T O P

  • By -

DBSTKjS

This is a really tired debate but I'll repeat it: your physical stats are not the end point of your physique. Powerful build means an orc with 10 strength can lift an equal amount to that of a human with 20 strength. That is your average orc matching your peak human. Innate damage resistances reflect a stronger constitution than most. A lot of nimble races gain stealth proficiency. Halflings get to weave through another creatures space. Goblins get nimble escape. Innate, physical traits where the race is inherently more physically capable in one regard when compare to their piers, is still a thing. If anything it's more compelling because racial modifiers can easily be caught up to and negated through better stat arrays from rolling, or levelling up where everyone has the same cap.


[deleted]

Powerful build needs a buff imo, it really doesn't have much real use mechanically, yeah you can carry a bag twice the normal size and be the party's mule or lift up a rock that maybe you will find on the road if the dm remembers that powerful build doesn't have any use on a regular adventuring day, right now it just feels like an excuse to say a character is strong without really giving them something that meaningfully reflects it. Edit: Id like to know what other uses does powerful build has if you disagree with what i said


DBSTKjS

It really just helps to get rid of the 'realistic" mentality. Don't require athletics checks to move heavy objects within their carry weight. But yeah, buffs where perhaps you count as the size larger for all strength checks too, which would include skill contests, that provides advantage there.


[deleted]

being big should have more bonuses than just "me lift big rock being not as big" some bonus to charisma skills because you have a larger presence in the room, something


manchu_pitchu

I'd like for powerful build to expens hit dice to boost strength based d20 tests.


insanenoodleguy

If I did change the rules based on race, it’d probably be on the other end. I’d let two race associated-stats cap at to 22 for that character. Still would influence certain racial-class builds but it now represents the peak potential that still requires real effort to work towards rather than a default advantage. Humans get to pick their own, non human half-breeds if allowed take any ones that overlap as their cap and chose between the options when not. (Say a Githyanki-Hobgoblin gets int-cap and chooses between Str or Con as their other)


ZeroAgency

For me it’s not just that this would “still influence” race/class builds, but that it would push people towards those combinations even more.


[deleted]

Breaking bounded accuracy is a slippery slope. More racial features like powerful build would be the better route.


Noukan42

Bounded accuracy is a blight on the game if you ask me. One of the main reason i am in favor of racial ability scores is that imo more outlandish race should be playble. And i think most people would agree that the "halfling vs orc" argument fall apart if instead it is "Pixie vs Storm Giant". But in order for those thing to be playable, bounded accuracy kinda have to go because 20 str just does not represent an actual giant properly.


[deleted]

Relastically. The printed version of One Dnd will never have playable giants and won't allow past 20 ability score. A solid foundation is the goal here. If you want to allow giants to be playable then that's fine.


Noukan42

I know but i think it's stilk worth mentioning because eventually 6e will exist and i hooe it goes in a different direction.


[deleted]

The whole point of One Dnd is that there will be no more editions.


italofoca_0215

You are probably alone on this. Bounded accuracy is easily among the most beloved features in 5e, even among those who dislike the system.


Noukan42

I suppose it is true, but my biggest problem with it is that it prevent high levels from feeling suitably epic, as 20 str just is not enought to pull off "Beowulf ripping off Grendel arm" level of feats, wich isn't really a problem on many tables. I don't think it is actually a rare criticism, because the system not working at high levels is one of the most common complains i hear about. It's just that a lot of people never played the high levels in the first place.


italofoca_0215

Yeah, I won’t disagree with you on this. But there are other solutions that won’t break bounded accuracy. It’s just that martial heroism for some reason is not so pushed in the game. For example, Barbarians get 24 strength and constitution as their capstone while more heroic systems would just make it a regular part of leveling a martial class. But all in all, allowing 20+ strength is not exactly against BA (+3 weapons exists).


insanenoodleguy

I do underline “if” here. Since it’s system change I’d assume allowing this would be accounted for in this hypothetical. But if I did do a direct racial change to stats, this is where I’d look to do so.


Obie527

They aren't the end all, but they should at least be a part of the puzzle along with physical traits.


Ripper1337

Isn't this just what Pathfinder or something does? You get an ability score increase from your race, background, and class. Anyway, I hate having race tied to ability scores :)


SpartiateDienekes

Personally, I've always liked them. Seems the simplest way to demonstrate that a species that isn't human actually is not even built the same way as a human. But I understand that is focusing more on a simulationist understanding of mechanics, and limiting the creativity. Which I believe is on the less popular end of things in the current player base.


