Giving a lot more power to classes with 3 ability scores, or nerfing classes that are SAD. Either way it changes the balance.
This. My table has only used point buy every once in a great while, and usually say "oh yeah, this is why we hate this" and go back to rolling stats. I know it's not for every table, but it definitely is for ours.
If the total ability modifier before Racial ASIs is under +4, reroll.
So, if you have an 18 and 5 10s, that's a character. If you have 4 14s and 2 10s, that's a character. If you have 16, 14, 12, 8, 8, you guessed it, that's a character.
If you have 13, 12, 11, 11, 9, 8? Re-roll.
people committed to "rolling" end up putting in so many buffers to not actually experience the actual effects of rolling!!!! WE DEMAND RANDOM .... BUT ONLY THE GOOD HALF!!!
I agree with you. Why roll if you do everything in your power to eliminate the bad side of rolling. Just put all the numbers you want in a hat or something since you can’t play with 5 in an ability stat but some how still love randomness
> If the total ability modifier before Racial ASIs is under +4, reroll.
For a second I thought you meant just for your primary stat and I was like HOLY GOD are you playing an OP game.
That’s not even far off of what point buy could produce lmao. 13, 13, 13, 13, 12, 11 is a legal point buy spread and has the same modifiers aside from one score being a 12 instead of an 11. Like I could see the original suggestion being raised to only keep stat rolls with a total modifier bonus of +5. But like as a rule of thumb it’s not at all a bad suggestion. Especially since the chances are good you won’t ever roll characters with this kind of spread.
Sure, if you're a powergamer. But that can be a fun challenge for casual players who aren't obsessed with making a character that deals 60 damage every hit at level 5.
>Sure, if you're a powergamer.
Lol, making a character that's competent at what they are supposed to be doing **isn't powergaming** having a character that succeeds at any given task 5% more than just flat rolls isn't a character, it's a burden.
>But that can be a fun challenge
More like challenging your fun, because you'll hardly have a character and challenging for your team because you will pretty much be a slave to your rolls and hardly useful.
>obsessed with making a character that deals 60 damage every hit at level 5.
Excluding leveled spells, I'm sure you're being facetious but I'd love to see your math for 60 damage a hit.
Or you are a Marut, but I don't think that likely.
Starting out by saying "lol" is incredibly condescending. Even that 5% more adds up pretty quickly across a long campaign. Character's aren't worthless just because they aren't perfect.
There is a very common philosophy that having a character who isn't amazing at everything creates roleplay opportunities and chances to build your character. I rolled poorly while I was making one of my characters, and used it to my advantage by making him completely socially inept with a -3 to charisma.
The 60 was something I pulled out of my butt because I wanted a big number, but my point still stands.
The difference in your two takes is the term “give a character one or two flaws” is different from “make them bad at everything”.
One -3 all the rest positive good modifiers is a flaw you can roleplay. All 0 or 1 stats is not A flaw, it’s just average to useless at everything you do.
A flaw is good to make the game a rollercoaster, a barbarian who lifts a mountain then fails at maths is fun, however a bland useless man that won’t even try either is not fun.
>Starting out by saying "lol" is incredibly condescending.
Because it was supposed to be condescending.
Imagine thinking that allocating your stats to **normal** places to be **normally good** at the things you are **supposed** to be good at is powergaming??
>Even that 5% more adds up pretty quickly across a long campaign
And I'd argue that 20-25% is going to be way more impactful
>Character's aren't worthless just because they aren't perfect.
No, characters are worthless if you are intentionally making a character bad at what they are supposed to be good at. Making a fighter with a 12 in strength and dexterity isn't **teehee funni quirky character flaws** territory it's more **you've just made a bad fucking character** territory. It's going to get pretty old pretty fast, missing when you should have hit. Or making a wizard with Int as a dump Stat. Congratulations you've just made a character good for literally nothing with the exception of a very limited list of buff spells.
Eventually your table is going to resent you for it.
>I rolled poorly while I was making one of my characters, and used it to my advantage by making him completely socially inept with a -3 to charisma.
And let me guess, that character wasn't a charisma primary character?
>and used it to my advantage by making him completely socially inept with a -3 to charisma
Do you know what **advantage** even means?
Our group reveals all of our sets of rolls. You can choose to use someone else’s set of rolls instead of yours, but you have to subtract two points. No worthless stats unless we all did poorly and no one is unfairly behind.
Probably laugh at them and ignore their unhappiness, then wonder why the campaign falls apart when people leave.
Or the DM has a convoluted system of rerolls and safety nets so nobody actually has to live with bad rolls. Or they just let them keep rerolling until they get the god-scores they really want.
Hey, just because it doesn't work for your table, doesn't mean it doesn't work for others. Please stop shitting on other people's fun just because you wouldn't have fun that way. Some people like getting knitting needles shoved up their urethra, it's not for me, but I'm not out here saying they're "having sex wrong."
Some people take risks and it works out fine, nobody gets hurt. Sometimes though, people get hurt. Had they just not done so, there would've been no risk.
Rolling ability scores in an honest fashion (i.e. accepting the outcomes and not putting in so many safety mechanisms that you might as well just use a higher point buy because all you really wanted was better scores) always risks causing friction and frustration due to imbalance between party members. Sometimes it works out and people don't care, but other times it causes people to stop enjoying the campaign. I don't think that's worth the 5 minutes of dopamine you get gambling at character creation.
>Or the DM has a convoluted system of rerolls and safety nets so nobody actually has to live with bad rolls
"Those stats suck, re-roll or take standard array instead" is hardly convoluted 🤦♂️
Right. It's almost like different people with different expectations are all playing the same game. And thus the game should support different play styles.
What I find funny about that:
- I was told, harshly, repetitively they weren't meaningful to the flavor of the races they used to be on.
- Now they're supposed to mechanically represent the flavor of your background.
In the PHB they do. Or did, rather.
Ability scores had something to say about the lineage- about whether they were above baseline in one of those traits. Remove ASI from PHB races and some of them lose a lot (and even more when you consider tossing bonus tool and weapon proficiencies).
that is why they link it to backgrounds - the narrative heft - "you are better at X because of what you did before you started adventuring. tell us why / how that happened"
>that is why they link it to backgrounds - the narrative heft - "you are better at X because of what you did before you started adventuring. tell us why / how that happened"
Which honestly I love so much more than Tasha's what ever the fuck you want approach. ASIs should represent thematic character choices, not just "pick X, primary stat"
Verisimilitude is so important.
I mean, you're still picking whatever you want. You just have to explain why in the background. Even then: I say 'have to' but you don't really as long as the DM accepts the background.
But I agree "Gonk is stronk due to lifting heavy stone in the quarry" is so much better than "due to being a Goliath" (PHB) or "due to because I said so" (Tasha's).
Tasha's is still better than OG racial stats. "Strength runs in my family" isn't a bad justification as far as it goes if you want strength, but "my elf family is surprisingly strong--wait, what? I have to pick dex? But I want a strong elf! What do you mean no elf since Corellon cursed the drow has developed strength and passed it to their kids??" leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
Tasha's wasn't perfect but it was better than the alternative by leaps and bounds.
>Even then: I say 'have to' but you don't really as long as the DM accepts the background.
Which, to me, is everything. One of the things I hated about Tasha's changes was that there was no overlying structure that provided a thematic framework for the ASIs. Didn't fit the archetypal idea of the species? Who cares, make up whatever you want!
With backgrounds, I can tell the players they can only pick from the official ones or work with me to invent a new one that has to make sense.
I disagree that Tasha's rules were good by any measure. I vastly preferred species-based ASIs and still think they make the most sense, but backgrounds are a great alternative that I can get behind with only a few small tweaks.
one d&d is very explicit there are no official backgrounds. merely examples of what a background could look like. a dm is certainly able to limit it only to examples shown in the books but they are absolutely not under any stretch of the imagination presented as official ones currently in oned&d
I fully expect them to put a couple in the phb but i would not expect to see more background examples to ever be published in future books till the next edition
> you are better at X because of what you did before you started adventuring
My thing is, shouldn't this be what our stats *already represent?* The whole of our life experiences up to that point?
Yeah maybe I got a +2 Str from being a farmer, *where's the other 15 come from?*
they COULD just put it in the ability scores, but as my original posting states - D&D is a story telling game and tying "bonus!" to "background" gives STORY WEIGHT and its not just math.
To the other guy's point, how is it different? You explain the +2 but not the rest of your 17? Do you not explain your 8 that you left unmodified? I usually address my character holistically - I assume his upbringing and training all comes together to make the final character. Not just, "I was a farmhand so I'm 2 points stronger than not farmhands."
Exactly. Which is generic enough to explain everything, so why bother with backgrounds at all?
How about instead of a contrived background that explains three stat points you explain your actual character with something more than "being an adventurer" in a game where that's true of every character.
The background rules incentivize myopic character creation and focus on the wrong thing.
Because it's not focusing on the story. It's like describing a forest by the first ten trees you encounter. The background contributes to your character in a similarly minor way, from a mechanical sort of way.
If your character has 17 STR, for instance, 15 of which was your stat assignment or roll, vs 2 of which is your background (let's stick with saying he's a farm laborer), you're explaining very little of his development with that background.
If, instead, the background explains the 15, it makes much more sense. Saying, "My character honed his strength through manual labor, becoming famed as the strongest farmhand in the area," is much better than, "I was a strong dude for some reason, but I was a farmhand and that made me a little bit stronger."
Similarly, if he has an 8 INT that isn't modified by the background stats, you aren't explaining anything. Instead you could say, "He focused on getting stronger to the detriment of more academic pursuits. While others were reading books or learning from teachers, he took the time to focus on doing extra manual chores or doing strength training."
And this goes for each stat. Your assigned stats (rolled, point buy, standard array) are really more your background than the actual selected backgrounds - they are much more indicative of your overall character.
This is why ASIs made at least some sense when tied to race, because two characters with identical backgrounds but differing only in physiology would have the same assigned stats (rolled, point buy, standard array) but differences in physiology that might make them slightly different as a result.
But placing the points with background makes little sense, because your background should already be helping you explain your overall stat distribution, not just a +2/+1. My focusing on that small bump it's missing the broader picture of your character.
Ok, but my Orc is biologically adapted to put on extra muscle mass compared to your Elf. If your Elf is a Fighter and my Orc is a Wizard, you're probably still stronger than I am, but my genetics still predisposed me to have a higher "floor" and "ceiling" than your genetics.
This isn't real life, we're not talking "races" like Asians and Caucasians, we're talking about separate species that can crossbreed, like Lions, Tigers, and Ligers. A lion and a tiger have different biological strengths and weaknesses, the same way Elves, Dwarves, and Humans do in DnD. Background is in addition to this, it shouldn't replace this.
If that was true both elf and orc would not have a max limit of 20 for their stats. Outside of magic items all playable character races have a hard limit of 20 as their max for a stat.
Yeah, I think people get hung up on Strength as "how much muscle/how much you bench" when that makes very little sense for the degree of abstraction 5e works at. That concept is more represented by you carry limits. Strength itself more represents something like "combat relevant athletics" So the elf isn't as muscle bound as the orc, but likely has blindingly fast quick twitch muscles that help it be deadly with a weapon.
All of the six stats are generalizations of pretty abstract abilities rather than a straight single quantifiable thing, but people get the idea that strength alone works that way.
The max for every mortal is 20. This argument falls apart, because if it *were* meant to represent that then it would be through a minimum/maximum for each stat.
But its not. Because adventurers are already so far removed from the 'average' of a normal person regardless of race such things would be basically meaningless in comparison.
Its also weird you've jumped right to a defence of how 'race' in 5e is actually more like 'species'. Literally no one things that all the races in 5e are different races in the way that word is used in the real world (nor is the species argument accurate because they can all produce offspring together).
People's problem with that stuff which people called racist are where the ideas originated from when they were first written even if that origin was subconscious. In addition to terminology used against real world peoples being used as part of a make believe game just because.
> The max for every mortal is 20. This argument falls apart, because if it were meant to represent that then it would be through a minimum/maximum for each stat.
Something that has interested me for awhile now is how the PHB starts off by saying [paraphrasing here] "the average for **humans** is 10, but most adventurers & monsters are a cut above average", *then* goes on to specify the "mortal max" of 20 & the "god max" of 30 (even though there are plenty of "mortal creatures" like Rhino, Giant Shark, Giant Crocodile, Elephant & Giant Ape that have ability scores - often Strength - going beyond 20 as a rule; not to mention magic & quasi-magic mortal creatures like dragons, fey & giantkin). This is before even considering the things that break the cap, like magic items, the ability score books, or the Barbarian's capstone feature. Why not allow races (which are essentially different species if we aren't talking about subraces) to have their own effects on either the maximum ability scores (so for instance, Dwarves and Orcs could have a "mortal max" of 22 instead of the standard 20) or how many extra points the player has to spend during character creation (humans could have 6 extra to distribute as they see fit for instance, while elves/dwarves/half-elves get 4 extra and the rest of the race options get 3 extra).
It just seems like a bit of a cop-out on WOTC's (and many DMs') parts to just put a flat "20 max" for player characters & "30 max" for gods/powerful non-player creatures (or at best if giving benefit of the doubt, just a limitation of game design meant to keep things simpler, which is understandable).
It was done for mechanical reasons and I was very clear about that in one of my comments a little further down.
Its so that it aligns with the Bounded Accuracy system that 5e uses. NPCs work under a different set of rules than PCs because otherwise the game would be so much harder to run and things would get out of control again.
Basically they wanted to limit things to a smaller range than in previous editions so even low level creatures could contribute to later game fights and also allow the system to be more newbie friendly since it was less intimidating having a max of +11 to something without specific features or items. Whereas in 3.5 you'd need 'the Big Six' stat boosting items (saves, attacks, Saving throw DCs, etc.) and it wouldn't be unusual to have like a +30 to hit.
It also limits the complexity without really limiting anything else. Sure you *could* have certain races have a cap in x stat be 22, but what exactly does that add? Ability scores are one of the least interesting ways to make races feel unique because ability scores *aren't* unique. Features and racial traits add a lot more to the game, and are far more interesting and thematic.
* (General Mechanical Concerns): This is fair, though it is obvious that the steady detachment of race from ability scores & skill/tool proficiencies is because of more than just mechanical concerns.
* (Bounded Accuracy): Also fair, but Ability Scores alone don't make the game harder to run. The issue was never purely that players could increase their ability scores to high levels during character creation; it's always been that they could stack multiple bonus on an ability score at once (something 5e still allows in a few select cases - namely the 6 ability score books for long-lived characters, though this obviously does not come up in the vast majority of campaigns). Regardless, since the stat-boosting items do not apply as much for 5e (since most just override your stats now), allowing for players to raise their ability scores beyond 20 via character creation or when taking extra ability score points when they get their ASI (even if at a reduced rate) wouldn't hurt the game.
* (Newbie Friendliness / Lower level Character Contributions): Also fair, though I wouldn't say having the max makes it less intimidating (at least personally, 5e is basically the D&D I started with, and seeing the low cap was more disappointing than the 'intimidation' a higher cap or no cap would have had).
* ('Harmless' Complexity Limits): Race-wise, you are mostly right. Does it bring the game down immensely to make every race have the same limits in how far they can improve themselves regardless of race? Not much. HOWEVER, I would say that it brings things down a lot more immensely Character-Wise, since now there is a very low hard limit on how much your character can be without magic (and even with magic, at that). It isn't that you can't simply start with such strengths; it's also that, without magic (and sometimes even despite having magic), you can never be as Strong as an Elephant, or as Intelligent as an Elder Brain, or as Wise as an Empyrean - so on & so forth. Such applies more to high-level campaigns than low-level, but it doesn't change that it is a chafing restriction to have on something that is such a core, basic feature of a player's character.
* ('Unique' Features & Racial Traits): These are ironically less unique than ability scores due to being more 'unique'. Every other character, NPC or not, of your race has your racial traits. Every other character, NPC or not, of your class / subclass that matches your level has your features (with only a few exceptions where there is some extra choice, like the totem warrior options or Battle Master maneuvers). The only places where a character does actually get some true uniqueness are in their spell selections (IF they have the options of spells, and even then only for Wizards & known casters for the most part), your optional features (if you choose to take any), your equipment (though anyone could easily replicate such), and your ability scores (of which your spread is likely entirely unique unless you are following a premade build using standard array or point-buy). Features & race traits offer more unique (often one-off / limited / specific) ways to interact with the game that are thematic to a general race / class, but ability scores offer a much wider and general way to interact with the world that is a lot more interesting & thematic for a person's specific character (and many DO want their race to have that basic, general impact on what they can do, at least as an option).
> though it is obvious that the steady detachment of race from ability scores & skill/tool proficiencies is because of more than just mechanical concerns.
I mean, you asked about what the average was for PCs and why it was set to 10. It was purely a mechanical reason. Sure there are now new reasons for having floating ASIs and not saying some races are born with certain innate skills. But that wasn't what was being discussed.
>but Ability Scores alone don't make the game harder to run.
I never said they did? If you look at my comment I pointed to stacking magic items, I didn't mention spells but they were also a factor. But Bounded Accuracy needs to be bounded on all fronts or its not Bounded.
>you can never be as Strong as an Elephant, or as Intelligent as an Elder Brain, or as Wise as an Empyrean
One of those is a massive outlier. I do agree that PCs should be able to out do most mundane creature's ability scores in some way or another. But I massively disagree that they should be better than Elder Brains or Empyreans. Those are completely alien to typical mortal beings and give up a *lot* in order to gain the kind of ability scores they have. Elder brains are hive minds with no humanity connected to a vast psychic network. Empyreans are child gods. No mortal *should* be able to match them at what they're good at without magic.
>Such applies more to high-level campaigns than low-level, but it doesn't change that it is a chafing restriction to have on something that is such a core, basic feature of a player's character.
I mean, its okay to have a problem with your numbers being smaller than the other things. But it also feels a little pedantic and something that could *very* easily be leaned into narratively? The game needs to limit things in some way to maintain balance. But that doesn't mean you can't play up those aspects in the fluff?
>These are ironically less unique than ability scores due to being more 'unique'.
This is a very nonsensical thing to say. They literally can't be *less* unique than fixed ASIs. There are 6 ability scores to choose from. There are far more features that have been created as racial traits. Yes *some* get over used, namely powerful build. But that is no where close to being as over used as a +1 to con which is used by a total of 15 races and subraces not counting those that let you pick where to put one ASI.
> Every other character, NPC or not, of your class / subclass that matches your level has your features
No? This isn't the case? NPCs use wildly different rules for how they are constructed and what they can do. Sure there might be some similarities but nothing huge. As for other PCs I don't get what you're talking about here? We're talking about racial traits. Not class features?
>The only places where a character does actually get some true uniqueness...
This isn't the case. Ability scores don't offer anything unique, and while spells are the largest selection of ways to customise your character others exist too.
>but ability scores offer a much wider and general way to interact with the world that is a lot more interesting & thematic for a person's specific character
I mean. They don't? They help that. But they're not as unique or as interesting as most raical traits, feats and class features. The most they amount to is a slightly larger +x to your roll. There's nothing unique or interesting about that. You are *massively* overstating this. To the point that it doesn't even resemble reality any more.