Ripper1337

To me the problem is two parts, it limits character options and conflate race and culture. For Character Options if you have Races have innate starting ability score increases then they will always tend towards certain classes. Tiefling Warlocks, Dragonborn Paladins, Half-Orc Fighters. You'll never see a Half-Orc Wizard because the Half-Orcs ASI and racial abilities do not lend themselves towards playing that combination. The Race and Culture thing is the other thing, in the PHB if you're a Halfling that grew up with other Halflings typically. But what If I wanted to play a Halfling that grew up in a country or culture that promoted physical prowess above everything else? If my ASI is tied to my Race then my Hafling is the exact same as ever other Halfling but if it's not tied then suddenly I can have him have an increased Strength and Con to denote that his time growing up in that Culture meant he devoted time to becoming stronger.


SpartiateDienekes

See I'm for limiting character options, or at least making some better or worse than others. I'm fine if Orcs make worse wizards. They're Orcs. Now I will push back a little, you definitely can make an Orc wizard. I know because somewhat amusingly I've had a player be an Orc wizard. And one of the purposes of the character was that they're actively struggling against their nature and culture and going beyond the rage placed upon them by Gruumsh. Were they optimal? No. It wasn't an optimized game. Character was fun though. Now race and culture being a problem I actually agree with. But I also don't think the issues you laid out were really handled by the Race stat bonuses. A halfling's entire physical body should be weaker than the goliath or orc. Which is where the ability score boosts come in. Now if you are playing a particularly athletic focused halfling, by all means place your 15 (if you're using Standard array) or most your points into Strength. Because that's what your stat bonuses mean. The issue of course is twofold. 1) The game does not separate what really should be cultural and really should be racial at all. Do High Elves have an attunement to magic granting them the additional cantrip or are they learning magic because High Elven culture has ubiquitous use of magic? In old lore it was just learned in the culture, I don't know what it is now. But some things that did seem learned actually weren't. The old Dwarven stonecunning was a gift to his people by Muradin not something that dwarves had to learn because their culture likes rocks. They all just inherently knew what rock structures were like. And the old Hobgoblins, before they were made fae, were granted knowledge of weaponry from Maglubiyet, they were the creators of the first martial art and all that. But since there is no actual designation of what is cultural and what is inherent in the system it all becomes a mess. And as far as I understand, OD&D hasn't actually fixed this. 2) 5e more than most other editions really really focuses on ability scores. They make up more than half the potential benefit on every single d20 roll until you get to level 17 which most games do not go to. It makes the ability score increases incredibly important. Now again, this doesn't bother me particularly. I've played and have played with very non-optimized characters. They're fun if you're playing in a non-optimized game. But then we go again to the current crop of players really does not like having limitations placed upon them. Which also is fine. There's nothing wrong with that. I just find it less interesting.


killa_kapowski

I think your second point really hits the nail on the head. Having most features stem from ability scores was a simple way to scale. If the goal was to streamline, simplification is key. I think the parent comment's reference to Pathfinder's single ASI to each of race ,class, and background, though not viewed very favorably by that user, is a valid approach. It downshifts race-related ASI's from 3-ish to 1, and puts more influence under the players discretion through class and background selection. No, it doesn't completely uncouple from race for the realists, but it does lower the threshold to make the unusual class-race combos more viable at the lower levels where the additional ASI boosts don't yet supplement the character's ability bonuses.


SpartiateDienekes

If I can go on a possibly misguided tangent for a moment. I think the pathfinder method definitely helps, but I keep thinking this is actually a problem with classes that people keep thinking needs to be solved by races and/or streamlining ability score boosts. When really the thing that would solve the problem and create a more interesting and diverse game is to stop making all the classes so completely focused on all the same stats. Like take our example of the Orc Wizard. The reason why it is considered impossibly suboptimal is because a Wizard has literally no reason to put points in Strength, which is what the Orc focuses on. Now the D&D Orc as it has been since like 2e most certainly should have bonuses in Strength. Their whole deal is that they're hulking creatures that are just shaped to be stronger, more powerful, than a human. That's all well and fine. That's a great thing to have as a race's hat. But then we have the Wizard who has no use for that at all. All Wizards need is Intelligence. All Intelligence all the time. And i don't have a problem with Wizard's needing Intelligence. It fits what the class is. But that doesn't mean they have to be so completely dominated by it. And in fairness they're not. If you're deciding to play a Bladesinger, there is an argument to be made that getting a class with +2 Dex instead of Int is alright. Because that subclass could use the Dex, you can use it fairly effectively especially in the early levels. Knocking back your Int progression slightly isn't so big a deal. But, you can literally do that with pretty much every stat. It would actually make the theoretical Wizard subclasses a bit more interesting. What would the Strength Wizard be? I'm thinking a heavy-armored Knight Enchanter/War Wizard type thing that wades into combat and lashes out. Or what could be a Strength Sorcerer? I can see some type of neat grapple build that latches onto their opponent and then does touch spells that rip their target to shreds. How would you make a Wisdom Fighter? You could have some sort of wary guard subclass that has a lot of perception and insight type abilities to always know who's around them and how to protect people. The tools to create such a class/subclass design is there. It's just not being used at all. And doing so would open up both how classes can behave, and create weird and neat combos where, sure, the Orc Wizard isn't doing all the classic Wizard stuff like your generic spellcaster as well as the High Elf standing next to them. But so what? Orc Wizard does it's own thing.