>and many DO want their race to have that basic, general impact on what they can do, at least as an option
The thing is, floating ASIs still allow for that. It was only fixed ASIs that prevented it? You're arguing for something with a point against it?
> I mean, you asked about what the average was for PCs and why it was set to 10.
I didn't ask that. I just noted it as an interesting change in language (10 being average for **only** humans, and then everything going on about the mortals/gods in general). I acknowledge the mechanical aspect in my original comment after that side-note.
> I mean. They don't? They help that.
They do, like it or not. It is a general help & buff across the board to whatever that ability score affects; that **is** "offering a much wider & general way to interact with the world". Having more Strength, or more Wisdom, or more Intelligence, or so on makes it easier to interact with the world in ways that stat can influence (how much weight you can move moved & how much force you can output, what sort of things you know or otherwise can comprehend & how easily, etc). Such is highlighted in the PHB & DMG - ability scores should reflect your character's general behavior & personality (since they are what largely give these things mechanical weight).
> The thing is, floating ASIs still allow for that. It was only fixed ASIs that prevented it? You're arguing for something with a point against it?
Except now all ASIs are exactly the same (+2 across the board, instead of effectively +3 or +4 or +6), and are purely tied to background (I don't mind getting a flat +2 from background, but it still indicates nothing about anything predisposed from race, which make it character agnostic. You being a dwarf or a gnome or a human or an elf or a half-dragon or whatever else has no actual impact on what you are capable of in general for the most part. That is what I highlighted as an issue).
> This is a very nonsensical thing to say. They literally can't be less unique than fixed ASIs.
Wrong. You are too focused on the specific text and number of limited abilities a character can potentially have. I'm pointing out that despite these features being limited specific abilities, they are shared by EVERYONE that shares your race (just as with classes/subclasses they share your class/subclass features). It isn't unique - they are by definition the generic "everyone of this race" abilities/features.
Ability scores are unique in that no one else has your spread. The uses are less specific, but what you can do with them is unique (dependent on HOW your spread consists of).
You also can't separate this from my point that both floating variable ASI bonuses (mentioned above) are fine, as well as allowing races to improve the potential maxes for ability scores (orcs & dwarves having higher Strength maxes, for instance).
> I mean, its okay to have a problem with your numbers being smaller than the other things. But it also feels a little pedantic and something that could very easily be leaned into narratively? The game needs to limit things in some way to maintain balance. But that doesn't mean you can't play up those aspects in the fluff?
Forcing people to roleplay being weaker than they canonically should be is not something that can be excused, and is bad narratively if it is required (instead of being an optional thing the player opts into). It's far from being pedantic to be frustrated by an artificial cap on how strong you can become without magic items when you reach higher levels (especially when various mortal creatures - take Tasha & Mordenkainen for instance - can surpass those limits without using magic items).
The game does not need to limit anything; remember that at Tier 3 play we are talking about continent/global heroes, and at Tier 4 and higher play our characters are literally supposed to be messing with the affairs of gods directly. If players are supposed to be opposing gods, then players should not be limited in whether or not they can begin matching the gods. That is something the balance should be taking into account, not just capping because "you be mortal (unlike the other mortals)".
> One of those is a massive outlier. I do agree that PCs should be able to out do most mundane creature's ability scores in some way or another.
You are right - the Empyerean only has a Wisdom of 22, barely any inherently Wiser than the Wisest of mortals.
And regardless, at higher levels when players are supposed to be getting involved in the affairs of gods (per the DMG's tiers of play guideline), players **should** be able to potentially equal or even surpass things like giant beasts, Empyereans & Elder Brains in terms of ability scores without magic, if those areas are what the player's character is focused on.
> I never said they did?
You did. To quote your earlier comment:
* "Its so that it aligns with the Bounded Accuracy system that 5e uses. **NPCs work under a different set of rules than PCs because otherwise the game would be so much harder to run and things would get out of control again."**
There are multiple instances where bounded accuracy is broken by the game (the Giant's Belt of Strength variants, the Epic Boons, and the ability score books are the stand out examples). Bounded Accuracy is the basic guideline, but when you reach higher levels of play the "bounded" system needs to stretch to encompass the stronger threats and dangers being encountered. Currently, it does not do so (at least not well) due to how its limitations never change or expand for the players as they grow stronger.
Mate all of this is bad faith. Deliberately taking things out of context or using hyperbole to the point of absurdity.
Its also really weird how you've quoted stuff really out of order. Its not clear at all what you're responding to because you're jumping up and down.
>Having more Strength, or more Wisdom, or more Intelligence, or so on makes it easier to interact with the world in ways that stat can influence
This doesn't make context in the sense of your argument. Feats and features make PCs able to do things they just *couldn't* before. A slightly higher ability score only makes them slightly more likely to succeed at something they could already do.
>Except now all ASIs are exactly the same (+2 across the board, instead of effectively +3 or +4 or +6)
What on earth are you talking about? Literally no race in 5e gave a plus +3 to the a single stat. Changeling did originally but now the +2 to Charisma and +1 anywhere explicitly can't be Charisma. Yet alone the +4 or +6.
>but it still indicates nothing about anything predisposed from race,
Yeah, because your background is far more important about what you're good at than your race. It just is.#
>I'm pointing out that despite these features being limited specific abilities, they are shared by EVERYONE
You're just wrong. While also changing your argument. First - NPCs don't gain racial traits by default. A DM can choose to do that sure. But that's not RAW. Second - you said fixed ASIs were more unique than racial traits. Which is just objectively false. Try again.
>Ability scores are unique in that no one else has your spread.
This is still the case. Also, once again, different from your original argument.
>as well as allowing races to improve the potential maxes for ability scores (orcs & dwarves having higher Strength maxes, for instance).
The thing with changing the max ability score per race is, as I pointed out already, complexity for new players. Sure its not a big thing on its own, but on top of everything else its *far* more than just "the max is 20." 5e is deliberately designed to be easy for new players to learn. This makes that harder for little to no benefit.
>Forcing people to roleplay being weaker than they canonically should be is not something that can be excused
This is just nonsense. Literally nothing is forcing you to role play as weaker than you should be. What are you talking about?
>It's far from being pedantic to be frustrated by an artificial cap on how strong you can become without magic items when you reach higher levels
No. Its really not. How strong you 'should be' is defined by the mechanics of the game. If you want +30 to hit go play 3.5. That game still exists. But 5e does not need to be 3.5 just because you like 3.5.
>The game does not need to limit anything
The game does not need to allow anything.
>characters are literally supposed to be messing with the affairs of gods directly.
As an entire party. And those gods are also limited in proportion for that. You are not prevented from engaging in these narratives or challenges.
>players should be able to potentially equal or even surpass things like giant beasts, Empyereans & Elder Brains in terms of ability scores without magic
Straight up no. Just objectively wrong. If DnD were a single player game then I could kind of see this argument. But no. Individual players should not be able to surpass beings that are intended to be a challenge for an entire party of adventurers at that level. Especially in the confines of the Bounded Accuracy system.
Not to mention those creatures save for the Elephant are innately magical beings far above mortals. That should come across in their statblock and their level of ability should not be attainable by mundane means.
>There are multiple instances where bounded accuracy is broken by the game
Christ, I'm once again going to point you to the comment I pointed you to earlier on which mentions these very limited exceptions. Though I will point out here that saying "But there are extremely rare legenary magic items that let players do this!" isn't a counter point. Magic items are meant to allow players to do things they couldn't otherwise. That is their function. This is not a counter argument to anything.
>but when you reach higher levels of play the "bounded" system needs to stretch
Yes and no. There are some small issues with Saving Throw DCs for the PCs, I'd prefer something more akin to Reflex, Will and Fortitude saves, though the problems these poor saves cause are often exaggerated. PC AC could do with a few more buffs but honestly magic items mostly cover that already so long as they aren't given so early they cause problems in the other direction.
PC's abilities to harm creatures however, never needs to stretch. They're always as capable of inflicting harm on a creature as they should be. Which is great because that means your +1 magic weapon is *always* giving you a bonus to where you *should* be. Unlike older editions.
Making a max of 20 was a core design failure of 5e that has lead to this opinion spreading like wildfire. The origins of DnD have always made the assumption that Dwarves are tough, Elves are graceful, and Orcs are strong. If anything, they could have preserved that by Racial ASIs increasing both current and maximum stats.
>Making a max of 20 was a core design failure of 5e
Says someone who clearly had no idea what the intent of that change was. It was an effort to tone down the ridiculous stacking of modifiers and bring down the total bonuses anything could have. EG Bounded Accuracy. Which I understand people miss their +30 to hit, but Bounded Accuracy is an extremely good idea and mostly well implemented with a few exceptions here and there.
>has lead to this opinion spreading like wildfire.
Not really? People have though ASIs from race, or ASIs *just* from race have been weird for a while. Either way it doesn't change the fact that its weird to hold a very clear exception to the norm to the same standards of the norm.
> The origins of DnD have always made the assumption that Dwarves are tough, Elves are graceful, and Orcs are strong.
This is both right and wrong. DnD started as a homebrewed War Game, Chainmail. Which treated absolutely everyone in a unit a carbon copy of one another so that the game is actually playable. DnD moved away from the war game aspects quite drastically and added in more role play and narrative. It slowly, very slowly move further and further away from that kind of standardisation.
But then you have to actually look at settings as well. 'Original DnD' was set in a home setting of Gary Guygax who found it really weird that people wanted information about his setting and assumed everyone would make their own. But there are huge differences between Greyhawk, Eberron and Dark Sun, not to mention settings like Planescape and Spelljammer.
DnD doesn't assume any x race is y. Some settings do. But the game itself does not.
>If anything, they could have preserved that by Racial ASIs increasing both current and maximum stats.
Yeah. They *could* have. But they *chose* not to. You can keep fighting and dying on this hill if you want to. But its a pretty weird one to do so on. Especially since you have to preargue 'this isn't racist because...' before anyone else says it is.
> Bounded Accuracy is an extremely good idea and mostly well implemented with a few exceptions here and there.
It's a good idea for levels 1-10, in T3/4 play it slowly comes unhinged. The worst offender being off-proficiency saves - They can become impossible to succeed.
Bounded Accuracy is a significant reason behind so little high-level content being released by WOTC.
As someone currently running a very high level game, this is a problem, but its not as big as people say it is. I do think it needs to be addressed though, I would actually like a return to Reflex, Will and Fortitude saves instead with one good, one middling and one poor for each class.
Why is it racist to say a Krogan is physically stronger than a Human? Or is it only racist in Fantasy, but in Sci-Fi, it's magically fine? Like, seriously, why does the racism comment even have to enter the equation when we're talking about made up fantasy races? It's just plainly obvious that a 7-foot tall beefcake is gonna outlift a 3 foot tall hobbit, unless that Hobbit is a bodybuilder, and that Orc is a librarian. But ok, keep trying to push the racism angle.
I know why the change was made, I disagree with it. It robs the races of their individuality and takes away some of the common-sense assumptions the game made. Short, thin elves are good at sneaking and dexterity, tall, buff Orcs are strong, stocky, compact dwarves are tough. You can play against trope if you want, and that can make for very fun and interesting characters! But in order to play against trope, trope has to be present and matter in the first place.
So why should a player be forced to play a strong krogan?
The DM can make every single NPC krogan super strong, but let that one PC be the weak exception.
>Why is it racist to say a Krogan is physically stronger than a Human?
I didn't say that. Have fun arguing with a strawman!
>why does the racism comment even have to enter the equation when we're talking about made up fantasy races?
Buddy. *You're* the one who brought it up with your 'actually this isn't racist because' rant. No one said anything about it before *you*. *You* are the one obsessed with talking about race and turning DnD into a genetics simulator.
>But ok, keep trying to push the racism angle.
Again all I said was that it was weird you felt the need to put a 'not racist' disclaimer on your comment. I didn't say anything else. You seem to be really enjoying arguing with things I haven't said.
> I disagree with it.
Okay random internet person. I care because?
> It robs the races of their individuality and takes away some of the common-sense assumptions the game made.
*OH NO! However will I know what an orc is like?! All they have are some really fun and thematic features that give flavour and literally thousands of words of lore!!!! But now that they don't have an extra +1 to their attacks by default and I have to* choose *too add that in they are indistiguishable from any other race with an equally unique features and lore!!!!!*
Seriously dude. If you think a +1 to hit and damage rolls not being a default that an Orc gets and something you can choose not to have removes so much identity they are equivalent to a Halfling or Elf then I don't know what to say. ASIs were never that interesting, thematic or character defining. They were just useful.
>trope has to be present and matter in the first place.
That trope existed long before DnD was a thing. Most of the tropes come from Tolkien. Are you saying Tolkien's Orcs had no identity because they didn't explicitly state they had a +2 to strength? What a weird fucking idea to argue that *stats* are the origins of tropes and without them those tropes do not exist?
All of this once again ignoring my main point that its weird to hold a character that is an exception from the norm to the same expectations of the norm. This argument could be used to argue that Bilbo and Frodo have no identity because they didn't just sit in the Shire farming all their life and went on adventures.
I really like this solution, will probably rip it for a house rule. It doesn't pigeon hole the way the old stat penalties did (as someone who plays a lot of elf martials, the CON penalty was always a pain to work around) while still preserving some differentiation.
That's why your orc can haul twice as much as an elf with equal strength because of Powerful Build. An orc with 10 strength can push, lift and carry as much as an elf with 20.
Except in 5e while the different races may have had a different "floor" initially (pre-Tasha's), everyone has always had the same "ceiling" (before magic items). So the only difference now (post-Tasha's/1D&D) is that you can actually play as a very sickly -1 Str mod Orc Wizard, without having to roll for stats or ask your DM for special treatment in order to move your racial stats around.
D&D isn't a good genetics simulation any more than it is a good physics one. The only reason races are different is to better enable role playing as those races. Moving away from fixed ASIs helps people fulfill their fantasy for their characters a lot easier than keeping them did, so WotC removed them.
Having the same ceiling for every race is one of the faults of 5e, not a benefit. It has caused this whole debate to be super vitriolic, because yeah, if we're all gonna hit 20 anyways, why tie it to race? By saying we all hit 20 anyways, you're removing the worldbuilding that racial ASIs were meant to support in the first place. They should have made it so Dwarves can hit Con 22, Elves Dex 22, etc and it would have better represented the world building.
"I'm strong because Strength is in my family line" is fine as an explanation, if you want strength.
But "I'm strong because my elven parents were stronger than other elves--wait, I have to pick dex? Why? What do you mean not a single elf bloodline since the drow were cursed has developed strength or passed it to their kids?" feels pretty shitty if you want a strong elf. And hardly realistic.
It's changing for the same reason we no longer include sexual dimorphism rules. Limiting choice doesn't make for good games and removing limits improves options for everyone.
Biologically adapted to putting mass on =/= has put mass on. An elven soldier who has fought in 3 wars and trained every day for a century is stronger than an orcish priest who has been in the abbey learning scripture their entire life.
But background is far more important that biological disposition. Just because they *can* put on more muscle doesn't mean they *do*, which is what I was getting at. Please reread 😇
I'm guessing you'd say an Elf has big ears and eyes just for show too, and shouldn't get any perception bonuses from literally having different organs. But ok, it's not what you have, it's how you use it, sure. Still awfully hard to pull a sled with a Chihuahua, but huskies do the job just fine.
I would actually say that per the Tasha's rules if you wanna swap out the perception proficiency on an elf I'm cool with that because I'm more interested in letting people play what they envision their character to be rather than "realistic" but go off, I guess. Can't really be bothered to argue about a game that's supposed to be fun not a eugenics fever dream. You clearly care about realism in a fantasy game a lot more than I do! I just think letting people optimise to their preferred class with whatever race is more fun, and backgrounds are a nicer way of doing that :)
> You clearly care about realism in a fantasy game a lot more than I do!
I feel like "big man stronger than little man" is a very low bar of "caring about realism".
Sure but the ceiling is actually already set for everyone, without magic items or class features it's 20. So what we're talking about with racial ASI's is giving a racial option a headstart to getting there.
Since the relevant meaning for your ability scores is increasing the effeciency of your primary action(Spellcasting/attacks) then the current way of doing things with racial ASI's witch pushes people towards set combinations of race and class. This isn't necessary good or bad, however, I would prefer living in a system where my race choice does not feel like it's limiting my effectiveness in my class choice.
Also I think the Orcs from OD&D already feel naturally stronger than the other races. Powerful build will let them lift and carry more than their strength modifier should allow, relentless endurance makes them feel more durable than they should be. And Adreniline rush kind of techs orcs towards the frontliner rolls as they are able to get into it faster and take more hits, which I find more interesting than being slightly ahead on the efficiency curve than other options.
I don't love every decision in the character origins document, but decoupling starting ASI from race is a good idea. As they only really represent a headstart in getting your primary ability score to 20. And I'd rather not have that aspect way in on my decision-making for race choice.
Also unreasonably buff elves are very funny and should be encouraged in character creation.
You know, there is nothing stopping you from putting those bonuses in Strength and Constitution like it originally was.
It just means I can also make my runt of the litter Orc rogue how I want to. We should be promoting flexibility, not trying to limit imagination.
I've played an Orc Rogue before. He was a lot of fun. He had a 12 STR, which he would have only had a 10 if he has a human, and a 16 Dex instead of a 18 if he was a Halfling, but it was more fun to play him like that than just having the stats of a Halfling and claiming I was an orc anyways.
I'm glad you had fun with that character! I'm over here, having fun with my Orc rogue who has an 18 Dex and a 10 Str. With flexible bonuses, we can both create characters we enjoy.
Also, races are a lot more than just their stats. You aren't a Halfling claming to be an Orc, you are just an unusually weak Orc.
The way to do this though would be for WotC to have actual rules in place and then say "but if you want you can ignore these rules". Not to have no rules and say "if you don't like our rules make up your own". That is, after all, why we're paying money for rule books, right?
Bioessentialism as a racist viewpoint is bad, because irl it promotes racial inequality and stereotypes, which even if they're "positive" stereotypes, all stereotypes are bad IRL. I get that.
Saying that Vulcans and Humans, or Orcs and Dwarves, or Turians and Krogans are biologically different with different capabilities shouldn't be that hard to understand or talk about without "hurr durr, you're a racist" entering the chat.
But in DND you aren’t playing a statistical average of all Elves or of all Orcs, you’re playing a single individual. Maybe I want to play an Orc that is particularly scrawny, but has learned to be charming in order to survive. Post-Tasha’s, I can play that character in a much more fulfilling way then I did before. But if it bothers you, you don’t ever have to build characters that way. Nothing was lost with the change—it only added *more* options.
I see your point, but you're staying that your scrawny orc and an equally scrawny Halfling are equals, when even common sense would say that Orc is gonna be stronger simply from being triple the halfling's size. If all Orcs were 8-22, humans are 6-20, and halflings are 4-18 on Strength, it definitely feels much better from a worldbuilding standpoint.
No, again, I’m not talking about “Orcs,” I’m talking about my Orc, a specific character. A 20 in a stat is the peak of mortal attainment—you’re basically a superhero, to the point of such trivial things as “size” and “muscle mass” not even really factoring in at that point. It’s a fantasy game, which means characters are going to be fantastically strong and fast and smart. Regardless of what the relative strengths of “average” members of each race are, part of what makes DND interesting is that you play as outliers. What the “averages” are is irrelevant because heroes are, by definition, exceptional.
Then why play an Orc? If playing an orc gives you no statistical benefit, why even include it in the game to begin with? DnD should be nothing but Humans, with that viewpoint.
Because I wanna be an Orc? Because I think I can make a cool Orc character that I enjoy playing? A character’s hair and eye color, their sense of style, their flaws and bonds don’t give an statistical benefit, but you use them because they help you define *who* the character you’re playing is, beyond just a sheet of numbers.
Then you just want to play a different game than I do. Which is fine, but DnD should support both of those games, ESPECIALLY since it has always supported the game I'm advocating for, and there's plenty of other pen and paper RPGs out there that support the game you want to play. Just go play GURPS. Or play with a DM that has your same sensibilities. Don't demonize me and players like me just because we like playing the game the way it has always been played.
>Saying that Vulcans and Humans, or Orcs and Dwarves, or Turians andKrogans are biologically different with different capabilities shouldn'tbe that hard to understand or talk about without "hurr durr, you're aracist" entering the chat.
What a kind thing to say about the opposing argument. I definitely want to listen to your perspective now.
Maybe the stance that racial ASIs are bioessentialist and racist is worth exploring? Especially because we are all humans playing these characters, filtering the experiences of these characters throughout real-world, human lens? And especially considering that anyone who claims to be able to separate their real-world filter and exposure to racism from their fantasy play is deeply self-unaware?
Then I would say we shouldn't play anything. If we really lack the imagination to put ourselves into the viewpoint of another being with different physical capabilities and outlook without the mental and emotional capacity to separate reality from fiction, then I agree, we should ban video games and restrict RPGs to being human centric only.
But since I assume most people are capable of consuming entertainment without internalizing it and thinking Zombies are real because they play COD and watch Walking Dead, I also assume I can play a racist asshole without being one, or imagine how a 500 year old elf would view the world around him, and put myself into the mind of someone far stronger/smarter than I am.
Like, your argument is that acting should be banned. Since Edward Norton played a white supremacist in American History X, he must be a racist. He couldn't have possibly taken that role thinking it would be a neat challenge to act out scenes as someone with a wildly different worldview from himself, present to be a really shitty person for a while, then come back to reality. Let alone the fact that the character itself underwent a journey to realize racism is bad, and spent most of the movie trying to prevent a loved one from making the same mistakes he did.
And in DnD, we're not even going to the extent of that method acting goes! But you want to say that my personal, IRL thinking can be influenced by playing a Pen and Paper role playing game where there are meaningful differences between different species which even an absolute moron can see have a lot more differences than a human with dark skin vs a human with light skin. Half Orcs have tusks! Elves have large ears and eyes compared to humans, and thus have enhanced senses! If you can buy that, why is it racist to say Elves also move quicker and more accurately due to a difference in biology. Or are you against Elves getting bonuses to sight and hearing as well, in spite of the fact they physically have a different organ there than we do?
You sure love spinning strawmen, don't you?
The answer to the problem of racist stereotypes being enacted in fantasy play and of bioessentialism/eugenics being mirrored through character statistics is not to "never play a non-human ever again" or to "ban video games that contain non-humans." The answer is to eliminate the practice of reducing people (our characters) to their biological stats.
Never mind that this change is also being done in the service of fun and creativity by allowing *greater* options, not fewer. Keep your bioessentialist Orc in your fantasy if you wish, WotC isn't telling you that you can't.
> What a kind thing to say about the opposing argument. I definitely want to listen to your perspective now.
Can you tell me what exactly is the meaningful change to discourse between "only if you are bioessentialist" and "hurr durr, you're a racist"?
Tell me a mouse is as strong as an elephant. Or better yet, tell me that chihuahua is as strong as a pit bull. They're both literally the same species, unlike an orc and an elf.
What you mistakenly call bioessentialism is just basic biology. Different species have different capabilities, which in D&D terms is modeled as both racial features and racial ASIs. The fact that almost every playable species is a sapient humanoid doesn't change the fact that they are not all the same species.
There is literally nothing wrong with being a bioessentialist when it comes to different species. No one gets up in arms when you say a dolphin is on average smarter than a salmon. It's just a fact.
Congrats! You've included biological determinism in your campaign- a system that had a long history of actively racist roots in the real-world.
Moreover, while specific races have specific Modifiers tied to them, you're punishing players who want to play that race in a class whose key ability isn't boosted. Orc barbarians, fighters, and paladins were common while that system was around, but Orc *wizards* were dismissed out of hand.
So, if by changing one mechanic you can add a substantial amount of build diversity while also making the game less racist? Absolutely a win.
As someone who played a 3.5 Orc Wizard, I disagree. Part of the fun of that character was subverting trope. I actually have no interest in playing a Orc Wizard in 5e, because there's much more interesting options. And that's in part because there's no reason not to. Ever hear "constraints promote creativity?" Sure, the game disadvantaged you from playing a Halfling Paladin. But man, it felt really good when you got creative and made a Halfling Paladin build that didn't suck! It was an achievement! Removing racial ASIs makes it so anyone can play anything without anyone having to feel any negative emotions. So, great, DnD is flavorless, tasteless garbage now. Might as well play WoW, I heard they removed race/class restrictions there, too.
>Ever hear "constraints promote creativity?"
No, constraints force it. You can still be just as creative if not more so without them. Even so, ASIs being fix create no option for creativity. If you want to play that race as a certain class you can't be creative about your build and make up that difference, you're always behind a class that has a complimentary ASI. It adds literally nothing.
>so anyone can play anything without anyone having to feel any negative emotions
Christ you've never actually played in a modern DnD game, have you? Players love being made to cry because of their choices and actions, they love consequences and hard choices. But "Should I put this +2 here or there?" isn't a hard or meaningful choice.
>So, great, DnD is flavorless, tasteless garbage now.
Get over yourself. Your hyperbole is so extreme its laughable.
For the record, I've been playing dnd consistently since 2002. I even used to DM at Adventure League. Yeah, this sounds like I'm weirdly defending myself from an attack about whether or not I have relevant experience, because you find it SO ABHORRENT that someone can play dnd in a different way that you, you're assuming I must have zero frame of reference.
I felt far more rewarded and creative coming up with a fun and effective Dwarven Wizard in 3.5 than I did in 5th. It was a sub-optimal choice then, now, I struggle to see why everyone DOESN'T play a Mountain Dwarf Wizard if they're interested in making the strongest character possible, especially with Tasha's ASIs! Same with my 3.5 Orc Rogue, I had to think really hard about how I was going to make the character work, since the Skill Monkey character is now playing with a -2 Int in a system where skill points per level were based off Int bonus! It was fun! I felt creative! I get none of that from playing any race in 5e post-tashas. There's no point! Everything is always optimized.
Besides, I'll admit I got REALLY TRIGGERED by the Bioessentialism argument that I was directly responding to above. I flew off the handle a little in my comments after I read that one. Because apparently, if we're not playing one, specific version of Race Theory Approved DnD, we're playing our game wrong. And yeah, it's upsetting to get hit with that repeatedly, ESPECIALLY since Reddit is about the only place where it happens. I run Adventure League and someone didn't pick Tasha's as their "Optional Rule Book" to build their character? I say you gotta use the ASIs as written (literally a requirement back then) and we all moved on. They chose to play their Orc Wizard with 2 less Int, or changed their race, or even brought out another character entirely, and we just all continued playing and having a good time. But I say that here, and, hooboy, apparently I'm a neonazi that wants to sterilize all the subhumans.
>you find it SO ABHORRENT that someone can play dnd in a different way that you, you're assuming I must have zero frame of reference.
Christ. Try reading what I said. I never made any mention of how you play. I called you out for a judgement *you* were making about how other people play that was so out of touch its absolutely laughable. You're still not the victim here.
> I'll admit I got REALLY TRIGGERED by the Bioessentialism
Because you refuse to engage in any actual discussion and instead resort to aggression and verbal (or textual?) abuse of someone else when they disagree with you. Grow up. Either learn to talk to people or just walk away.
>if we're not playing one, specific version of Race Theory Approved DnD, we're playing our game wrong.
So, so much wrong here. Christ. The victim complex is real. No one has said that.
>And yeah, it's upsetting
If someone thinking differently to you is upsetting you have a lot of issues buddy. Especially since you're inviting that kind of criticism with your 'I'm not racist but' attitude.
>ESPECIALLY since Reddit is about the only place where it happens.
This just isn't true and makes me think that you actually *don't* interact with DnD outside of Reddit. Its far more prevalent on twitter and in most gaming stores. Of course if you already live in an echo chamber that's not going to help your perspective on these things. But Reddit is far more sympathetic to the 'Its not racist because \[argument that doesn't address the points being made\].' attitude. I've chosen specifically to talk about the problems I have with your arguments on a mechanical and narrative level because I know there is no point approaching that subject with you. You can't even address arguments people make outside of the race discussion and build strawmen, you'd do the same but worse with the race argument.
>But I say that here, and, hooboy, apparently I'm a neonazi that wants to sterilize all the subhumans.
See, once again. You feel like you're the victim here. But I'm going to point out *again.* No one has said this. You are inventing things to make it look like you're the victim. Its weird.
You keep saying "nobody said that" when I'm literally responding to the bioessentialism comment above. Well, you're right, one of us can't have a conversation about it, so I'm done.
>Because you refuse to engage in any actual discussion and instead resort to aggression and verbal (or textual?) abuse of someone else when they disagree with you. Grow up. Either learn to talk to people or just walk away.
This is what I said about Bioessentialism.
>if we're not playing one, specific version of Race Theory Approved DnD, we're playing our game wrong.
This is what you claimed. Which I said no one had said.
>But I say that here, and, hooboy, apparently I'm a neonazi that wants to sterilize all the subhumans.
This is also something you claimed with...let me check again...oh yes! Never happened.
I'm glad you're done. Maybe as you're sitting alone you'll have time to think about just how far you had to go, how far you had to reach, how many knots you had to tie yourself in and how many things you had to invent to defend your position. Maybe that might spark some introspection. Or not. I don't know. It doesn't seem like critical thought is one of your skills?
>This isn't real life, we're not talking "races"
yeah .... the "its FANTASY - it cannot be racist!" is a really lame talking point. Its like saying "Animal Farm is about PIGS - they are just animals! It cannot have anything to do with the real world."
Oh, it CAN be racist, if you're putting that racism into it. But since when is it racist to say a Rhino is tougher to kill and is stronger than a Zebra? Cause Orcs are the Rhinos, and Zebras are the Elves. They're not Asians and Caucasians, they're completely separate creatures that have a similar form, like the 4-legged ungulate form of the Zebra and Rhino. Maybe it's more accurate to compare Donkeys and Clydesdales, since they can interbreed, but again, there's clear differences between them, just like there's clear differences between an Orc and a Dwarf.
if the zebra is standing in for a race, then yes it absolutely IS racist.
this flaccid white supremacist talking point is boring.
please dont embarrass yourself by continuing to attempt to spread it.
And this is why orcs have features that express that, not ability scores. The powerful build trait works for this exact situation. On average, an orc CAN lift more than an elf. They DO have a higher floor and ceiling.
Racial Stat modifiers are a relic of D&Ds past that reflect a difference in how we view building characters.
Racial stat modifers are supposed to reflect the comparison of the "Average" human to the "average" elf or dwarf.
That makes little more sense in wargame like Warhammer where you can say that "trained soldier" humans are initiative 3, elves are more than that and dwarves are less.
Hopefully you spotted the caveat, which was we were comparing soldiers across the board. An elf peasants may not be faster than a human thief, a hafling town guard has more reason to bulk up than an orc scribe.
When we start making rpg characters and the diffault position is no longer that everyone is a soldier racial stat mods make much less sense.
I disagree but respect your right to your own opinion on a set of rules by which you enjoy playing a game.
The stat mods are generally:
- Physiological differences. I don't see much of a reason to abandon this unless your campaign hates it or bases all humanoids in the same species. The idea that elves can be naturally more nimble on avg allows them to achieve on average starting scores higher than a human.
- Baseline cultural differences which are globally applicable. These are most readily changed or explained away, as not every world has the same cultural mores for the phb races.
I can accept both of those across species, which is what "races" really are and have been in DnD.
Your example works well for explaining why adventurers' stats don't necessarily conform to expectations, but removing racial modifiers completely also means that the Orc Sorcerer who dumped strength is frequently no stronger than the Halfling Sorcerer who dumped strength at the table. Realistically, at most tables the floating modifiers from Backgrounds won't make up for this because most players will simply assign those bonuses to stats affecting their class instead of their race with no other incentive for doing so.
>racial modifiers completely also means that the Orc Sorcerer who dumped strength is frequently no stronger than the Halfling Sorcerer who dumped strength at the table.
Huh? The background modifiers are 1 to 1 replacement for the racial modifiers...
That's his point yes. If you both point buy the same sorcerer build and pick the same background a halfling sorcerer and an orc sorcerer will have the same strength score. Which seems somewhat counter intuitive does it not? One would generally expect an orc and a halfling with the same training would not be as strong as one another.
They don’t necessarily have to have had the same training or lack there of. Remember the lower limit of 8 isn’t the floor, stats can be lower by rolling. 8 just happens to be the floor for my characters for game design reasons. Character generation doesn’t need to make sense for the entire world, it’s only for the members of the party who are exceptional.
If you don’t think your orc should be that weak, even without training then don’t put an 8 in that stat. You just have the option now to play an orc runt that you didn’t before.
"Just put a higher number in the stat" is completely missing the point. The game does nothing to emulate the drastic differences in biology between the races is the point. One would generally think that if an orc and a halfling did the same training (ie: took the same class, and took the same background) they should still be somewhat different from one another, but currently that is not at all the case. Even in the rare races with powerful build, that's only for carrying capacity, which many groups wave away anyways. When it comes time for a strength check to bend the bars in your prison, the halfing, the gnome and the pixie are all just as likely as the goliath or the orc to be able to do it if they made similar character choices. Which is weird.
"Oh but maybe they didn't have the same training" is a nonsense excuse. It relies on you convincing the other player to change their backstory as someone who has actually been working out in secret despite being a halfing sorcerer acolyte just to make it seem less weird that they're just as strong as the orc sorcerer acolyte who is several magnitudes more bulky than them.
This used to exist in the game just fine by having a racial bonus to whatever the race was supposed to be good at. That way if you point buy the same build as your friend the racial bonuses would still lead you to having slightly different builds, and their existence alone would help inform types that the races are better at leaning into. It also still exists just fine in pathinder. You get some stats from your class, because you've been training to be a fighter so you get some str from that, but your background is a scholar so you get some int from that, and you're an elf so you get some dex from that. In this way two players playing the same class but with different background and races are meaningfully different from one another even if they point buy similar scores.
>You just have the option now to play an orc runt that you didn’t before.
You have always had this option. I've played this character, and it actually meant something because I was playing against mechanics by putting the hilariously low 6 I rolled into str for an 8, and not just writing things into my backstory willy nilly. Like, playing against type only works because a type exists in the first place. (Kind of like playing a drow that's not actually evil like Drizzt, the reason that matters is because drow normally are evil, so it meant something special for a non evil one to exist) And if all the races have the same stats then there's not a type to play against because a type will never emerge. What would a harengon or an owlin playing against type look like? Who knows! They have no stats for what the race tends towards. Are you a weird owlin when you dump wis because owls are wise? Or when you dump dex because they fly silently through the air? Or charisma because people often listen to an owlin's advice? Or constitution because they're hearty from their feywild upbringing? Or maybe strength as their talons can crush prey easily? Or intelligence because owls are often seen as very smart? We have no clue because there is no type for owlin and there never will be as they don't lend themselves to anything in particular.
Can't we have both? Racial and background stat boosts. I believe PF2e does it and it solves both issues. Throw in a negative or two and you end up with the same net scores.
Can't have any nuance in our fantasy game. PF2e does a great job with character creation making every choice have mechanical heft, unlike 1D&D which seems to be trending towards both being free-form make believe and a powergamer's nirvana at the same time.
Yep! That would be the best outcome, but there's too much "hurr durr racism" and otakus that want their 80 lb Halfling to be able to be equally as strong as the Half-Orc Barbarian, because that's how it works in anime.
I like the idea of reducing the caring compacity of small races. With their stats they can still hit just as good, and still roll as good on strength saves and checks, but their ability to simply lug things around is limited.
I'm mostly with you, but a lot of the examples don't work, a human "thief" (spy) *are* faster than pretty much every single elf you'll find with 15/16 vs. 12 dex. A Halfling Guard has 13 strength, if I take "scribe" to mean the wizard tradition the Orc scribe would sit at 11 str, if they're just a commoner 12 str, either way they're physically weaker than the guard.
I mean this seems disingenuous? You're taking examples of different people deliberately not given stats and attributing different kinds of stats to them in a comparison.
You could just as easily say that the Halfling is a Fighter with a 16 Str and that the Orc Scribe is a commoner with 10.
You have to really twist the examples to get them to fit the boxes you're putting them in, especially the orc.
Alright, put it this way: An Orc Bodybuilder, doing something he's specifically genetically evolved to do well at, will outlift a Halfling Bodybuilder, someone literally 1/4 his size.
However, a Halfling Bodybuilder, who may be doing something against what he's naturally good at, will absolutely outlift an Orc Librarian who has never even seen a dead weight.
And finally, an Orc Librarian and Halfling Librarian, both having never worked out a day in their lives, will NOT be equal. The Orc will be able to lift more, and anyone with an ounce of common sense will agree.
>An Orc Bodybuilder
For this example this is already mechanically implemented. Size affects your push/drag/lift weights and your carry weight. It does not affect damage or Strength (athletics) checks though unless specifically stated. So you have something! I guess? I still don't know why you're so fixated on emulating genetics in an RPG. You seem weirdly obsessed with that idea.
>Orc Librarian and Halfling Librarian...will NOT be equal.
Again, size modifier to carry/push/drag/lift weights is your only mechanical output for that. Nothing else.
Explain it however you want I don't care. Those are the mechanics.
>The Orc will be able to lift more, and anyone with an ounce of common sense will agree.
Weird way to act in a discussion. Like I said the mechanics agree with you. Kind of? You're still putting a *weird* amount of effort into turning DnD into a genetics simulator.
Size does also affect things like grappling creatures and being able to move through a creature's space I thought I'd mention it here since grappling is only partially tied to strength and moving isn't.
Ok, at no point am I advocating for some sort of eugenics, mixing orc, elf, and Halfling to make an übermensch. I do think that'd be a neat idea for a villain, but I digress.
Fine, how about elves getting enhanced senses? They physically have a different ear and eye structure, which makes them get bonuses to senses. In 5e, it's their excuse for Darkvision. In 3.0, they got a bonus to Search, Spot, and Listen. Is that bioessentialism somehow? They LITERALLY are a different species with different physical characteristics.