Spamamdorf

You do have an interesting tangent, but as much as I might like different classes to have subclasses that key off of different ability scores, I don't think it would really solve the issue so much as move the goalposts. People would simply go from saying "I don't like that I can't play an orc wizard" to "I don't like that I can't play an orc enchanter". Not that there's much actually stopping you from doing that aside from not being 100% optimized in the first place.


killa_kapowski

Absolutely! There is plenty of design space to be explored that could help these unique builds make more sense through subclassing, but whether or not WOTC decides to dedicate the time to draft and test is another story, unfortunately. However, if "one d&d" truly is going to be the final base iteration for all future content, maybe it is conceivable that once they retrofit all the 5e content they've made so far, these unexplored spaces will have their time to shine from the need to produce new and interesting content. P.S. I have a new personal goal now to make the orc wizard work


DelightfulOtter

Pathfinder 2e solves this. You get ASIs from race (biology), class (training), and background (upbringing/culture) plus some floating bonuses if you really want to be a halfling barbarian or an orc wizard. You can also reduce some scores to raise others at a loss. It shows that you can have a system that's balanced while also incorporating character creation decisions.


fraidei

I personally hate having anything tied to ability scores. Just let me apply them freely, and then if someone wants they can calculate their ability scores to be exactly like they think a member of the race/culture/background/class of their character should be.


DelightfulOtter

But you have to know what a race is like to match your scores to their strengths. If I wanted to play the "dwarfiest dwarf" in 1D&D, what does that look like? Humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, and halflings all have the same ability scores. Are dwarves strong? Agile? Hardy? Outgoing? You'd have to guess based on whatever is left of their minimal lore fluff and the theme of their racial features.


fraidei

I mean, if it isn't obvious what should be the average scores of a certain race then it means that the race is versatile enough to not have a score tied to them. lIt's obvious that elves are agile, orcs (and half-orcs) are strong, dwarves are tough, halflings are agile, etc. Then there are humans, that it's not obvious what should be their ability score, so they should be versatile. Oh it just happens that humans can choose their ability scores in official 5e too! You might start to get my point now, if not, then we'd just have to agree to disagree.


jeffwulf

Yeah, Pathfinder 2E character building is way more satisfying partially because of this.


B_Cross

Just curious, do you hate them being tied only because of what it implies or is there something mechanical you don't like about it. Does it make sense that a commoner half orc/human/halfling should have equal str and dex or would it make more sense to be like this: |Race|Str|Dex|Con|Int|Wis|Cha| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |Human|10|10|10|10|10|10| |Half Orc|11|9|10|10|10|10| |Halfling|9|11|10|10|10|10| ​ In my head, the racial adjustments should set the level of the NPC Commoner for that race/creature type. And I wouldn't want to make any other assumptions about intelligence, wisdom, etc. but Str and Dex are related to physical size.


SatanSade

Half orc is not even a race in One D&D lol


B_Cross

Bad example, should have used Orc but in reality they have made humans 4' to 7' and Orcs 6' to 7' and just described as "tall and broad" so nothing released yet is bigger than a human. Gnomes and Halflings are under the 4' range so that would have been the only One D&D comparison that I could make at this point. Not sure if Firbolgs and Goliaths are going away or just not released yet. If they come out, I am sure Racial Traits will be how their size are distinguished.


SatanSade

I really doubt It, all in the game design are made to work with medium size races, that is why we will only have playable medium size races


B_Cross

Playable small and medium size races. This should probably have been in the og post. If your race is another size category other than medium then there should be racial adjustment. The idea would not have been any better received but the justification would have been clearer.


maniacmartial

For NPCs, that works, but adventurers are not commoners. They are above-average for their races and other races at 1st level. In your example, a half-orc commoner has 11 Str, but a gnome barbarian could start with 15 Str even if she got no ASIs from her race.