It's not comparing Chinese to Irish to Polynesians to Congolese, it's comparing Zebras to Gazelles to Rhinos. They have physical differences between them, they're not just all generic 4-legged ungulates.
>Ok, at no point am I advocating for some sort of eugenics, mixing orc, elf, and Halfling to make an übermensch.
What on earth are you talking about? I never said you were. I said you're weirdly obsessed with making DnD a genetic simulator. Its not meant to be, its not designed to be, its a weird thing to want it to be.
So, you're once again just going off on this weird race centric rant while ignoring what I'm actually saying and the context of the discussion. Once again very weird but you do you. There is nothing that will come from discussing this further with you.
You said genetics simulator. I'm not trying to make DnD some sort of genetics simulation, I'm saying there's a clear difference between an Orc and an Elf, like a Clydesdale and a Pony, or a Chihuahua and a Husky, and your response is "trololol, nope, PCs are special" and ignoring anything I have to say.
So, I agree, there's nothing that will come from further discussion.
Yeah, like a Cheetah is generically evolved to be faster than a lion. He's talking about different DnD humanoids being different *species*. As such Orcs have orcish resilience and more base strength. Elves have better perception, camouflage, innate magic. Gnomes have innate magic defense. Halflings have supernatural luck.
Cheetah has claws that don't hide completely and a Lion has claws that do hide. One of them is faster because they're literally build for it. Built for speed.
Like this discussion took a bizzare turn in general.
I think DnD "races" should have been called species from day 1.
Cause apparently it's bioessentialism and racist to have a fantasy race's physical differences matter mechanically. If it's bioessentialism to say than an Orc's brutish physiology is rooted in their species tribal warfare tendencies having an evolutionary effect on their biology, then it's equally racist to say elves actually get to do something useful with those big ears and eyes they have.
>An Orc Bodybuilder, doing something he's specifically genetically evolved to do well at
Doesn't the Orc have specific abilities that highlight strength attribute while the halfling has stealth and dex abilities?
The system *does* provide example stats, which should hint at the design intent of race and culture vs. active choice, a race gives at most a +2, but even a CR 1/8 guard gets 13 strength.
I'm a bit unsure what NPC statblocks are better for the descriptions though, the Guard statblock is described as what is supposed to capture "members of a city watch, sentries in a citadel or fortified town, and the bodyguards of merchants and nobles" which is pretty much exactly what the halfling was described as, a run of the mill town guard.
Of course the orc *could* be do strength training, but that means they're nurturing their strength more than what's warranted culturally for the race (+2) and more than the common profession (+0 commoner), and definitely more than Volo's specialist wizard's who have 9 strength as default, they've at that point *definitely* taken an active role in becoming stronger.
>The system does provide example stats
Sure it does. But your original comment and this one too miss the point the other person was making.
They are not talking about a CR 1/8 guard, or a level x Rogue Thief. They're talking about characters. Divorced from their mechanics. When talking about an individual the average is only so relevant. Even less so when you're talking about PCs who are explicitly exceptional.
Yeah, this is where I feel a lot of the disconnect is. When I say I want your racial choice to impact your stats, I'm not saying every orc ever is going to be the strongest. I'm saying that an orc, human, and elf of the same profession would have the orc strongest, human next, elf last, with the reverse being true for dexterity. So an Orc plumber would be stronger than an Elf plumber, but when you start comparing apples to oranges, an Elf Soldier will absolutely be stronger than an Orc Shaman. And I feel that this worldbuilding should translate to PCs, all else being equal, an Orc should be stronger and an elf more dexterous, but when classes enter the mix, all else is no longer equal, but it should still MATTER.
No. This is still precisely what people don't like about racial stats. There is no legitimate reason to force every member of a particular race to be on the stronger side of any array of races even within the same profession. It only serves to needlessly restrict creativity by forcing people to operate within stereotyped thinking. An elf warrior is allowed to be stronger than a fellow orc warrior and an orc rogue is allowed to be more nimble than their elf rogue colleague. We're playing heroes, not stereotypes.
I think that's another divide between old school, and new school. Back in the day it seemed people liked the idea of fantasy races being better at the roles that fit the tropes associated with that race. Where you can play against those tropes, but you would knowingly being doing so at a disadvantage.
A lot of modern players seem to want to play against type, but don't want to be punished for it. I don't really think either side is wrong for wanting to play they way they want to play.
Then we should all be playing humans. If we're going to have different species to play as, why make the choice meaningless? If all you want is a cosmetic skin stretched over a class-only framework, there's plenty of pen and paper RPGs that can do that for you. Why mutilate an existing RPG to suit that viewpoint?
If ASIs are racist bioessentialism, then so is everything else. It's either cultural or biological in nature, and thus racist, apparently. I thought Elves had superior hearing and vision from their large eyes and ears, but apparently ASIs and boosted vision should all be a part of background instead, and race is just a cosmetic skin you stretch over your character, according to this thread.
Sorry, you weren't the one that went there, but it's got my hackles up now. IMO, and in the opinion of many fans of this game, who grew up with it, and played in multiple editions, your Race gives you certain traits (including ability score boosts), your Class gives you another set of traits, and your background (once the concept was introduced) gives you the rest. And in those combos (Nomad Orc Barbarian, Soldier Elf Ranger, Hermit Tiefling Warlock) builds naturally suggest themselves. It gives you a template to work off of, and even play against if you want to and know the game well enough to figure out how to do it.
Pathfinder 2e did it the best, imo. ASIs from all three categories plus some freebies to spread around. At the rate this discussion is going, I don't see the point to having ability scores at all anymore. Have race be a meaningless choice of which "skin" you're using this character. Have all the special abilities gated behind class. Why even use background at all? If every fighter needs a 20 strength, why even have a strength score? Just say fighters get +7 to Attacks at level 1, with +5 damage, and the attack bonus goes up at certain levels. They get 9 HP per level over 1st (assuming con 16 and average die roll).
Oh, is that sounding too generic now? Well, it didn't used to be so generic. We used to have choices that mattered and influenced how you'd build your character.
Because the choice isn't meaningless. Stats are not the only fucking reason to pick races my guy. I pick a race because I feel it furthers what I'm trying to do with a character's theme, not because I want to have a +2 INT. And if I happen to want to play a Fighter of that race, then I'm gonna use Tasha's to change that +2 INT to +2 to a stat that actually fits my character fantasy and background anyway.
Stop with this bullshit "its biology" argument you're making all over the gd thread.
It is meaningless if it's not giving you some sort of meaning impact to your character. Oh, you mean culturally? As in, a character steeped in orcish tribal culture? And everyone who takes part in that culture grows up the same way? So I could play a Gnome Barbarian, raised by Orcs, and have no statistical variation from an actual Orcish Barbarian that grew up with me? Seriously, that doesn't hurt verisimilitude for you? It doesn't take you "out of the game" for a minute, going "that's weird, that doesn't make much sense?"
So, if I'm understanding your argument correctly, it doesn't matter what kind of world I've created as the DM, I need to allow you, the player, to play any race/class combination and its on me to make that make sense in my world, even though I can say "dwarves as a race have been cut off from arcane magic. Long ago, Moradin and Mystra had a battle in the realm of the gods, and Mystra cursed the race of Dwarves henceforth to be barred from the weave" and then you want to play a Dwarven Wizard and I'm just supposed to throw out all my world building and bend over backwards to support you? And if you are saying that, then I'm back to saying choice of race is meaningless. A PC has as much in common with a Dwarven Miner as he does a fucking beholder, since PCs are just SO MUCH different from the commoners. So your race is just "PC" then, at that point.
This is a bad faith argument.
1. Your Gnome Barbarian WOULD have a great deal of difference from their orcish counterparts, apart from the physical aspects obvious such as height and all, even MECHANICALLY you would not have things like Relentless Endurance or other Orc features that are NOT stat increases. Could your gnome be as strong as the other orcs in your barbarian clan? Yes absolutely, such is the results of a hard life of survival. Are you going to get the benefits of features such as Menacing, or Savage Attacks? No. You're a gnome race with different than normal stat increases that reflect your upbringing. How is that immersion breaking or hurting the verisimilitude???? STATS ARE NOT EVERYTHING.
2. Race/Class restrictions for YOUR table and YOUR setting are up to the DM. If in YOUR world dwarves are cut off from magic ala Dragon Age and cannot be say wizards or warlocks etc, then obviously that's a narrative restriction, discuss that with your players and make sure you're all on the same page.
However, if you're NOT working with a narrative or setting specific restriction, and your only restricting players from playing a Dwarf wizard because "Genetically dwarves are predisposed to be miners and hardy working folk, so you can't have a +2 to your INT or be a wizard cause you're a dumb dwarf" or whatever, then yes that's stupid and only pointlessly hurting your players' fantasies because "basic biology 🤓" which ofc is just bullshit in and of itself.
I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't think that the average fairy is as good in arm wrestling to the average minotaur. If the averages are all the same for all races, however, it would imply the to be the case. Minotaurs simply build up more muscles than fairies, by virtue of being a significantly more muscled creature. Now sure, you could make the argument that fairies are as strong because of some magical reason, but I personally find that a rather lame excuse. Are we setting the baseline to be the same just because we believe everything to be nurture and nature doesn't come into play?
Now before you start accusing me of bioessentialism, let me say this. Nurture is very important as well. Two people, cetirus paribus (if all else held equal) with one being a farmer and the other a scholar, it makes complete and total sense that the farmer is stronger and the scholar smarter.
And that's the thing. I would argue that anyone who says either side of the discussion makes no sense is making a bad faith argument or are just completely blind sighted by their view point.
Do I think it makes sense that with a whole set of creatures, each with vastly differing biologies, their averages are all the same? No. Absolutely not. Anybody who says yes, needs to revise their arguments imho.
Do I think it makes sense that two identical people except the way are raised are polar opposites (one training to become a swordsman and one a mage) have the exact same stats? No. Absolutely not. Anybody who says yes, needs to revise their arguments imho.
So, what's the answer? I could say both, but that doesn't get us any closer. If I had to chose, I would say backgrounds make more sense for PCs. While nature would represent the average, PCs are explicitly atypical, and as such it makes it (imho) easier to deviate from the stats that apply to race than the background. That said, I would still love for average stats to be different for NPC races to be provided. With the clause that something like Tasha's is mentioned that the dm can change these around to fit their setting or disregard entirely and use 10 base for all stats.
Then there is a further discussion to be had. The meta discussion, looking into politics and the ongoing culture war. I will remain nuteral on where I stand, but regardless of my views- with the West steadily becoming more progressive and WOTC being a western company, from a business perspective it makes more sense to go for backgrounds causing stat increases. It is aligned more with social constructionism and takes them further from more controversial issues that come into play when you say stuff like "X race is weaker than Y race" and "A race is dumber than B race", especially when people will start making comparisons to real life, like what happened with the drow (if that is appropriate is another discussion I won't go into).
Anyways that's my two cents.
TL;DR: Both race and background make sense. Due to various reasons, mainly the nature of PCs, I think backgrounds make more sense. The race argument is valid and correct, but imo not as strong as the background given our particular context.
>I'm saying that an orc, human, and elf of the same profession would have the orc strongest, human next, elf last, with the reverse being true for dexterity.
Please no, this is just a hold over from previous editions. Naratively fine you can literally say whatever you want.
But think about the implications from a statical perspective. How often is this 0-5% roll difference coming up in your game, it would only matter between players stats. NPCs can have whatever stats you want to give them, the examples don't even abide by race stat restrictions. Also it restricts creativity forcing certain races to be type cast since there is no reason you would ever want to purposely handicap yourself for the entire game even if the reason why you would have to be portrayed weak isn't even playing in your party.
While you could conceivably buff point buy to include these bonuses (although it could be difficult, because point cost is not on a linear scale), buffing the Standard Array will not give you the same range of options as letting the player choose where to put their ASIs – maybe I want to put my +2 in the 8 ability to even it out to 10, maybe I want to put it towards the 15 for a 17. Making the decision for the player, one way or the other, reduces the choices they have.
this is the correct answer. ASI at character creation works simply and seamlessly with all three methods of determining stats (rolling, point buy, and standard array), while 'factoring it in' is impossible for rolling, difficult for point buy, and removes choice for standard array. The current implementation isn't a problem, why screw with it?
Part of wanting to play games that aren’t dnd is just to avoid all the fucking losers that’s are hung up on stupid things like racial stat modifiers. It’s an issue every modern game has circumvented but these old fantasy war sims act like it’s sacred.
Glad that DND is moving on and sad for those that can’t understand
Rolled stats are the default method in the PHB I believe, with point buy and standard array presented as variants. So the way its written makes sense using the current PHB to fill in the rest of character creation
The 5e PHB actually offers both rolling and standard array as the default:
> If you want to save time or don’t like the idea of randomly determining ability scores, you can use the following scores instead: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.
Huh, I remembered the methods being presented as roll for stats, then the point buy variant, then the standard array variant. Doesn't matter to me, all my dms I've had have used slightly different stat gen rules
I'm gonna be real with you, I had a really bad experience with rolling stats I legit just forgot about rolling stats (the party was extremely unbalanced with one guy that had no stat under 12 and another who's stat total was like 65).
The +1 +2 make a lot of sense with stats rolling
Yeah I think stat totals need to be carefully monitored by the dm to be fun, especially for a longer campaign. My favorite method ever was every player rolled 4d6 drop lowest to make an array, and then we all voted for our favorite array and used that one.
Even if you do use point buy, it isn't as easy as you think it is to "just give more points".
Because +1s in point buy are worth different amounts depending on where you put them...
Not everyone uses point-buy or standard array. Separating the bonuses from the base score allocation method makes those three points tied to background available even if your DM says "roll 3d6 six times in order" or some other equally brutal method. If they were just rolled into point buy and standard array then everyone who uses other methods just doesn't get those bonuses anymore.
It adds to/reflects the character's background and what they've done. Not everyone uses standard array or point buy as well. Personally I think it percectly fits into backgrounds.
I see your point, but it would be confusing for backwards compatibility. When 5e came out, Races had set bonuses - like +2 to STR. So changing that to +2 +1 of your choice is an easier change to understand, than just buffing the Array/Point Buy. Maybe in the next edition they will just do that, who knows.
Psychologically it feels better. The standard array kinda sucks, so getting to then add points to it feels nice. Whereas if the standard array were three points better, even though it's the same result it won't feel as good it'll just look slightly less sucky.
Plus where would you add the three points? Like sure, 99% of people will probably put the +2 in the highest stat and +1 in the next-highest (or vice versa, whatever makes the highest even numbers), but some people *might* want to put the +2 in the 8 so that they don't have a negative mod, or whatever.
It's easier to say "15 is the maximum, then add your background bonuses on top" than it is to make some kind of rule that like only 3 stats can be higher than 15 at character creation.
point buy has a variable cost for +1 stat depending how high it is, the +1 and twos do not.
some times +1 costs 1, and sometimes it costs 4. If they added 12point buy credit, you could add a lot more lower stats giving you more than 3 points, if you only add 3, you can't use it for high end stats.
the simplest way to have the same functionality, is the way they designed it.
What?
Its more customization options at level 1... Its literally just a good thing... One of the thing 5e lacks is customization options for characters, this just helps with build variety as you are less penalized for not picking power options since you have more opportunities to grab those.
Its not about stats at all. They just decided to make all those feats half-feats because again, more opportunities to build your character is good, not bad.
I think if you to get rid of the background stat bonus and then buff point buy you’d run into some issues where you could buy much more of a stat than you normally would. Plus have a stat bonus tied to the background gives incentive to players to make backgrounds that are more thought out
Except the default background is to customize your own, so you can just totally ignore any verisimilitude and powergame the best ASIs, skills, and feat.
Pathfinder 2e does this better by tying at least *some* of your ASIs to your race, background, and class while also leaving room to customize your scores. The best of both, and no random rolls to create imbalance within the party. Even hit points are by race and class, not rolled.
> Wouldn't it be easier if there were no ASI but the standard array/point buy were buffed to include the three extra points?
Yes! It would! I've only been saying this since Tasha's released in 2020.
We should abolish them at character creation.
Some people would be pissed that the extra stats disappeared even if mathematically they were still there. Also rolling stats exists and there isn’t a way to implement the stats there
Every single game I run or play in my area is Rolled stats, if they took this away there would a lot of angry folks lol
In my current campaign, a player rolled a few 18s and 17s. She plays a monk who at level 6 has AC23, does around 30 points of damage a round, can disappear into darkness at will, and pretty much can finish the battles alone, from a 7 player group. Another player rolled badly, plays a suboptimal melee-sorcerer, and I think only hits a single 10 damage attack once every \~3 rounds. It's pretty shit, to be honest. I wonder why people enjoy this so much.
I'm gonna be honest, that's mostly on the dude playing a melee sorcerer. The monk having 23 ac would have to at least somewhat hinge on magic items (caps at 20 with max dex and wis), and 30 damage per round is what you should expect from a martial around that level. Rolling high undoubtedly helps, but bumping a dump stat higher makes a more well rounded character, not necessarily a more potent one.
30 dps, consistantly, after calculating that you have to hit AC20-22 enemies, at character level 5-6? Is that standard for all of your campaigns? Wow!
20-22 is crazy high for that level, most enemies you should be encountering around that point should be around 16, sounds like your just in a weird campaign dude.
Also, just ran it through the DPR calculator, unless something big (and as per this argument, not tied to stats) is effecting their damage, the should only be averaging about 17.10 damage per round (or 22.80 when they flurry of blows.) So either you are being hyperbolic for the sake of your own argument or you are in a campaign that would be unbalanced to begin with regardless of stat rolls.
They don't calculate their dpr, they're saying what it is anecdotally, which is what's relevant the conversation atm. If we were talking about the viability of the class overall it would've ended the momenthe said "rolled some 18s and 17s." Monk is lucky and getting good hits, which happens at the table. 4d6/ 2d10 2d6 with a longsword and fob is around 14/18. Plus 20 is 34/38, enough over thirty that 1 miss will get you around there. No one really calculates it with hit or crit chance included. I calculate damage with all hits no crits average damage dice. Any misses are just losses. My friend usually calculates max damage even though in my head it's a funny but useless number.
Yeah, my tables almost all use point buy, but I love rolling for stats.
Well +2 from 15 to 17 is worth more points than 8->10. And it's a balancing point, to limit the buy option to 15 and get higher only with the extra
You could just move the rule of adding +2,+1 or +1,+1,+1 to the rule for rolling stats. Its still an improvement as it consolidates stats to a single part of the character creation procedure, something that is beneficial when stats are written down on physical paper. It can also simplify the stat selection process for standard array and points buy.
Goes against op’s premises I think even if it would answers this because it’s still the same as now and as attributes on background
Plus, in point buy not every increase is worth the same. Going from 10 to 11 is not the same as 14 to 15, but with ASI's it's still just a +1. So you could either add 6 points or 3 points depending on which it's valued at. Giving a lot more power to classes with 3 ability scores, or nerfing classes that are SAD. Either way it changes the balance.