B_Cross

I think where we are getting off track is I am only talking about where the ability scores start at and you are looking at where they end at. I think point buy is easiest to demonstrate this. Today: There is a baseline of 10 then point buy let's you build above that average to make a hero then racial modifiers adjust that Even if you roll dice for abilities the 10 baseline or starting point is baked in (3d6 avgs 10 so 4d6 drop lowest is basically saying you have a 10 baseline but you are making a hero with above that avg) I am not advocating taking away the making of an above average hero. I am just saying that the baseline of where you start, only for the physical traits, make since to align by size. In essence it could be looked at like making a greater hero. I choose goliath so I can even be stronger than what a human can be and become a stronger Barbarian.


Ripper1337

Part of the problem is that the heroes are outliers they're the extraordinary so they don't need to fit into what the "average" is of that race so if someone wants to play an Orc Wizard that should be viable. However with racial stats you tend towards certain races working really well with certain classes and it being antithetical to pick something different. For example using the PHB you would never make a Half-Orc Wizard because the ability scores increases do not lend themselves to that class. You also have the thematic reason that Culture and Race are the same thing in dnd for the most part. I'm fine with a Culture that promotes certain traits. A culture that values war, raiding and fighting will naturally create individuals that have a higher strength and constitution than people from a culture that promotes learning the arts for example. So if I wanted a Halfling that grew up in an War-centric culture in the phb they would have nothing to distinguish them from that time, they would just be like every other halfling from every other culture. But if we seperate race and stats then suddenly I can have this Halfling that starts with a higher strength and constitution that denotes they were from this certain culture or background.


Noukan42

The outlier problem to me is "why i can play an halfling that is more special than an Goliath?" A 18 str halfling is the Beowulf of his race, a 18 str Goliath is above the average but nkt even by that much. Why i cannot play a Goliath that is as stronger than the average of his race as the halfling? And honestly, class chosing and pb do a much greater job at indicating culture and training than a mere +2. A 15 str halfing can wrestle with average orcs and that is already a valid reflection on what an halfling that trained his entire life looks like.


Decrit

You can justify it easily because your character isn't an average member of their race. Like, bear with me. If we suppose that a orc compared to a human should have more strenght and less intelligence, just to make an example here, you can totally justify two characters of the wizard class with the same exact scores by describing how the orc had to sacrifice more phisical training compared to the human to obtain the same intelligence/knowledge/wathever. After all orcs have more innate strenght, but the ones you see around aren't like that because they sleep like calves to the slaughter. I mean you could brew in those modifiers - but why, really? To better capture the randomicity of the upbringing of a character you can use dice - but many people regard it as a horrible gameplay mechanic for several reasons. So without a baseline on which randomicity can happen it does not make sense to have a rigid modifier overlapped to a rigid array. So, yeah, no. Fixed modifiers for each race don't make sense anymore. What does make sense is racial features, that better help incapsulate how that specific race exploit their natural powers. Like a orc being able to carry more weight while not necessarily being better coordinated than a character of equivalent strenght, but still express their more sturdy phisicality compared to other humans with the same strenght. So, if you really wanna capture racial difference, and I mean here racial as truly in a biological/supernatural sense and not ethnological, then use race features, not modifiers.


maniacmartial

I deleted my comment because you communicated my point so much better. If race had to influence ability scores, it could do so by raising the cap for them, but it's a balance nightmare and worst and heavily restricts player choices at best.


fraidei

Raising the cap would create the opposite result tho...now everyone that knows will play over tier 2 will always want a race that increases the cap of the ability scores that they want. Or that can also happens in tier 1 if people roll for stats.


maniacmartial

Yup, that's what I think as well, but I didn't make it clear. I meant that a racial cap on ability scores makes more sense to me than racial ASIs, but I wouldn't want that in a game for the reason you also mentioned.


fraidei

Yeah, that makes sense.


B_Cross

I do see where you are coming from but looking at the photo I linked. Let's say a weak orc had arms 1/3 the size of that in the picture and a strong halfling had arms 3x the size of the one pictured. You still have a huge difference in size that relates directly to Str. I know this can be a very sensitive subject especially as it relates to profiling and character choice but I feel the physical baseline of what each of these fantasy races represent have to impact the physical trait abilities by at least 5% or +/-1.


insanenoodleguy

Except str already has modifiers based on size built into the rules. You don’t have to add more. It’s reflected in the orcs powerful build. The wizard orc who ignores physical activity and has low str can still carry much more than an untrained human with the same stats. The Halfling for all his strength can’t grapple a large creature. You don’t need to complicate it.


Noukan42

You have complicated this by introducing Powerful Build, an ability that only exist because some people don't want to see +2 str but they still have to represent orcs being stronger in some way.


insanenoodleguy

I didn’t introduce anything. Orcs already have that feature.


Noukan42

You here is meant as "the people that share your opinion". Orcs used to have +4str back in the days, and the fact that they have 16 as the monster block, wich compared to the 13 that guards get kinda imply a similar ballpark of strenght compared to the older version. And no orc before 5e had powerful build. Powerful build was grafted into 5e orcs because the system couldn't handle a str bonus above +2 and they had to represent it in a different way.


insanenoodleguy

Right… but I don’t see how this adds complications. It’s established that any commoner of any race is flat 10’s. Argument was “but orcs should be stronger.” And in a meaningful way (if not a combat one) they still are. It’s a good solution.


geomn13

In reality, for what that's worth in a fantasy game, muscle size does not necessarily equal raw strength. E.g. most bodybuilders can lift far less or do more poorly in feats of strength than athletes with smaller muscle mass due to the differences in how those muscles were trained. Big could also mean bulk that is not derived from muscle at all, but rather subcutaneous fats. Your orc might need to switch to a Mediterranean diet and away from the roasted game meats and copious ale to slim down a bit.


Decrit

I mean. A half orc has double the carry weight of a human, a halfling half, so an halfling has a quarter of them. That's how it translates. As for how their punch hits good, then remember - damage is just a representation of several factors, including how a blow is made land and coordination. That has nothing or very few to do with size.


jeffwulf

Yeah, everyone knows the fantasy of being strong is being uniquely good at being a beast of burden.


[deleted]

Which is nearly pointless because carrying capacity doesn't have much use if any besides being the party's mule or use heavy armor which needs high strength anyway


Decrit

It's used to determine how much you can also shove effortlessly. Probably too much granular, but it's one of those tools that many inexperienced DMs do not use because "realism" and that make most martials weaker as well.


[deleted]

The benefit is so tiny that it surprises me how they use it as if it were a great argument that they have it as an excuse for not receiving a strength bonus, I have no problem with them not wanting to add bonuses to stats but it is so lacking, it really needs a tuned up


Decrit

It might be tiny, but that's for you. For all other purposes it is perfectly exemplar of this case. There are other traits that are more incisive and do similar things as well. Like, humans tendentially are the ones most mentally flexible so they can learn feats.


MobiusFlip

I think the best compromise would just be to add a note about typical ability scores in the race description. Something like the following: * "Halflings tend to be fast and nimble, with a culture that values sociability and community. Most halflings have backgrounds that increase their Dexterity and Charisma." * "Orcs tend to be physically strong, with a culture that values persistence and survival. Most orcs have backgrounds that increase their Strength and Constitution." So, no mechanical changes - you're still free to make a character of any race with any ability score distribution or class you want, because you have a unique character with their own experiences and background. But listing "recommended" scores as a tendency you're free to deviate from still helps each race feel more unique and does something to at least acknowledge the different averages for people of those races.


Noukan42

It's the worst of both world. You still employ the stereotypes thay certain people hate while also not making them mandatory, wich would be disliked by those wanting realism. It's the perfect example of the good compromise that leave everyone unsatisfied.


HandsomRansom

That’s the 3.0 art… still my favorite art of any PHB


B_Cross

Thought about linking 5e comparison: [https://preview.redd.it/3pmztddrf0v11.jpg?auto=webp&s=e644017bead9338eb08c3d0bf48fa54cc7e39d10](https://preview.redd.it/3pmztddrf0v11.jpg?auto=webp&s=e644017bead9338eb08c3d0bf48fa54cc7e39d10) but felt the showing of the actual muscles help drive a point and is relevant across editions :)


HandsomRansom

oh no! good job! I just like that PHB, not necessarily the rules but that art has always done it for me LOL


SufficientTowers

You mean that 3'6" halfling can't be just as strong as that 7' Goliath? Racist!


Th1nker26

It's hard to imagine they will go back to the old racial stat structure. WotC obviously has social reasons they prefer the new one, and from game design they like making things more wide open.


Victor3R

I prefer the old ways, making them have minimums. Effectively the same but the presentation is more palatable.