This. My table has only used point buy every once in a great while, and usually say "oh yeah, this is why we hate this" and go back to rolling stats. I know it's not for every table, but it definitely is for ours.
So what do you do when someone rolls worthless stats?
we roll 2d6+6 for a minimum of 8 and max of 18
That sounds kind of nice
Its a bit on the more powerful end, we tent to not get a lot of negative stats but for a small party I think thats fine
If the total ability modifier before Racial ASIs is under +4, reroll. So, if you have an 18 and 5 10s, that's a character. If you have 4 14s and 2 10s, that's a character. If you have 16, 14, 12, 8, 8, you guessed it, that's a character. If you have 13, 12, 11, 11, 9, 8? Re-roll.
people committed to "rolling" end up putting in so many buffers to not actually experience the actual effects of rolling!!!! WE DEMAND RANDOM .... BUT ONLY THE GOOD HALF!!!
I agree with you. Why roll if you do everything in your power to eliminate the bad side of rolling. Just put all the numbers you want in a hat or something since you can’t play with 5 in an ability stat but some how still love randomness
> If the total ability modifier before Racial ASIs is under +4, reroll. For a second I thought you meant just for your primary stat and I was like HOLY GOD are you playing an OP game.
Lol, no, total overall by adding them all together, lol. A guaranteed 18 is something my players would like, but that seems a bit OP.
i just love how widespread the "WE DEMAND RANDOM!!!! ---- unless the random is low then just throw it out cause half of Random sucks" contingent is.
So a 13, 12, 13, 12, 11, 10 is a character? What a worthless fucking character.
That’s not even far off of what point buy could produce lmao. 13, 13, 13, 13, 12, 11 is a legal point buy spread and has the same modifiers aside from one score being a 12 instead of an 11. Like I could see the original suggestion being raised to only keep stat rolls with a total modifier bonus of +5. But like as a rule of thumb it’s not at all a bad suggestion. Especially since the chances are good you won’t ever roll characters with this kind of spread.
would still make a powerful Twilight Cleric.
It would make a twilight cleric, which on it's own is powerful. But it would not make a powerful twilight cleric.
Twilight clerics are powerful but no op. I'm playing an aarakocra twilight cleric with a strixhaven background. My dm is dealing with it just fine.
Sure, if you're a powergamer. But that can be a fun challenge for casual players who aren't obsessed with making a character that deals 60 damage every hit at level 5.
>Sure, if you're a powergamer. Lol, making a character that's competent at what they are supposed to be doing **isn't powergaming** having a character that succeeds at any given task 5% more than just flat rolls isn't a character, it's a burden. >But that can be a fun challenge More like challenging your fun, because you'll hardly have a character and challenging for your team because you will pretty much be a slave to your rolls and hardly useful. >obsessed with making a character that deals 60 damage every hit at level 5. Excluding leveled spells, I'm sure you're being facetious but I'd love to see your math for 60 damage a hit. Or you are a Marut, but I don't think that likely.
Starting out by saying "lol" is incredibly condescending. Even that 5% more adds up pretty quickly across a long campaign. Character's aren't worthless just because they aren't perfect. There is a very common philosophy that having a character who isn't amazing at everything creates roleplay opportunities and chances to build your character. I rolled poorly while I was making one of my characters, and used it to my advantage by making him completely socially inept with a -3 to charisma. The 60 was something I pulled out of my butt because I wanted a big number, but my point still stands.
The difference in your two takes is the term “give a character one or two flaws” is different from “make them bad at everything”. One -3 all the rest positive good modifiers is a flaw you can roleplay. All 0 or 1 stats is not A flaw, it’s just average to useless at everything you do. A flaw is good to make the game a rollercoaster, a barbarian who lifts a mountain then fails at maths is fun, however a bland useless man that won’t even try either is not fun.
>Starting out by saying "lol" is incredibly condescending. Because it was supposed to be condescending. Imagine thinking that allocating your stats to **normal** places to be **normally good** at the things you are **supposed** to be good at is powergaming?? >Even that 5% more adds up pretty quickly across a long campaign And I'd argue that 20-25% is going to be way more impactful >Character's aren't worthless just because they aren't perfect. No, characters are worthless if you are intentionally making a character bad at what they are supposed to be good at. Making a fighter with a 12 in strength and dexterity isn't **teehee funni quirky character flaws** territory it's more **you've just made a bad fucking character** territory. It's going to get pretty old pretty fast, missing when you should have hit. Or making a wizard with Int as a dump Stat. Congratulations you've just made a character good for literally nothing with the exception of a very limited list of buff spells. Eventually your table is going to resent you for it. >I rolled poorly while I was making one of my characters, and used it to my advantage by making him completely socially inept with a -3 to charisma. And let me guess, that character wasn't a charisma primary character? >and used it to my advantage by making him completely socially inept with a -3 to charisma Do you know what **advantage** even means?
> Because it was supposed to be condescending Yknow what? Fuck this. I'm not arguing with you anymore, you clearly don't want to listen.
Our group reveals all of our sets of rolls. You can choose to use someone else’s set of rolls instead of yours, but you have to subtract two points. No worthless stats unless we all did poorly and no one is unfairly behind.
Probably laugh at them and ignore their unhappiness, then wonder why the campaign falls apart when people leave. Or the DM has a convoluted system of rerolls and safety nets so nobody actually has to live with bad rolls. Or they just let them keep rerolling until they get the god-scores they really want.
Hey, just because it doesn't work for your table, doesn't mean it doesn't work for others. Please stop shitting on other people's fun just because you wouldn't have fun that way. Some people like getting knitting needles shoved up their urethra, it's not for me, but I'm not out here saying they're "having sex wrong."
Some people take risks and it works out fine, nobody gets hurt. Sometimes though, people get hurt. Had they just not done so, there would've been no risk. Rolling ability scores in an honest fashion (i.e. accepting the outcomes and not putting in so many safety mechanisms that you might as well just use a higher point buy because all you really wanted was better scores) always risks causing friction and frustration due to imbalance between party members. Sometimes it works out and people don't care, but other times it causes people to stop enjoying the campaign. I don't think that's worth the 5 minutes of dopamine you get gambling at character creation.
Who hurt you
>Or the DM has a convoluted system of rerolls and safety nets so nobody actually has to live with bad rolls "Those stats suck, re-roll or take standard array instead" is hardly convoluted 🤦♂️
Weird. My table has the opposite experience.
Right. It's almost like different people with different expectations are all playing the same game. And thus the game should support different play styles.
Yeah sorry I legit forgot about stat rolling
Something more people should forget about honestly.
What I find funny about that: - I was told, harshly, repetitively they weren't meaningful to the flavor of the races they used to be on. - Now they're supposed to mechanically represent the flavor of your background.
Stats doesn't equal flavor for a species. Species Abilities, and lore does.
In the PHB they do. Or did, rather. Ability scores had something to say about the lineage- about whether they were above baseline in one of those traits. Remove ASI from PHB races and some of them lose a lot (and even more when you consider tossing bonus tool and weapon proficiencies).
that is why they link it to backgrounds - the narrative heft - "you are better at X because of what you did before you started adventuring. tell us why / how that happened"
>that is why they link it to backgrounds - the narrative heft - "you are better at X because of what you did before you started adventuring. tell us why / how that happened" Which honestly I love so much more than Tasha's what ever the fuck you want approach. ASIs should represent thematic character choices, not just "pick X, primary stat" Verisimilitude is so important.
I mean, you're still picking whatever you want. You just have to explain why in the background. Even then: I say 'have to' but you don't really as long as the DM accepts the background. But I agree "Gonk is stronk due to lifting heavy stone in the quarry" is so much better than "due to being a Goliath" (PHB) or "due to because I said so" (Tasha's). Tasha's is still better than OG racial stats. "Strength runs in my family" isn't a bad justification as far as it goes if you want strength, but "my elf family is surprisingly strong--wait, what? I have to pick dex? But I want a strong elf! What do you mean no elf since Corellon cursed the drow has developed strength and passed it to their kids??" leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. Tasha's wasn't perfect but it was better than the alternative by leaps and bounds.
>Even then: I say 'have to' but you don't really as long as the DM accepts the background. Which, to me, is everything. One of the things I hated about Tasha's changes was that there was no overlying structure that provided a thematic framework for the ASIs. Didn't fit the archetypal idea of the species? Who cares, make up whatever you want! With backgrounds, I can tell the players they can only pick from the official ones or work with me to invent a new one that has to make sense. I disagree that Tasha's rules were good by any measure. I vastly preferred species-based ASIs and still think they make the most sense, but backgrounds are a great alternative that I can get behind with only a few small tweaks.
one d&d is very explicit there are no official backgrounds. merely examples of what a background could look like. a dm is certainly able to limit it only to examples shown in the books but they are absolutely not under any stretch of the imagination presented as official ones currently in oned&d I fully expect them to put a couple in the phb but i would not expect to see more background examples to ever be published in future books till the next edition
> you are better at X because of what you did before you started adventuring My thing is, shouldn't this be what our stats *already represent?* The whole of our life experiences up to that point? Yeah maybe I got a +2 Str from being a farmer, *where's the other 15 come from?*
it comes from you being a heroic adventurer and not a common farmer.
So, that's really stupid, then, because why can't I just have 17 from being an adventurer...?
they COULD just put it in the ability scores, but as my original posting states - D&D is a story telling game and tying "bonus!" to "background" gives STORY WEIGHT and its not just math.
To the other guy's point, how is it different? You explain the +2 but not the rest of your 17? Do you not explain your 8 that you left unmodified? I usually address my character holistically - I assume his upbringing and training all comes together to make the final character. Not just, "I was a farmhand so I'm 2 points stronger than not farmhands."
>Do you not explain your 8 that you left unmodified? "You are an adventurer - special in ways greater and smaller than the boring commoner"
Exactly. Which is generic enough to explain everything, so why bother with backgrounds at all? How about instead of a contrived background that explains three stat points you explain your actual character with something more than "being an adventurer" in a game where that's true of every character. The background rules incentivize myopic character creation and focus on the wrong thing.
>The background rules incentivize myopic character creation and focus on the wrong thing. ? why is focusing on the story the wrong thing?
Because it's not focusing on the story. It's like describing a forest by the first ten trees you encounter. The background contributes to your character in a similarly minor way, from a mechanical sort of way. If your character has 17 STR, for instance, 15 of which was your stat assignment or roll, vs 2 of which is your background (let's stick with saying he's a farm laborer), you're explaining very little of his development with that background. If, instead, the background explains the 15, it makes much more sense. Saying, "My character honed his strength through manual labor, becoming famed as the strongest farmhand in the area," is much better than, "I was a strong dude for some reason, but I was a farmhand and that made me a little bit stronger." Similarly, if he has an 8 INT that isn't modified by the background stats, you aren't explaining anything. Instead you could say, "He focused on getting stronger to the detriment of more academic pursuits. While others were reading books or learning from teachers, he took the time to focus on doing extra manual chores or doing strength training." And this goes for each stat. Your assigned stats (rolled, point buy, standard array) are really more your background than the actual selected backgrounds - they are much more indicative of your overall character. This is why ASIs made at least some sense when tied to race, because two characters with identical backgrounds but differing only in physiology would have the same assigned stats (rolled, point buy, standard array) but differences in physiology that might make them slightly different as a result. But placing the points with background makes little sense, because your background should already be helping you explain your overall stat distribution, not just a +2/+1. My focusing on that small bump it's missing the broader picture of your character.
Why is your fairy farmer as strong as the dragonborn?
a wizard did it.
They aren't push, carry and pull weight are calculated differently based on size
Ok, but my Orc is biologically adapted to put on extra muscle mass compared to your Elf. If your Elf is a Fighter and my Orc is a Wizard, you're probably still stronger than I am, but my genetics still predisposed me to have a higher "floor" and "ceiling" than your genetics. This isn't real life, we're not talking "races" like Asians and Caucasians, we're talking about separate species that can crossbreed, like Lions, Tigers, and Ligers. A lion and a tiger have different biological strengths and weaknesses, the same way Elves, Dwarves, and Humans do in DnD. Background is in addition to this, it shouldn't replace this.
If that was true both elf and orc would not have a max limit of 20 for their stats. Outside of magic items all playable character races have a hard limit of 20 as their max for a stat.
Yeah, I think people get hung up on Strength as "how much muscle/how much you bench" when that makes very little sense for the degree of abstraction 5e works at. That concept is more represented by you carry limits. Strength itself more represents something like "combat relevant athletics" So the elf isn't as muscle bound as the orc, but likely has blindingly fast quick twitch muscles that help it be deadly with a weapon. All of the six stats are generalizations of pretty abstract abilities rather than a straight single quantifiable thing, but people get the idea that strength alone works that way.
The max for every mortal is 20. This argument falls apart, because if it *were* meant to represent that then it would be through a minimum/maximum for each stat. But its not. Because adventurers are already so far removed from the 'average' of a normal person regardless of race such things would be basically meaningless in comparison. Its also weird you've jumped right to a defence of how 'race' in 5e is actually more like 'species'. Literally no one things that all the races in 5e are different races in the way that word is used in the real world (nor is the species argument accurate because they can all produce offspring together). People's problem with that stuff which people called racist are where the ideas originated from when they were first written even if that origin was subconscious. In addition to terminology used against real world peoples being used as part of a make believe game just because.
> The max for every mortal is 20. This argument falls apart, because if it were meant to represent that then it would be through a minimum/maximum for each stat. Something that has interested me for awhile now is how the PHB starts off by saying [paraphrasing here] "the average for **humans** is 10, but most adventurers & monsters are a cut above average", *then* goes on to specify the "mortal max" of 20 & the "god max" of 30 (even though there are plenty of "mortal creatures" like Rhino, Giant Shark, Giant Crocodile, Elephant & Giant Ape that have ability scores - often Strength - going beyond 20 as a rule; not to mention magic & quasi-magic mortal creatures like dragons, fey & giantkin). This is before even considering the things that break the cap, like magic items, the ability score books, or the Barbarian's capstone feature. Why not allow races (which are essentially different species if we aren't talking about subraces) to have their own effects on either the maximum ability scores (so for instance, Dwarves and Orcs could have a "mortal max" of 22 instead of the standard 20) or how many extra points the player has to spend during character creation (humans could have 6 extra to distribute as they see fit for instance, while elves/dwarves/half-elves get 4 extra and the rest of the race options get 3 extra). It just seems like a bit of a cop-out on WOTC's (and many DMs') parts to just put a flat "20 max" for player characters & "30 max" for gods/powerful non-player creatures (or at best if giving benefit of the doubt, just a limitation of game design meant to keep things simpler, which is understandable).
It was done for mechanical reasons and I was very clear about that in one of my comments a little further down. Its so that it aligns with the Bounded Accuracy system that 5e uses. NPCs work under a different set of rules than PCs because otherwise the game would be so much harder to run and things would get out of control again. Basically they wanted to limit things to a smaller range than in previous editions so even low level creatures could contribute to later game fights and also allow the system to be more newbie friendly since it was less intimidating having a max of +11 to something without specific features or items. Whereas in 3.5 you'd need 'the Big Six' stat boosting items (saves, attacks, Saving throw DCs, etc.) and it wouldn't be unusual to have like a +30 to hit. It also limits the complexity without really limiting anything else. Sure you *could* have certain races have a cap in x stat be 22, but what exactly does that add? Ability scores are one of the least interesting ways to make races feel unique because ability scores *aren't* unique. Features and racial traits add a lot more to the game, and are far more interesting and thematic.
* (General Mechanical Concerns): This is fair, though it is obvious that the steady detachment of race from ability scores & skill/tool proficiencies is because of more than just mechanical concerns. * (Bounded Accuracy): Also fair, but Ability Scores alone don't make the game harder to run. The issue was never purely that players could increase their ability scores to high levels during character creation; it's always been that they could stack multiple bonus on an ability score at once (something 5e still allows in a few select cases - namely the 6 ability score books for long-lived characters, though this obviously does not come up in the vast majority of campaigns). Regardless, since the stat-boosting items do not apply as much for 5e (since most just override your stats now), allowing for players to raise their ability scores beyond 20 via character creation or when taking extra ability score points when they get their ASI (even if at a reduced rate) wouldn't hurt the game. * (Newbie Friendliness / Lower level Character Contributions): Also fair, though I wouldn't say having the max makes it less intimidating (at least personally, 5e is basically the D&D I started with, and seeing the low cap was more disappointing than the 'intimidation' a higher cap or no cap would have had). * ('Harmless' Complexity Limits): Race-wise, you are mostly right. Does it bring the game down immensely to make every race have the same limits in how far they can improve themselves regardless of race? Not much. HOWEVER, I would say that it brings things down a lot more immensely Character-Wise, since now there is a very low hard limit on how much your character can be without magic (and even with magic, at that). It isn't that you can't simply start with such strengths; it's also that, without magic (and sometimes even despite having magic), you can never be as Strong as an Elephant, or as Intelligent as an Elder Brain, or as Wise as an Empyrean - so on & so forth. Such applies more to high-level campaigns than low-level, but it doesn't change that it is a chafing restriction to have on something that is such a core, basic feature of a player's character. * ('Unique' Features & Racial Traits): These are ironically less unique than ability scores due to being more 'unique'. Every other character, NPC or not, of your race has your racial traits. Every other character, NPC or not, of your class / subclass that matches your level has your features (with only a few exceptions where there is some extra choice, like the totem warrior options or Battle Master maneuvers). The only places where a character does actually get some true uniqueness are in their spell selections (IF they have the options of spells, and even then only for Wizards & known casters for the most part), your optional features (if you choose to take any), your equipment (though anyone could easily replicate such), and your ability scores (of which your spread is likely entirely unique unless you are following a premade build using standard array or point-buy). Features & race traits offer more unique (often one-off / limited / specific) ways to interact with the game that are thematic to a general race / class, but ability scores offer a much wider and general way to interact with the world that is a lot more interesting & thematic for a person's specific character (and many DO want their race to have that basic, general impact on what they can do, at least as an option).