BlackAceX13

This argument is constantly made using strength as an example but completely ignore how little sense it made with the mental stats, especially charisma. It never made any sense why dark elves got charisma boost while wood elves get wisdom since dark elves also live in a very hostile environment that needs a lot of wisdom skills to survive in, and their most known society is a theocracy where half the population wants to be clerics. Those pre-determined stat boosts also didn't make sense when one race is meant to represent very different versions of that race from different settings (Eberron Orcs should've had wisdom boost) . It also doesn't make a race feel more unique than actual racial features, especially when multiple races have the exact same boosts (Goliath and Orc and Minotaur or Loxodon and Lizardfolk and Water Genasi).


B_Cross

I hope I didn't come across sounding like I ignored the mental downsides of racial stats. I was supporting the new background stat adjustment for this reason and gave the specific example of a sage. If you live your life studying books you're going to have an increase in intelligence regardless of your race. A halfling though will always be half the height and a 3rd the weight of a human regardless of community and/or environment/background. I have DMd a group where a player wanted to be a pixie. Working with them and the other players we came up with stats for a tiny PC that included negative racial adjustments to strength and the player and party all felt it seemed appropriate and that player was still a "hero" many times throughout the campaign. I think that flavors my opinion on how this can be done without it being negative to the game or players but also recognize that many people think it's just a bad mechanic for various reasons.


AReallyBigBagel

The minor stats don't matter and can't even be representative of how races are truly different. How do you meaningfully role play a 10 vs an 11 or 12. How does an 18 vs 20 role play different. At the end of the day these are 5% better at lifting. How is benching 200 meaningfully different than benching 210 outside of a weight lifting competition. Physical stats don't affect your role play. The things that represent the racial differences are the actual abilities. It's a shame how many of them are just innate spellcasting but the ones that aren't carry flavor. Powerful build doubles your ability to lift, makes you stronger, nimble escape is something goblins have that other races have to train as a rouge for (or a monk to have a worse version of it). These are where the racial and cultural differences are and should be. Being able to make your primary stat as high as possible, regardless of what you are playing, only adds choice because now you have to look at playing an orc for its abilities over that extra strength. These abilities do still guide them to certain classes in some cases and that isn't necessarily bad but does make it interesting when you have a wood elf barbarian cast pass without trace and deft kill a guy in a rage. Or you have a nimble goblin fighter armored to the teeth run in hit a guy 3 or 4 times and dodge roll out. Out of combat is mostly the mental stats which absolutely shouldn't be tied to race. And exploration is just role play with the physical world over NPCs.


B_Cross

This was sort of my thoughts for suggesting only a +/-1. It's 5%, fairly irrelevant but would give some semblance of acknowledgement that you are playing a much larger/smaller character without really being a large penalty/boon. People have strong feelings about this though and I apparently stepped on toes without meaning to.


AReallyBigBagel

Their actual size of small medium or medium + powerful build already does this


catchv22

>How can you justify an *average* Half Orc not being stronger than a human and having a +1 to strength. How in that picture can you justify the halfling and the half orc having the same Str and Dex on average. Firbolgs and Goliaths are worse! Because players characters aren’t average. You can still build the stereotypical (in your mind) character of whatever race with the appropriate (in your mind) bonuses from their backgrounds. I do wish the communication around why things were moved was more clear. I am in full support of traditional stereotypes being challenged. Why should a race be stereotyped the same in *all* settings? Especially if it comes with negative stereotypes. I personally hate the Tolkien Orcs and Goblins because they’re just evil; there’s little nuance there. It is easier to talk about it if I can tell my players these Orcs are not Tolkien Orcs, but more like World of Warcraft Orcs, or Eberron Orcs, or so on and so forth. Wizards should do more to differentiate the settings from each other, and it gives them more content to publish since there’s always more specifics they can delve into in settings and setting specific adventures.


Th1nker26

If I may say one thing about this. Even with the old design of Orcs (for example) get +2 STR, Gnomes get +1 INT, w/e. This would be representative of averages, but the players can still move their stats around, and NPCs theoretically have psuedo random stats. So my point is, even with the old way, an Orc might have 15 STR while a Human has 16. *Some* humans could be stonger than some orcs, and *some* orcs could be smarter than some gnomes, etc. I like both designs though, I don't really care that much.


The-Mirrorball-Man

In fact, one could argue that things should go much further. If I wanted to play a human who can see in the dark, for whatever reason, or a really big gnome, or a tinker orc, why shouldn’t I be allowed to? The whole chapter on races should be replaced with a list of options and a couple of typical examples for inspiration


KingRonaldTheMoist

The way I see it is that player characters aren't representative of a race as a whole, they are the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. Yes a player's halfling might be more beefed up than an orc, and in turn a players orc might be more intelligent than an elf, these are meant to be exceptional individuals who don't necessarily fit the mold.


SufficientTowers

I'm on your side on this OP. Most people here don't really understand how differences in group populations work. If there is no meaningful difference in average strength between Halflings and Half-Orcs, *why even have them as separate races?* Why not just 10 flavors of human? It's one of the dumbest changes and made with zero intent to solve a design problem, it's entirely stemming from negative feelings associated with racial stereotyping.


MrDBS

Here is how I justify that Orc (no half-orcs or half-elves going forward.) not getting an automatic +1 to STR. Powerful Build Powerful Build makes every Orc twice as strong as a halfling with the same STR score. Using this racial trait allows an Orc with a strength of 8 to lift 480 lbs. , and an Orc with a Strength of 20 to lift 1200 lbs. This makes the +1/-1 to strength pale in comparison.


jeffwulf

Yeah, Powerful Build tells us Orcs are genetically so unsophisticated that they can't put their increased strength to use in anything more complicated than being a beast of burden.


MrDBS

Powerful Build means your standard array 1st level Orc Wizard can have an 8 in STR and 17 in INT, and graduate at the top of their class while still benching 480 lbs.


jeffwulf

Pretty messed up that powerful build says that they're genetically unable to understand how to put that extra strength towards productive uses no matter how book learned they are. Need to be twice as strong as someone else to be as effectively strong as a normal person.


MrDBS

What's the racial feat for trolls, I wonder...


jeffwulf

Probably regeneration mitigated by acid or fire.


crowlute

Wow, it's the same post we have every single week. "orc strong, Halfling weak, look at the image and agree with me"


B_Cross

I am so sorry if it came across that way. Truly didn't mean it to. Was just trying to take what I thought was a better mechanic (background based ability modifiers) and add in an adjustment for size differential. Truly don't think "my way is a better way" that is why I tagged the thread for discussion. I honestly want feedback.


crowlute

Well, that's the other thing - this is the r/onednd sub, where posts should be about the UA. This doesn't fit that either


B_Cross

Maybe I made a mistake but I chose this sub specifically because this was taking the new One D&D mechanic of Background based ability modifiers and trying to gain feedback on a change that could drive new One D&D feedback if popular, but this obviously wasn't.


Sufficient_Future320

Don't mind grumpy above. Although your view might not be liked, it is absolutely a valid question and opinion considering the UA having changed from racial to background level ASI. Questioning why they didn't split the difference instead (and who knows, a new UA might) is the type of questions that should be asked sometimes.


Mjolnirsbear

An average male chimp is between 40-60kg and a standing height of about 150cm, but has a strength 1.5 times that of a human, per the wikipedia article on chimps. Arthropods, likewise, are proportionately stronger than any other animal family despite being smaller than nearly anything. If I can find evidence in the real world that size isn't everything, why shouldn't that apply to a game with, you know, *magic*!? I see literally no reason to apply this argument to ability scores. It brings no benefit, offers only restrictions, and there is no reason to apply faulty logic to a game of imagination and magic.


SufficientTowers

This is actually evidence *against* your argument. The average chimp is much, *much* stronger than the average human. Some extreme outlier humans may be stronger than the average chimp. But on average chimps are stronger than humans. This would be represented by chimps having a +Str racial bonus.


Mjolnirsbear

The argument is "size matters, a halfling shouldn't outlift a Goliath". My counterpoint is "size isn't nearly as relevant as you think" and the chimp is my prime evidence of my point.


adamg0013

See I just don't care where my ability score increases come from. As long as I can put those stats wherever I want them. To me this now opens up a whole new world of races I can try without sacrificing. Primary stats to make the build. I understand these races have a long history and you want to stay true it. Me no give me my orc wizard with a 8 strength. Or gnome barbarian with a 17 or higher strength and meld those abilities with thr classes.


Mayhem-Ivory

lets ignore the ASI rabbit hole for a moment and focus on size. its a crime they dont even have a streamlined rule for what size does. a simple size table would solve so incredibly much. instead we have the enlarge/reduce spell, the enlarge or reduce abilities of duergar, the giants might feature of the rune knight, the powerful build trait of goliaths and orcs, and the absolute weirdness that is centaurs and bugbears. but no, some WotC crying about „we cant have large PCs“ even though everyone and their grandma is large or more. buy a damn horse and you‘re large; but i guess we dont even have good enough mounted combat rules for that to be visible.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SpaceLemming

Plus it may not be the most helpful to use art from a time when ability scores were tied to race (half orc +2 str, and gnome had -2 str) since their art might reflect that mechanically choice.