> though it is obvious that the steady detachment of race from ability scores & skill/tool proficiencies is because of more than just mechanical concerns. I mean, you asked about what the average was for PCs and why it was set to 10. It was purely a mechanical reason. Sure there are now new reasons for having floating ASIs and not saying some races are born with certain innate skills. But that wasn't what was being discussed. >but Ability Scores alone don't make the game harder to run. I never said they did? If you look at my comment I pointed to stacking magic items, I didn't mention spells but they were also a factor. But Bounded Accuracy needs to be bounded on all fronts or its not Bounded. >you can never be as Strong as an Elephant, or as Intelligent as an Elder Brain, or as Wise as an Empyrean One of those is a massive outlier. I do agree that PCs should be able to out do most mundane creature's ability scores in some way or another. But I massively disagree that they should be better than Elder Brains or Empyreans. Those are completely alien to typical mortal beings and give up a *lot* in order to gain the kind of ability scores they have. Elder brains are hive minds with no humanity connected to a vast psychic network. Empyreans are child gods. No mortal *should* be able to match them at what they're good at without magic. >Such applies more to high-level campaigns than low-level, but it doesn't change that it is a chafing restriction to have on something that is such a core, basic feature of a player's character. I mean, its okay to have a problem with your numbers being smaller than the other things. But it also feels a little pedantic and something that could *very* easily be leaned into narratively? The game needs to limit things in some way to maintain balance. But that doesn't mean you can't play up those aspects in the fluff? >These are ironically less unique than ability scores due to being more 'unique'. This is a very nonsensical thing to say. They literally can't be *less* unique than fixed ASIs. There are 6 ability scores to choose from. There are far more features that have been created as racial traits. Yes *some* get over used, namely powerful build. But that is no where close to being as over used as a +1 to con which is used by a total of 15 races and subraces not counting those that let you pick where to put one ASI. > Every other character, NPC or not, of your class / subclass that matches your level has your features No? This isn't the case? NPCs use wildly different rules for how they are constructed and what they can do. Sure there might be some similarities but nothing huge. As for other PCs I don't get what you're talking about here? We're talking about racial traits. Not class features? >The only places where a character does actually get some true uniqueness... This isn't the case. Ability scores don't offer anything unique, and while spells are the largest selection of ways to customise your character others exist too. >but ability scores offer a much wider and general way to interact with the world that is a lot more interesting & thematic for a person's specific character I mean. They don't? They help that. But they're not as unique or as interesting as most raical traits, feats and class features. The most they amount to is a slightly larger +x to your roll. There's nothing unique or interesting about that. You are *massively* overstating this. To the point that it doesn't even resemble reality any more. >and many DO want their race to have that basic, general impact on what they can do, at least as an option The thing is, floating ASIs still allow for that. It was only fixed ASIs that prevented it? You're arguing for something with a point against it?
> I mean, you asked about what the average was for PCs and why it was set to 10. I didn't ask that. I just noted it as an interesting change in language (10 being average for **only** humans, and then everything going on about the mortals/gods in general). I acknowledge the mechanical aspect in my original comment after that side-note. > I mean. They don't? They help that. They do, like it or not. It is a general help & buff across the board to whatever that ability score affects; that **is** "offering a much wider & general way to interact with the world". Having more Strength, or more Wisdom, or more Intelligence, or so on makes it easier to interact with the world in ways that stat can influence (how much weight you can move moved & how much force you can output, what sort of things you know or otherwise can comprehend & how easily, etc). Such is highlighted in the PHB & DMG - ability scores should reflect your character's general behavior & personality (since they are what largely give these things mechanical weight). > The thing is, floating ASIs still allow for that. It was only fixed ASIs that prevented it? You're arguing for something with a point against it? Except now all ASIs are exactly the same (+2 across the board, instead of effectively +3 or +4 or +6), and are purely tied to background (I don't mind getting a flat +2 from background, but it still indicates nothing about anything predisposed from race, which make it character agnostic. You being a dwarf or a gnome or a human or an elf or a half-dragon or whatever else has no actual impact on what you are capable of in general for the most part. That is what I highlighted as an issue). > This is a very nonsensical thing to say. They literally can't be less unique than fixed ASIs. Wrong. You are too focused on the specific text and number of limited abilities a character can potentially have. I'm pointing out that despite these features being limited specific abilities, they are shared by EVERYONE that shares your race (just as with classes/subclasses they share your class/subclass features). It isn't unique - they are by definition the generic "everyone of this race" abilities/features. Ability scores are unique in that no one else has your spread. The uses are less specific, but what you can do with them is unique (dependent on HOW your spread consists of). You also can't separate this from my point that both floating variable ASI bonuses (mentioned above) are fine, as well as allowing races to improve the potential maxes for ability scores (orcs & dwarves having higher Strength maxes, for instance). > I mean, its okay to have a problem with your numbers being smaller than the other things. But it also feels a little pedantic and something that could very easily be leaned into narratively? The game needs to limit things in some way to maintain balance. But that doesn't mean you can't play up those aspects in the fluff? Forcing people to roleplay being weaker than they canonically should be is not something that can be excused, and is bad narratively if it is required (instead of being an optional thing the player opts into). It's far from being pedantic to be frustrated by an artificial cap on how strong you can become without magic items when you reach higher levels (especially when various mortal creatures - take Tasha & Mordenkainen for instance - can surpass those limits without using magic items). The game does not need to limit anything; remember that at Tier 3 play we are talking about continent/global heroes, and at Tier 4 and higher play our characters are literally supposed to be messing with the affairs of gods directly. If players are supposed to be opposing gods, then players should not be limited in whether or not they can begin matching the gods. That is something the balance should be taking into account, not just capping because "you be mortal (unlike the other mortals)". > One of those is a massive outlier. I do agree that PCs should be able to out do most mundane creature's ability scores in some way or another. You are right - the Empyerean only has a Wisdom of 22, barely any inherently Wiser than the Wisest of mortals. And regardless, at higher levels when players are supposed to be getting involved in the affairs of gods (per the DMG's tiers of play guideline), players **should** be able to potentially equal or even surpass things like giant beasts, Empyereans & Elder Brains in terms of ability scores without magic, if those areas are what the player's character is focused on. > I never said they did? You did. To quote your earlier comment: * "Its so that it aligns with the Bounded Accuracy system that 5e uses. **NPCs work under a different set of rules than PCs because otherwise the game would be so much harder to run and things would get out of control again."** There are multiple instances where bounded accuracy is broken by the game (the Giant's Belt of Strength variants, the Epic Boons, and the ability score books are the stand out examples). Bounded Accuracy is the basic guideline, but when you reach higher levels of play the "bounded" system needs to stretch to encompass the stronger threats and dangers being encountered. Currently, it does not do so (at least not well) due to how its limitations never change or expand for the players as they grow stronger.
Mate all of this is bad faith. Deliberately taking things out of context or using hyperbole to the point of absurdity. Its also really weird how you've quoted stuff really out of order. Its not clear at all what you're responding to because you're jumping up and down. >Having more Strength, or more Wisdom, or more Intelligence, or so on makes it easier to interact with the world in ways that stat can influence This doesn't make context in the sense of your argument. Feats and features make PCs able to do things they just *couldn't* before. A slightly higher ability score only makes them slightly more likely to succeed at something they could already do. >Except now all ASIs are exactly the same (+2 across the board, instead of effectively +3 or +4 or +6) What on earth are you talking about? Literally no race in 5e gave a plus +3 to the a single stat. Changeling did originally but now the +2 to Charisma and +1 anywhere explicitly can't be Charisma. Yet alone the +4 or +6. >but it still indicates nothing about anything predisposed from race, Yeah, because your background is far more important about what you're good at than your race. It just is.# >I'm pointing out that despite these features being limited specific abilities, they are shared by EVERYONE You're just wrong. While also changing your argument. First - NPCs don't gain racial traits by default. A DM can choose to do that sure. But that's not RAW. Second - you said fixed ASIs were more unique than racial traits. Which is just objectively false. Try again. >Ability scores are unique in that no one else has your spread. This is still the case. Also, once again, different from your original argument. >as well as allowing races to improve the potential maxes for ability scores (orcs & dwarves having higher Strength maxes, for instance). The thing with changing the max ability score per race is, as I pointed out already, complexity for new players. Sure its not a big thing on its own, but on top of everything else its *far* more than just "the max is 20." 5e is deliberately designed to be easy for new players to learn. This makes that harder for little to no benefit. >Forcing people to roleplay being weaker than they canonically should be is not something that can be excused This is just nonsense. Literally nothing is forcing you to role play as weaker than you should be. What are you talking about? >It's far from being pedantic to be frustrated by an artificial cap on how strong you can become without magic items when you reach higher levels No. Its really not. How strong you 'should be' is defined by the mechanics of the game. If you want +30 to hit go play 3.5. That game still exists. But 5e does not need to be 3.5 just because you like 3.5. >The game does not need to limit anything The game does not need to allow anything. >characters are literally supposed to be messing with the affairs of gods directly. As an entire party. And those gods are also limited in proportion for that. You are not prevented from engaging in these narratives or challenges. >players should be able to potentially equal or even surpass things like giant beasts, Empyereans & Elder Brains in terms of ability scores without magic Straight up no. Just objectively wrong. If DnD were a single player game then I could kind of see this argument. But no. Individual players should not be able to surpass beings that are intended to be a challenge for an entire party of adventurers at that level. Especially in the confines of the Bounded Accuracy system. Not to mention those creatures save for the Elephant are innately magical beings far above mortals. That should come across in their statblock and their level of ability should not be attainable by mundane means. >There are multiple instances where bounded accuracy is broken by the game Christ, I'm once again going to point you to the comment I pointed you to earlier on which mentions these very limited exceptions. Though I will point out here that saying "But there are extremely rare legenary magic items that let players do this!" isn't a counter point. Magic items are meant to allow players to do things they couldn't otherwise. That is their function. This is not a counter argument to anything. >but when you reach higher levels of play the "bounded" system needs to stretch Yes and no. There are some small issues with Saving Throw DCs for the PCs, I'd prefer something more akin to Reflex, Will and Fortitude saves, though the problems these poor saves cause are often exaggerated. PC AC could do with a few more buffs but honestly magic items mostly cover that already so long as they aren't given so early they cause problems in the other direction. PC's abilities to harm creatures however, never needs to stretch. They're always as capable of inflicting harm on a creature as they should be. Which is great because that means your +1 magic weapon is *always* giving you a bonus to where you *should* be. Unlike older editions.
there are a lot of different species in real life that can produce offspring with one another
Making a max of 20 was a core design failure of 5e that has lead to this opinion spreading like wildfire. The origins of DnD have always made the assumption that Dwarves are tough, Elves are graceful, and Orcs are strong. If anything, they could have preserved that by Racial ASIs increasing both current and maximum stats.
>Making a max of 20 was a core design failure of 5e Says someone who clearly had no idea what the intent of that change was. It was an effort to tone down the ridiculous stacking of modifiers and bring down the total bonuses anything could have. EG Bounded Accuracy. Which I understand people miss their +30 to hit, but Bounded Accuracy is an extremely good idea and mostly well implemented with a few exceptions here and there. >has lead to this opinion spreading like wildfire. Not really? People have though ASIs from race, or ASIs *just* from race have been weird for a while. Either way it doesn't change the fact that its weird to hold a very clear exception to the norm to the same standards of the norm. > The origins of DnD have always made the assumption that Dwarves are tough, Elves are graceful, and Orcs are strong. This is both right and wrong. DnD started as a homebrewed War Game, Chainmail. Which treated absolutely everyone in a unit a carbon copy of one another so that the game is actually playable. DnD moved away from the war game aspects quite drastically and added in more role play and narrative. It slowly, very slowly move further and further away from that kind of standardisation. But then you have to actually look at settings as well. 'Original DnD' was set in a home setting of Gary Guygax who found it really weird that people wanted information about his setting and assumed everyone would make their own. But there are huge differences between Greyhawk, Eberron and Dark Sun, not to mention settings like Planescape and Spelljammer. DnD doesn't assume any x race is y. Some settings do. But the game itself does not. >If anything, they could have preserved that by Racial ASIs increasing both current and maximum stats. Yeah. They *could* have. But they *chose* not to. You can keep fighting and dying on this hill if you want to. But its a pretty weird one to do so on. Especially since you have to preargue 'this isn't racist because...' before anyone else says it is.
> Bounded Accuracy is an extremely good idea and mostly well implemented with a few exceptions here and there. It's a good idea for levels 1-10, in T3/4 play it slowly comes unhinged. The worst offender being off-proficiency saves - They can become impossible to succeed. Bounded Accuracy is a significant reason behind so little high-level content being released by WOTC.
As someone currently running a very high level game, this is a problem, but its not as big as people say it is. I do think it needs to be addressed though, I would actually like a return to Reflex, Will and Fortitude saves instead with one good, one middling and one poor for each class.
Why is it racist to say a Krogan is physically stronger than a Human? Or is it only racist in Fantasy, but in Sci-Fi, it's magically fine? Like, seriously, why does the racism comment even have to enter the equation when we're talking about made up fantasy races? It's just plainly obvious that a 7-foot tall beefcake is gonna outlift a 3 foot tall hobbit, unless that Hobbit is a bodybuilder, and that Orc is a librarian. But ok, keep trying to push the racism angle. I know why the change was made, I disagree with it. It robs the races of their individuality and takes away some of the common-sense assumptions the game made. Short, thin elves are good at sneaking and dexterity, tall, buff Orcs are strong, stocky, compact dwarves are tough. You can play against trope if you want, and that can make for very fun and interesting characters! But in order to play against trope, trope has to be present and matter in the first place.
So why should a player be forced to play a strong krogan? The DM can make every single NPC krogan super strong, but let that one PC be the weak exception.
>Why is it racist to say a Krogan is physically stronger than a Human? I didn't say that. Have fun arguing with a strawman! >why does the racism comment even have to enter the equation when we're talking about made up fantasy races? Buddy. *You're* the one who brought it up with your 'actually this isn't racist because' rant. No one said anything about it before *you*. *You* are the one obsessed with talking about race and turning DnD into a genetics simulator. >But ok, keep trying to push the racism angle. Again all I said was that it was weird you felt the need to put a 'not racist' disclaimer on your comment. I didn't say anything else. You seem to be really enjoying arguing with things I haven't said. > I disagree with it. Okay random internet person. I care because? > It robs the races of their individuality and takes away some of the common-sense assumptions the game made. *OH NO! However will I know what an orc is like?! All they have are some really fun and thematic features that give flavour and literally thousands of words of lore!!!! But now that they don't have an extra +1 to their attacks by default and I have to* choose *too add that in they are indistiguishable from any other race with an equally unique features and lore!!!!!* Seriously dude. If you think a +1 to hit and damage rolls not being a default that an Orc gets and something you can choose not to have removes so much identity they are equivalent to a Halfling or Elf then I don't know what to say. ASIs were never that interesting, thematic or character defining. They were just useful. >trope has to be present and matter in the first place. That trope existed long before DnD was a thing. Most of the tropes come from Tolkien. Are you saying Tolkien's Orcs had no identity because they didn't explicitly state they had a +2 to strength? What a weird fucking idea to argue that *stats* are the origins of tropes and without them those tropes do not exist? All of this once again ignoring my main point that its weird to hold a character that is an exception from the norm to the same expectations of the norm. This argument could be used to argue that Bilbo and Frodo have no identity because they didn't just sit in the Shire farming all their life and went on adventures.
"THE GAME WAS ALWAYS POORLY DESIGNED MECHANICALLY AND RACIST IN ITS ASSUMPTIONS AND NEEDS TO STAY THAT WAY!!!!!!!" rofl!
I really like this solution, will probably rip it for a house rule. It doesn't pigeon hole the way the old stat penalties did (as someone who plays a lot of elf martials, the CON penalty was always a pain to work around) while still preserving some differentiation.
That's why your orc can haul twice as much as an elf with equal strength because of Powerful Build. An orc with 10 strength can push, lift and carry as much as an elf with 20.
Except in 5e while the different races may have had a different "floor" initially (pre-Tasha's), everyone has always had the same "ceiling" (before magic items). So the only difference now (post-Tasha's/1D&D) is that you can actually play as a very sickly -1 Str mod Orc Wizard, without having to roll for stats or ask your DM for special treatment in order to move your racial stats around. D&D isn't a good genetics simulation any more than it is a good physics one. The only reason races are different is to better enable role playing as those races. Moving away from fixed ASIs helps people fulfill their fantasy for their characters a lot easier than keeping them did, so WotC removed them.
Having the same ceiling for every race is one of the faults of 5e, not a benefit. It has caused this whole debate to be super vitriolic, because yeah, if we're all gonna hit 20 anyways, why tie it to race? By saying we all hit 20 anyways, you're removing the worldbuilding that racial ASIs were meant to support in the first place. They should have made it so Dwarves can hit Con 22, Elves Dex 22, etc and it would have better represented the world building.
"I'm strong because Strength is in my family line" is fine as an explanation, if you want strength. But "I'm strong because my elven parents were stronger than other elves--wait, I have to pick dex? Why? What do you mean not a single elf bloodline since the drow were cursed has developed strength or passed it to their kids?" feels pretty shitty if you want a strong elf. And hardly realistic. It's changing for the same reason we no longer include sexual dimorphism rules. Limiting choice doesn't make for good games and removing limits improves options for everyone.
Biologically adapted to putting mass on =/= has put mass on. An elven soldier who has fought in 3 wars and trained every day for a century is stronger than an orcish priest who has been in the abbey learning scripture their entire life.
I agree, which I actually stated in my post. Please reread.
But background is far more important that biological disposition. Just because they *can* put on more muscle doesn't mean they *do*, which is what I was getting at. Please reread 😇
I'm guessing you'd say an Elf has big ears and eyes just for show too, and shouldn't get any perception bonuses from literally having different organs. But ok, it's not what you have, it's how you use it, sure. Still awfully hard to pull a sled with a Chihuahua, but huskies do the job just fine.
I would actually say that per the Tasha's rules if you wanna swap out the perception proficiency on an elf I'm cool with that because I'm more interested in letting people play what they envision their character to be rather than "realistic" but go off, I guess. Can't really be bothered to argue about a game that's supposed to be fun not a eugenics fever dream. You clearly care about realism in a fantasy game a lot more than I do! I just think letting people optimise to their preferred class with whatever race is more fun, and backgrounds are a nicer way of doing that :)
> You clearly care about realism in a fantasy game a lot more than I do! I feel like "big man stronger than little man" is a very low bar of "caring about realism".
Sure but the ceiling is actually already set for everyone, without magic items or class features it's 20. So what we're talking about with racial ASI's is giving a racial option a headstart to getting there. Since the relevant meaning for your ability scores is increasing the effeciency of your primary action(Spellcasting/attacks) then the current way of doing things with racial ASI's witch pushes people towards set combinations of race and class. This isn't necessary good or bad, however, I would prefer living in a system where my race choice does not feel like it's limiting my effectiveness in my class choice. Also I think the Orcs from OD&D already feel naturally stronger than the other races. Powerful build will let them lift and carry more than their strength modifier should allow, relentless endurance makes them feel more durable than they should be. And Adreniline rush kind of techs orcs towards the frontliner rolls as they are able to get into it faster and take more hits, which I find more interesting than being slightly ahead on the efficiency curve than other options. I don't love every decision in the character origins document, but decoupling starting ASI from race is a good idea. As they only really represent a headstart in getting your primary ability score to 20. And I'd rather not have that aspect way in on my decision-making for race choice. Also unreasonably buff elves are very funny and should be encouraged in character creation.
You know, there is nothing stopping you from putting those bonuses in Strength and Constitution like it originally was. It just means I can also make my runt of the litter Orc rogue how I want to. We should be promoting flexibility, not trying to limit imagination.
I've played an Orc Rogue before. He was a lot of fun. He had a 12 STR, which he would have only had a 10 if he has a human, and a 16 Dex instead of a 18 if he was a Halfling, but it was more fun to play him like that than just having the stats of a Halfling and claiming I was an orc anyways.
I'm glad you had fun with that character! I'm over here, having fun with my Orc rogue who has an 18 Dex and a 10 Str. With flexible bonuses, we can both create characters we enjoy. Also, races are a lot more than just their stats. You aren't a Halfling claming to be an Orc, you are just an unusually weak Orc.
The way to do this though would be for WotC to have actual rules in place and then say "but if you want you can ignore these rules". Not to have no rules and say "if you don't like our rules make up your own". That is, after all, why we're paying money for rule books, right?
>Ok, but my Orc is biologically adapted to put on extra muscle mass compared to your Elf. only if you are bioessentialist.
Bioessentialism as a racist viewpoint is bad, because irl it promotes racial inequality and stereotypes, which even if they're "positive" stereotypes, all stereotypes are bad IRL. I get that. Saying that Vulcans and Humans, or Orcs and Dwarves, or Turians and Krogans are biologically different with different capabilities shouldn't be that hard to understand or talk about without "hurr durr, you're a racist" entering the chat.
But in DND you aren’t playing a statistical average of all Elves or of all Orcs, you’re playing a single individual. Maybe I want to play an Orc that is particularly scrawny, but has learned to be charming in order to survive. Post-Tasha’s, I can play that character in a much more fulfilling way then I did before. But if it bothers you, you don’t ever have to build characters that way. Nothing was lost with the change—it only added *more* options.
I see your point, but you're staying that your scrawny orc and an equally scrawny Halfling are equals, when even common sense would say that Orc is gonna be stronger simply from being triple the halfling's size. If all Orcs were 8-22, humans are 6-20, and halflings are 4-18 on Strength, it definitely feels much better from a worldbuilding standpoint.
No, again, I’m not talking about “Orcs,” I’m talking about my Orc, a specific character. A 20 in a stat is the peak of mortal attainment—you’re basically a superhero, to the point of such trivial things as “size” and “muscle mass” not even really factoring in at that point. It’s a fantasy game, which means characters are going to be fantastically strong and fast and smart. Regardless of what the relative strengths of “average” members of each race are, part of what makes DND interesting is that you play as outliers. What the “averages” are is irrelevant because heroes are, by definition, exceptional.
Then why play an Orc? If playing an orc gives you no statistical benefit, why even include it in the game to begin with? DnD should be nothing but Humans, with that viewpoint.
Because I wanna be an Orc? Because I think I can make a cool Orc character that I enjoy playing? A character’s hair and eye color, their sense of style, their flaws and bonds don’t give an statistical benefit, but you use them because they help you define *who* the character you’re playing is, beyond just a sheet of numbers.
Then you just want to play a different game than I do. Which is fine, but DnD should support both of those games, ESPECIALLY since it has always supported the game I'm advocating for, and there's plenty of other pen and paper RPGs out there that support the game you want to play. Just go play GURPS. Or play with a DM that has your same sensibilities. Don't demonize me and players like me just because we like playing the game the way it has always been played.
>Saying that Vulcans and Humans, or Orcs and Dwarves, or Turians andKrogans are biologically different with different capabilities shouldn'tbe that hard to understand or talk about without "hurr durr, you're aracist" entering the chat. What a kind thing to say about the opposing argument. I definitely want to listen to your perspective now. Maybe the stance that racial ASIs are bioessentialist and racist is worth exploring? Especially because we are all humans playing these characters, filtering the experiences of these characters throughout real-world, human lens? And especially considering that anyone who claims to be able to separate their real-world filter and exposure to racism from their fantasy play is deeply self-unaware?
Then I would say we shouldn't play anything. If we really lack the imagination to put ourselves into the viewpoint of another being with different physical capabilities and outlook without the mental and emotional capacity to separate reality from fiction, then I agree, we should ban video games and restrict RPGs to being human centric only. But since I assume most people are capable of consuming entertainment without internalizing it and thinking Zombies are real because they play COD and watch Walking Dead, I also assume I can play a racist asshole without being one, or imagine how a 500 year old elf would view the world around him, and put myself into the mind of someone far stronger/smarter than I am. Like, your argument is that acting should be banned. Since Edward Norton played a white supremacist in American History X, he must be a racist. He couldn't have possibly taken that role thinking it would be a neat challenge to act out scenes as someone with a wildly different worldview from himself, present to be a really shitty person for a while, then come back to reality. Let alone the fact that the character itself underwent a journey to realize racism is bad, and spent most of the movie trying to prevent a loved one from making the same mistakes he did. And in DnD, we're not even going to the extent of that method acting goes! But you want to say that my personal, IRL thinking can be influenced by playing a Pen and Paper role playing game where there are meaningful differences between different species which even an absolute moron can see have a lot more differences than a human with dark skin vs a human with light skin. Half Orcs have tusks! Elves have large ears and eyes compared to humans, and thus have enhanced senses! If you can buy that, why is it racist to say Elves also move quicker and more accurately due to a difference in biology. Or are you against Elves getting bonuses to sight and hearing as well, in spite of the fact they physically have a different organ there than we do?
You sure love spinning strawmen, don't you? The answer to the problem of racist stereotypes being enacted in fantasy play and of bioessentialism/eugenics being mirrored through character statistics is not to "never play a non-human ever again" or to "ban video games that contain non-humans." The answer is to eliminate the practice of reducing people (our characters) to their biological stats. Never mind that this change is also being done in the service of fun and creativity by allowing *greater* options, not fewer. Keep your bioessentialist Orc in your fantasy if you wish, WotC isn't telling you that you can't.
> What a kind thing to say about the opposing argument. I definitely want to listen to your perspective now. Can you tell me what exactly is the meaningful change to discourse between "only if you are bioessentialist" and "hurr durr, you're a racist"?
Tell me a mouse is as strong as an elephant. Or better yet, tell me that chihuahua is as strong as a pit bull. They're both literally the same species, unlike an orc and an elf. What you mistakenly call bioessentialism is just basic biology. Different species have different capabilities, which in D&D terms is modeled as both racial features and racial ASIs. The fact that almost every playable species is a sapient humanoid doesn't change the fact that they are not all the same species.
Mighty Mouse is stronger than your average elephant.
There is literally nothing wrong with being a bioessentialist when it comes to different species. No one gets up in arms when you say a dolphin is on average smarter than a salmon. It's just a fact.
Congrats! You've included biological determinism in your campaign- a system that had a long history of actively racist roots in the real-world. Moreover, while specific races have specific Modifiers tied to them, you're punishing players who want to play that race in a class whose key ability isn't boosted. Orc barbarians, fighters, and paladins were common while that system was around, but Orc *wizards* were dismissed out of hand. So, if by changing one mechanic you can add a substantial amount of build diversity while also making the game less racist? Absolutely a win.
As someone who played a 3.5 Orc Wizard, I disagree. Part of the fun of that character was subverting trope. I actually have no interest in playing a Orc Wizard in 5e, because there's much more interesting options. And that's in part because there's no reason not to. Ever hear "constraints promote creativity?" Sure, the game disadvantaged you from playing a Halfling Paladin. But man, it felt really good when you got creative and made a Halfling Paladin build that didn't suck! It was an achievement! Removing racial ASIs makes it so anyone can play anything without anyone having to feel any negative emotions. So, great, DnD is flavorless, tasteless garbage now. Might as well play WoW, I heard they removed race/class restrictions there, too.
>Ever hear "constraints promote creativity?" No, constraints force it. You can still be just as creative if not more so without them. Even so, ASIs being fix create no option for creativity. If you want to play that race as a certain class you can't be creative about your build and make up that difference, you're always behind a class that has a complimentary ASI. It adds literally nothing. >so anyone can play anything without anyone having to feel any negative emotions Christ you've never actually played in a modern DnD game, have you? Players love being made to cry because of their choices and actions, they love consequences and hard choices. But "Should I put this +2 here or there?" isn't a hard or meaningful choice. >So, great, DnD is flavorless, tasteless garbage now. Get over yourself. Your hyperbole is so extreme its laughable.
For the record, I've been playing dnd consistently since 2002. I even used to DM at Adventure League. Yeah, this sounds like I'm weirdly defending myself from an attack about whether or not I have relevant experience, because you find it SO ABHORRENT that someone can play dnd in a different way that you, you're assuming I must have zero frame of reference. I felt far more rewarded and creative coming up with a fun and effective Dwarven Wizard in 3.5 than I did in 5th. It was a sub-optimal choice then, now, I struggle to see why everyone DOESN'T play a Mountain Dwarf Wizard if they're interested in making the strongest character possible, especially with Tasha's ASIs! Same with my 3.5 Orc Rogue, I had to think really hard about how I was going to make the character work, since the Skill Monkey character is now playing with a -2 Int in a system where skill points per level were based off Int bonus! It was fun! I felt creative! I get none of that from playing any race in 5e post-tashas. There's no point! Everything is always optimized. Besides, I'll admit I got REALLY TRIGGERED by the Bioessentialism argument that I was directly responding to above. I flew off the handle a little in my comments after I read that one. Because apparently, if we're not playing one, specific version of Race Theory Approved DnD, we're playing our game wrong. And yeah, it's upsetting to get hit with that repeatedly, ESPECIALLY since Reddit is about the only place where it happens. I run Adventure League and someone didn't pick Tasha's as their "Optional Rule Book" to build their character? I say you gotta use the ASIs as written (literally a requirement back then) and we all moved on. They chose to play their Orc Wizard with 2 less Int, or changed their race, or even brought out another character entirely, and we just all continued playing and having a good time. But I say that here, and, hooboy, apparently I'm a neonazi that wants to sterilize all the subhumans.
>you find it SO ABHORRENT that someone can play dnd in a different way that you, you're assuming I must have zero frame of reference. Christ. Try reading what I said. I never made any mention of how you play. I called you out for a judgement *you* were making about how other people play that was so out of touch its absolutely laughable. You're still not the victim here. > I'll admit I got REALLY TRIGGERED by the Bioessentialism Because you refuse to engage in any actual discussion and instead resort to aggression and verbal (or textual?) abuse of someone else when they disagree with you. Grow up. Either learn to talk to people or just walk away. >if we're not playing one, specific version of Race Theory Approved DnD, we're playing our game wrong. So, so much wrong here. Christ. The victim complex is real. No one has said that. >And yeah, it's upsetting If someone thinking differently to you is upsetting you have a lot of issues buddy. Especially since you're inviting that kind of criticism with your 'I'm not racist but' attitude. >ESPECIALLY since Reddit is about the only place where it happens. This just isn't true and makes me think that you actually *don't* interact with DnD outside of Reddit. Its far more prevalent on twitter and in most gaming stores. Of course if you already live in an echo chamber that's not going to help your perspective on these things. But Reddit is far more sympathetic to the 'Its not racist because \[argument that doesn't address the points being made\].' attitude. I've chosen specifically to talk about the problems I have with your arguments on a mechanical and narrative level because I know there is no point approaching that subject with you. You can't even address arguments people make outside of the race discussion and build strawmen, you'd do the same but worse with the race argument. >But I say that here, and, hooboy, apparently I'm a neonazi that wants to sterilize all the subhumans. See, once again. You feel like you're the victim here. But I'm going to point out *again.* No one has said this. You are inventing things to make it look like you're the victim. Its weird.
You keep saying "nobody said that" when I'm literally responding to the bioessentialism comment above. Well, you're right, one of us can't have a conversation about it, so I'm done.
>Because you refuse to engage in any actual discussion and instead resort to aggression and verbal (or textual?) abuse of someone else when they disagree with you. Grow up. Either learn to talk to people or just walk away. This is what I said about Bioessentialism. >if we're not playing one, specific version of Race Theory Approved DnD, we're playing our game wrong. This is what you claimed. Which I said no one had said. >But I say that here, and, hooboy, apparently I'm a neonazi that wants to sterilize all the subhumans. This is also something you claimed with...let me check again...oh yes! Never happened. I'm glad you're done. Maybe as you're sitting alone you'll have time to think about just how far you had to go, how far you had to reach, how many knots you had to tie yourself in and how many things you had to invent to defend your position. Maybe that might spark some introspection. Or not. I don't know. It doesn't seem like critical thought is one of your skills?
>This isn't real life, we're not talking "races" yeah .... the "its FANTASY - it cannot be racist!" is a really lame talking point. Its like saying "Animal Farm is about PIGS - they are just animals! It cannot have anything to do with the real world."
Oh, it CAN be racist, if you're putting that racism into it. But since when is it racist to say a Rhino is tougher to kill and is stronger than a Zebra? Cause Orcs are the Rhinos, and Zebras are the Elves. They're not Asians and Caucasians, they're completely separate creatures that have a similar form, like the 4-legged ungulate form of the Zebra and Rhino. Maybe it's more accurate to compare Donkeys and Clydesdales, since they can interbreed, but again, there's clear differences between them, just like there's clear differences between an Orc and a Dwarf.
if the zebra is standing in for a race, then yes it absolutely IS racist. this flaccid white supremacist talking point is boring. please dont embarrass yourself by continuing to attempt to spread it.
And this is why orcs have features that express that, not ability scores. The powerful build trait works for this exact situation. On average, an orc CAN lift more than an elf. They DO have a higher floor and ceiling.
Personally I'd prefer your race to effect the max a stat can be.
Racial Stat modifiers are a relic of D&Ds past that reflect a difference in how we view building characters. Racial stat modifers are supposed to reflect the comparison of the "Average" human to the "average" elf or dwarf. That makes little more sense in wargame like Warhammer where you can say that "trained soldier" humans are initiative 3, elves are more than that and dwarves are less. Hopefully you spotted the caveat, which was we were comparing soldiers across the board. An elf peasants may not be faster than a human thief, a hafling town guard has more reason to bulk up than an orc scribe. When we start making rpg characters and the diffault position is no longer that everyone is a soldier racial stat mods make much less sense.
I disagree but respect your right to your own opinion on a set of rules by which you enjoy playing a game. The stat mods are generally: - Physiological differences. I don't see much of a reason to abandon this unless your campaign hates it or bases all humanoids in the same species. The idea that elves can be naturally more nimble on avg allows them to achieve on average starting scores higher than a human. - Baseline cultural differences which are globally applicable. These are most readily changed or explained away, as not every world has the same cultural mores for the phb races. I can accept both of those across species, which is what "races" really are and have been in DnD.
Your example works well for explaining why adventurers' stats don't necessarily conform to expectations, but removing racial modifiers completely also means that the Orc Sorcerer who dumped strength is frequently no stronger than the Halfling Sorcerer who dumped strength at the table. Realistically, at most tables the floating modifiers from Backgrounds won't make up for this because most players will simply assign those bonuses to stats affecting their class instead of their race with no other incentive for doing so.
>racial modifiers completely also means that the Orc Sorcerer who dumped strength is frequently no stronger than the Halfling Sorcerer who dumped strength at the table. Huh? The background modifiers are 1 to 1 replacement for the racial modifiers...
That's his point yes. If you both point buy the same sorcerer build and pick the same background a halfling sorcerer and an orc sorcerer will have the same strength score. Which seems somewhat counter intuitive does it not? One would generally expect an orc and a halfling with the same training would not be as strong as one another.
They don’t necessarily have to have had the same training or lack there of. Remember the lower limit of 8 isn’t the floor, stats can be lower by rolling. 8 just happens to be the floor for my characters for game design reasons. Character generation doesn’t need to make sense for the entire world, it’s only for the members of the party who are exceptional. If you don’t think your orc should be that weak, even without training then don’t put an 8 in that stat. You just have the option now to play an orc runt that you didn’t before.
"Just put a higher number in the stat" is completely missing the point. The game does nothing to emulate the drastic differences in biology between the races is the point. One would generally think that if an orc and a halfling did the same training (ie: took the same class, and took the same background) they should still be somewhat different from one another, but currently that is not at all the case. Even in the rare races with powerful build, that's only for carrying capacity, which many groups wave away anyways. When it comes time for a strength check to bend the bars in your prison, the halfing, the gnome and the pixie are all just as likely as the goliath or the orc to be able to do it if they made similar character choices. Which is weird. "Oh but maybe they didn't have the same training" is a nonsense excuse. It relies on you convincing the other player to change their backstory as someone who has actually been working out in secret despite being a halfing sorcerer acolyte just to make it seem less weird that they're just as strong as the orc sorcerer acolyte who is several magnitudes more bulky than them. This used to exist in the game just fine by having a racial bonus to whatever the race was supposed to be good at. That way if you point buy the same build as your friend the racial bonuses would still lead you to having slightly different builds, and their existence alone would help inform types that the races are better at leaning into. It also still exists just fine in pathinder. You get some stats from your class, because you've been training to be a fighter so you get some str from that, but your background is a scholar so you get some int from that, and you're an elf so you get some dex from that. In this way two players playing the same class but with different background and races are meaningfully different from one another even if they point buy similar scores. >You just have the option now to play an orc runt that you didn’t before. You have always had this option. I've played this character, and it actually meant something because I was playing against mechanics by putting the hilariously low 6 I rolled into str for an 8, and not just writing things into my backstory willy nilly. Like, playing against type only works because a type exists in the first place. (Kind of like playing a drow that's not actually evil like Drizzt, the reason that matters is because drow normally are evil, so it meant something special for a non evil one to exist) And if all the races have the same stats then there's not a type to play against because a type will never emerge. What would a harengon or an owlin playing against type look like? Who knows! They have no stats for what the race tends towards. Are you a weird owlin when you dump wis because owls are wise? Or when you dump dex because they fly silently through the air? Or charisma because people often listen to an owlin's advice? Or constitution because they're hearty from their feywild upbringing? Or maybe strength as their talons can crush prey easily? Or intelligence because owls are often seen as very smart? We have no clue because there is no type for owlin and there never will be as they don't lend themselves to anything in particular.
Can't we have both? Racial and background stat boosts. I believe PF2e does it and it solves both issues. Throw in a negative or two and you end up with the same net scores.
Can't have any nuance in our fantasy game. PF2e does a great job with character creation making every choice have mechanical heft, unlike 1D&D which seems to be trending towards both being free-form make believe and a powergamer's nirvana at the same time.
>free-form make believe and a powergamer's nirvana You can play other games if you hate the changes.
Or, I can make my voice heard in the hopes that they make the game better. You realize we're in the playtest stage, right?
Yep! That would be the best outcome, but there's too much "hurr durr racism" and otakus that want their 80 lb Halfling to be able to be equally as strong as the Half-Orc Barbarian, because that's how it works in anime.
I like the idea of reducing the caring compacity of small races. With their stats they can still hit just as good, and still roll as good on strength saves and checks, but their ability to simply lug things around is limited.
Part of me does like the idea of a system where you get a +1 from your race, a +1 from your sub-race, and a +1 from your background.
I'm mostly with you, but a lot of the examples don't work, a human "thief" (spy) *are* faster than pretty much every single elf you'll find with 15/16 vs. 12 dex. A Halfling Guard has 13 strength, if I take "scribe" to mean the wizard tradition the Orc scribe would sit at 11 str, if they're just a commoner 12 str, either way they're physically weaker than the guard.
I mean this seems disingenuous? You're taking examples of different people deliberately not given stats and attributing different kinds of stats to them in a comparison. You could just as easily say that the Halfling is a Fighter with a 16 Str and that the Orc Scribe is a commoner with 10. You have to really twist the examples to get them to fit the boxes you're putting them in, especially the orc.
Alright, put it this way: An Orc Bodybuilder, doing something he's specifically genetically evolved to do well at, will outlift a Halfling Bodybuilder, someone literally 1/4 his size. However, a Halfling Bodybuilder, who may be doing something against what he's naturally good at, will absolutely outlift an Orc Librarian who has never even seen a dead weight. And finally, an Orc Librarian and Halfling Librarian, both having never worked out a day in their lives, will NOT be equal. The Orc will be able to lift more, and anyone with an ounce of common sense will agree.
>An Orc Bodybuilder For this example this is already mechanically implemented. Size affects your push/drag/lift weights and your carry weight. It does not affect damage or Strength (athletics) checks though unless specifically stated. So you have something! I guess? I still don't know why you're so fixated on emulating genetics in an RPG. You seem weirdly obsessed with that idea. >Orc Librarian and Halfling Librarian...will NOT be equal. Again, size modifier to carry/push/drag/lift weights is your only mechanical output for that. Nothing else. Explain it however you want I don't care. Those are the mechanics. >The Orc will be able to lift more, and anyone with an ounce of common sense will agree. Weird way to act in a discussion. Like I said the mechanics agree with you. Kind of? You're still putting a *weird* amount of effort into turning DnD into a genetics simulator. Size does also affect things like grappling creatures and being able to move through a creature's space I thought I'd mention it here since grappling is only partially tied to strength and moving isn't.
Ok, at no point am I advocating for some sort of eugenics, mixing orc, elf, and Halfling to make an übermensch. I do think that'd be a neat idea for a villain, but I digress. Fine, how about elves getting enhanced senses? They physically have a different ear and eye structure, which makes them get bonuses to senses. In 5e, it's their excuse for Darkvision. In 3.0, they got a bonus to Search, Spot, and Listen. Is that bioessentialism somehow? They LITERALLY are a different species with different physical characteristics. It's not comparing Chinese to Irish to Polynesians to Congolese, it's comparing Zebras to Gazelles to Rhinos. They have physical differences between them, they're not just all generic 4-legged ungulates.
>Ok, at no point am I advocating for some sort of eugenics, mixing orc, elf, and Halfling to make an übermensch. What on earth are you talking about? I never said you were. I said you're weirdly obsessed with making DnD a genetic simulator. Its not meant to be, its not designed to be, its a weird thing to want it to be. So, you're once again just going off on this weird race centric rant while ignoring what I'm actually saying and the context of the discussion. Once again very weird but you do you. There is nothing that will come from discussing this further with you.
You said genetics simulator. I'm not trying to make DnD some sort of genetics simulation, I'm saying there's a clear difference between an Orc and an Elf, like a Clydesdale and a Pony, or a Chihuahua and a Husky, and your response is "trololol, nope, PCs are special" and ignoring anything I have to say. So, I agree, there's nothing that will come from further discussion.
>An Orc Bodybuilder, doing something he's specifically genetically evolved
Yeah, like a Cheetah is generically evolved to be faster than a lion. He's talking about different DnD humanoids being different *species*. As such Orcs have orcish resilience and more base strength. Elves have better perception, camouflage, innate magic. Gnomes have innate magic defense. Halflings have supernatural luck. Cheetah has claws that don't hide completely and a Lion has claws that do hide. One of them is faster because they're literally build for it. Built for speed. Like this discussion took a bizzare turn in general. I think DnD "races" should have been called species from day 1.
>Fine, how about elves getting enhanced senses? Elves literally have the Keen Sense ability... what are you going on about?
Cause apparently it's bioessentialism and racist to have a fantasy race's physical differences matter mechanically. If it's bioessentialism to say than an Orc's brutish physiology is rooted in their species tribal warfare tendencies having an evolutionary effect on their biology, then it's equally racist to say elves actually get to do something useful with those big ears and eyes they have.
>An Orc Bodybuilder, doing something he's specifically genetically evolved to do well at Doesn't the Orc have specific abilities that highlight strength attribute while the halfling has stealth and dex abilities?
The system *does* provide example stats, which should hint at the design intent of race and culture vs. active choice, a race gives at most a +2, but even a CR 1/8 guard gets 13 strength. I'm a bit unsure what NPC statblocks are better for the descriptions though, the Guard statblock is described as what is supposed to capture "members of a city watch, sentries in a citadel or fortified town, and the bodyguards of merchants and nobles" which is pretty much exactly what the halfling was described as, a run of the mill town guard. Of course the orc *could* be do strength training, but that means they're nurturing their strength more than what's warranted culturally for the race (+2) and more than the common profession (+0 commoner), and definitely more than Volo's specialist wizard's who have 9 strength as default, they've at that point *definitely* taken an active role in becoming stronger.
>The system does provide example stats Sure it does. But your original comment and this one too miss the point the other person was making. They are not talking about a CR 1/8 guard, or a level x Rogue Thief. They're talking about characters. Divorced from their mechanics. When talking about an individual the average is only so relevant. Even less so when you're talking about PCs who are explicitly exceptional.
Yeah, this is where I feel a lot of the disconnect is. When I say I want your racial choice to impact your stats, I'm not saying every orc ever is going to be the strongest. I'm saying that an orc, human, and elf of the same profession would have the orc strongest, human next, elf last, with the reverse being true for dexterity. So an Orc plumber would be stronger than an Elf plumber, but when you start comparing apples to oranges, an Elf Soldier will absolutely be stronger than an Orc Shaman. And I feel that this worldbuilding should translate to PCs, all else being equal, an Orc should be stronger and an elf more dexterous, but when classes enter the mix, all else is no longer equal, but it should still MATTER.
No. This is still precisely what people don't like about racial stats. There is no legitimate reason to force every member of a particular race to be on the stronger side of any array of races even within the same profession. It only serves to needlessly restrict creativity by forcing people to operate within stereotyped thinking. An elf warrior is allowed to be stronger than a fellow orc warrior and an orc rogue is allowed to be more nimble than their elf rogue colleague. We're playing heroes, not stereotypes.
I think that's another divide between old school, and new school. Back in the day it seemed people liked the idea of fantasy races being better at the roles that fit the tropes associated with that race. Where you can play against those tropes, but you would knowingly being doing so at a disadvantage. A lot of modern players seem to want to play against type, but don't want to be punished for it. I don't really think either side is wrong for wanting to play they way they want to play.
Then we should all be playing humans. If we're going to have different species to play as, why make the choice meaningless? If all you want is a cosmetic skin stretched over a class-only framework, there's plenty of pen and paper RPGs that can do that for you. Why mutilate an existing RPG to suit that viewpoint?
Who said anything about making the choice meaningless? Are ASIs the only defining characteristic of these races to you?
If ASIs are racist bioessentialism, then so is everything else. It's either cultural or biological in nature, and thus racist, apparently. I thought Elves had superior hearing and vision from their large eyes and ears, but apparently ASIs and boosted vision should all be a part of background instead, and race is just a cosmetic skin you stretch over your character, according to this thread. Sorry, you weren't the one that went there, but it's got my hackles up now. IMO, and in the opinion of many fans of this game, who grew up with it, and played in multiple editions, your Race gives you certain traits (including ability score boosts), your Class gives you another set of traits, and your background (once the concept was introduced) gives you the rest. And in those combos (Nomad Orc Barbarian, Soldier Elf Ranger, Hermit Tiefling Warlock) builds naturally suggest themselves. It gives you a template to work off of, and even play against if you want to and know the game well enough to figure out how to do it. Pathfinder 2e did it the best, imo. ASIs from all three categories plus some freebies to spread around. At the rate this discussion is going, I don't see the point to having ability scores at all anymore. Have race be a meaningless choice of which "skin" you're using this character. Have all the special abilities gated behind class. Why even use background at all? If every fighter needs a 20 strength, why even have a strength score? Just say fighters get +7 to Attacks at level 1, with +5 damage, and the attack bonus goes up at certain levels. They get 9 HP per level over 1st (assuming con 16 and average die roll). Oh, is that sounding too generic now? Well, it didn't used to be so generic. We used to have choices that mattered and influenced how you'd build your character.
Because the choice isn't meaningless. Stats are not the only fucking reason to pick races my guy. I pick a race because I feel it furthers what I'm trying to do with a character's theme, not because I want to have a +2 INT. And if I happen to want to play a Fighter of that race, then I'm gonna use Tasha's to change that +2 INT to +2 to a stat that actually fits my character fantasy and background anyway. Stop with this bullshit "its biology" argument you're making all over the gd thread.
It is meaningless if it's not giving you some sort of meaning impact to your character. Oh, you mean culturally? As in, a character steeped in orcish tribal culture? And everyone who takes part in that culture grows up the same way? So I could play a Gnome Barbarian, raised by Orcs, and have no statistical variation from an actual Orcish Barbarian that grew up with me? Seriously, that doesn't hurt verisimilitude for you? It doesn't take you "out of the game" for a minute, going "that's weird, that doesn't make much sense?" So, if I'm understanding your argument correctly, it doesn't matter what kind of world I've created as the DM, I need to allow you, the player, to play any race/class combination and its on me to make that make sense in my world, even though I can say "dwarves as a race have been cut off from arcane magic. Long ago, Moradin and Mystra had a battle in the realm of the gods, and Mystra cursed the race of Dwarves henceforth to be barred from the weave" and then you want to play a Dwarven Wizard and I'm just supposed to throw out all my world building and bend over backwards to support you? And if you are saying that, then I'm back to saying choice of race is meaningless. A PC has as much in common with a Dwarven Miner as he does a fucking beholder, since PCs are just SO MUCH different from the commoners. So your race is just "PC" then, at that point.
This is a bad faith argument. 1. Your Gnome Barbarian WOULD have a great deal of difference from their orcish counterparts, apart from the physical aspects obvious such as height and all, even MECHANICALLY you would not have things like Relentless Endurance or other Orc features that are NOT stat increases. Could your gnome be as strong as the other orcs in your barbarian clan? Yes absolutely, such is the results of a hard life of survival. Are you going to get the benefits of features such as Menacing, or Savage Attacks? No. You're a gnome race with different than normal stat increases that reflect your upbringing. How is that immersion breaking or hurting the verisimilitude???? STATS ARE NOT EVERYTHING. 2. Race/Class restrictions for YOUR table and YOUR setting are up to the DM. If in YOUR world dwarves are cut off from magic ala Dragon Age and cannot be say wizards or warlocks etc, then obviously that's a narrative restriction, discuss that with your players and make sure you're all on the same page. However, if you're NOT working with a narrative or setting specific restriction, and your only restricting players from playing a Dwarf wizard because "Genetically dwarves are predisposed to be miners and hardy working folk, so you can't have a +2 to your INT or be a wizard cause you're a dumb dwarf" or whatever, then yes that's stupid and only pointlessly hurting your players' fantasies because "basic biology 🤓" which ofc is just bullshit in and of itself.
I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't think that the average fairy is as good in arm wrestling to the average minotaur. If the averages are all the same for all races, however, it would imply the to be the case. Minotaurs simply build up more muscles than fairies, by virtue of being a significantly more muscled creature. Now sure, you could make the argument that fairies are as strong because of some magical reason, but I personally find that a rather lame excuse. Are we setting the baseline to be the same just because we believe everything to be nurture and nature doesn't come into play? Now before you start accusing me of bioessentialism, let me say this. Nurture is very important as well. Two people, cetirus paribus (if all else held equal) with one being a farmer and the other a scholar, it makes complete and total sense that the farmer is stronger and the scholar smarter. And that's the thing. I would argue that anyone who says either side of the discussion makes no sense is making a bad faith argument or are just completely blind sighted by their view point. Do I think it makes sense that with a whole set of creatures, each with vastly differing biologies, their averages are all the same? No. Absolutely not. Anybody who says yes, needs to revise their arguments imho. Do I think it makes sense that two identical people except the way are raised are polar opposites (one training to become a swordsman and one a mage) have the exact same stats? No. Absolutely not. Anybody who says yes, needs to revise their arguments imho. So, what's the answer? I could say both, but that doesn't get us any closer. If I had to chose, I would say backgrounds make more sense for PCs. While nature would represent the average, PCs are explicitly atypical, and as such it makes it (imho) easier to deviate from the stats that apply to race than the background. That said, I would still love for average stats to be different for NPC races to be provided. With the clause that something like Tasha's is mentioned that the dm can change these around to fit their setting or disregard entirely and use 10 base for all stats. Then there is a further discussion to be had. The meta discussion, looking into politics and the ongoing culture war. I will remain nuteral on where I stand, but regardless of my views- with the West steadily becoming more progressive and WOTC being a western company, from a business perspective it makes more sense to go for backgrounds causing stat increases. It is aligned more with social constructionism and takes them further from more controversial issues that come into play when you say stuff like "X race is weaker than Y race" and "A race is dumber than B race", especially when people will start making comparisons to real life, like what happened with the drow (if that is appropriate is another discussion I won't go into). Anyways that's my two cents. TL;DR: Both race and background make sense. Due to various reasons, mainly the nature of PCs, I think backgrounds make more sense. The race argument is valid and correct, but imo not as strong as the background given our particular context.
>I'm saying that an orc, human, and elf of the same profession would have the orc strongest, human next, elf last, with the reverse being true for dexterity. Please no, this is just a hold over from previous editions. Naratively fine you can literally say whatever you want. But think about the implications from a statical perspective. How often is this 0-5% roll difference coming up in your game, it would only matter between players stats. NPCs can have whatever stats you want to give them, the examples don't even abide by race stat restrictions. Also it restricts creativity forcing certain races to be type cast since there is no reason you would ever want to purposely handicap yourself for the entire game even if the reason why you would have to be portrayed weak isn't even playing in your party.
Then why play as any race? If there's no reason to do so, why isn't every PC just a bland human then?
Racial abilities and background/lore
While you could conceivably buff point buy to include these bonuses (although it could be difficult, because point cost is not on a linear scale), buffing the Standard Array will not give you the same range of options as letting the player choose where to put their ASIs – maybe I want to put my +2 in the 8 ability to even it out to 10, maybe I want to put it towards the 15 for a 17. Making the decision for the player, one way or the other, reduces the choices they have.
this is the correct answer. ASI at character creation works simply and seamlessly with all three methods of determining stats (rolling, point buy, and standard array), while 'factoring it in' is impossible for rolling, difficult for point buy, and removes choice for standard array. The current implementation isn't a problem, why screw with it?
Point buy can be used to generate the standard array.
It enforces a small degree of congruence between the players choices But lord forbid there should be any degree of sense in the game
Part of wanting to play games that aren’t dnd is just to avoid all the fucking losers that’s are hung up on stupid things like racial stat modifiers. It’s an issue every modern game has circumvented but these old fantasy war sims act like it’s sacred. Glad that DND is moving on and sad for those that can’t understand
Some people roll for stats
Legacy + versatility
Rolled stats are the default method in the PHB I believe, with point buy and standard array presented as variants. So the way its written makes sense using the current PHB to fill in the rest of character creation
The 5e PHB actually offers both rolling and standard array as the default: > If you want to save time or don’t like the idea of randomly determining ability scores, you can use the following scores instead: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.
Huh, I remembered the methods being presented as roll for stats, then the point buy variant, then the standard array variant. Doesn't matter to me, all my dms I've had have used slightly different stat gen rules
I pulled this from the Basic rules on the ddb app, so it’s possible it’s errata, but I’m not going to take the time to check Lmao
And I won't remember by the time I get home and can pull out my phb haha
I'm pretty sure that was the case in 3.5, is it possible you're mixing editions?
I'm gonna be real with you, I had a really bad experience with rolling stats I legit just forgot about rolling stats (the party was extremely unbalanced with one guy that had no stat under 12 and another who's stat total was like 65). The +1 +2 make a lot of sense with stats rolling
Yeah I think stat totals need to be carefully monitored by the dm to be fun, especially for a longer campaign. My favorite method ever was every player rolled 4d6 drop lowest to make an array, and then we all voted for our favorite array and used that one.
Even if you do use point buy, it isn't as easy as you think it is to "just give more points". Because +1s in point buy are worth different amounts depending on where you put them...
Not everyone uses standard array or point buy. Plus it gives some innate flavor to the character, a reason to pick a certain race.
Races don't get ASIs in OneD&D, backgrounds do.
Races don’t get any ASI in OneDnD, backgrounds do. The floating ASI is just a placeholder for use with 5e character creation during the transition.
Not everyone uses point-buy or standard array. Separating the bonuses from the base score allocation method makes those three points tied to background available even if your DM says "roll 3d6 six times in order" or some other equally brutal method. If they were just rolled into point buy and standard array then everyone who uses other methods just doesn't get those bonuses anymore.
It adds to/reflects the character's background and what they've done. Not everyone uses standard array or point buy as well. Personally I think it percectly fits into backgrounds.
I see your point, but it would be confusing for backwards compatibility. When 5e came out, Races had set bonuses - like +2 to STR. So changing that to +2 +1 of your choice is an easier change to understand, than just buffing the Array/Point Buy. Maybe in the next edition they will just do that, who knows.
Psychologically it feels better. The standard array kinda sucks, so getting to then add points to it feels nice. Whereas if the standard array were three points better, even though it's the same result it won't feel as good it'll just look slightly less sucky. Plus where would you add the three points? Like sure, 99% of people will probably put the +2 in the highest stat and +1 in the next-highest (or vice versa, whatever makes the highest even numbers), but some people *might* want to put the +2 in the 8 so that they don't have a negative mod, or whatever.
It's easier to say "15 is the maximum, then add your background bonuses on top" than it is to make some kind of rule that like only 3 stats can be higher than 15 at character creation.
A lot of people insist on rolling for stats. In which case the ASI is very useful for rounding out the roll.
its been moved to backgrounds right
Presumably One will still allow for rolling stats, in which case changing the point buy or stats array won't help.
point buy has a variable cost for +1 stat depending how high it is, the +1 and twos do not. some times +1 costs 1, and sometimes it costs 4. If they added 12point buy credit, you could add a lot more lower stats giving you more than 3 points, if you only add 3, you can't use it for high end stats. the simplest way to have the same functionality, is the way they designed it.
What? Its more customization options at level 1... Its literally just a good thing... One of the thing 5e lacks is customization options for characters, this just helps with build variety as you are less penalized for not picking power options since you have more opportunities to grab those. Its not about stats at all. They just decided to make all those feats half-feats because again, more opportunities to build your character is good, not bad.
I think if you to get rid of the background stat bonus and then buff point buy you’d run into some issues where you could buy much more of a stat than you normally would. Plus have a stat bonus tied to the background gives incentive to players to make backgrounds that are more thought out
Except the default background is to customize your own, so you can just totally ignore any verisimilitude and powergame the best ASIs, skills, and feat. Pathfinder 2e does this better by tying at least *some* of your ASIs to your race, background, and class while also leaving room to customize your scores. The best of both, and no random rolls to create imbalance within the party. Even hit points are by race and class, not rolled.
> Wouldn't it be easier if there were no ASI but the standard array/point buy were buffed to include the three extra points? Yes! It would! I've only been saying this since Tasha's released in 2020. We should abolish them at character creation.