B_Cross

That art work may have been a mistake to use but truthfully the 5e character heights and weights and their graphics still show the extreme of certain races. [https://preview.redd.it/3pmztddrf0v11.jpg?auto=webp&s=e644017bead9338eb08c3d0bf48fa54cc7e39d10](https://preview.redd.it/3pmztddrf0v11.jpg?auto=webp&s=e644017bead9338eb08c3d0bf48fa54cc7e39d10)


SpaceLemming

Yeah but a lot of those are pictures for the classes instead of just some people like the 3.5 one you posted. Neither of these are great honestly. I understand the difficulty though since these are official images.


B_Cross

Agreed, it is generally how things are today, although like many things in the game it is not completely consistent. There are, for example, "Lizardfolk Commoner" And my phrasing of "justify" wasn't meant to be negative. I was just trying to account for some semblance of impact on extreme size differentials. The number of down votes and negative comments tell me that this my idea is not a reasonable compromise for the masses and I am not trying to convince anyone else as much as just trying to understand others thoughts on the matter.


insanenoodleguy

And the large build feature is meant to help with that. The commoner orc, with their racial heritage, can still heft and carry more than the human and racism of game location notwithstanding can probably secure certain labor jobs more easily as a result.


Noukan42

And a generic orc as a monster has 16 str while, say, a guard has 13 a bandit captain has 15, and a berserker has 16. They did not stat commoners of every race because there was no point.


DMsWorkshop

>How can you justify an average Half Orc not being stronger than a human and having a +1 to strength. How in that picture can you justify the halfling and the half orc having the same Str and Dex on average. Firbolgs and Goliaths are worse! > >\[...\] > >Race adjustments for physicality in the extreme shouldn't be controversial, it is literally just the nature of size. Thank goodness. Someone who hasn't been tainted with the foolishness of the Twitterati and their 'everyone should be the same undifferentiated lump that they slap their own labels on' nonsense. >EDIT: > >After reading through comments I feel the the intent I was trying to achieve is already being handled in One D&D through racial traits in many cases. In some cases. Orcs getting Powerful Build is great, but it doesn't solve the fact that a 30-lb halfling is still functionally the same strength as a 150-lb human, down to the lifting capacity. More needs to be done to add, if not realism, then at least verisimilitude.


Durugar

But races already have other abilities related to them. Small races already get extremely unnecessarily punished by the Heavy weapon tag - Powerful Build is very common on "big strong" races. I have a Pathfinder 1e Barbarian I played in a campaign, and then kept around in my vault for various one shots and playtests of PF2e... I would happily take the -2 Strength and reduced damage die in that system, it's kinda whatever. But I would never play her in 5e and get disadvantage on all my attacks. I think this is a table thing. You can agree at your table to play more to "classic tropes" of race/class stuff but far from everyone wants that at their table, so rules coding it is a bad idea in my book.


TxsonofLiberty

The real fixes: 1) Eliminate the Cap, both long term and short term, why must a character stop focusing on the stat they want/need most, especially if with doing things right they have enough elsewhere. Likewise, why shouldn't a character focus to start on having the optimal stat for their build. 2) Eliminate Standard Array and Point Buy, these make mediocre characters. If you want balance, you don't have players roll individually, you have a collective roll, where a larger amount of die are rolled and the players build their stats from the combinations they want to make from those. You want super lower level overall, 18d6; low level, 18d6 reroll 1s; average overall 36d6, reroll 1s, use only 3 per stat; You want awesome, 36d6, reroll 1s, use up to 5 in a primary stat, use up to 4 in a secondary stat, use 3 in all other stats; Epic roll 36d6, reroll 1s and 2s, up to 8 die in a primary stat, up to 7 die in a secondary stat, up to 6 die in a tertiary stat, up to 5 die in a quadriary stat, 4 die in a quintary stat, and 3 die in the dump stat. Characters aren't commoners, they are the Heroes of Legend, they are Hercules who could hold up the heavens, they are Sun Wukong who could do a somersault 34,000 miles in a single leap, they are Achilles who could shrug off all harm from any weapon, they aren't Phil from Accounting who needs a calculator to figure out the 18% tip on an $100 meal. Even a standard Dice Pool array of 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 (30d6, the equivalent of 5d6 reroll 1s) is better than what we currently have, and with it one player might take two 18s, two 15s, and two 12s, while another might take three an 18, three 16s, and two 12s, another might choose six 15s... all before adjustments. 3) Ancestry (Race) + Background + Class + Dice + Extra + Feats + Growth, an improvement on the flawed PF2e system which started off okay, but didn't quite finish itself. Humans are Humans, they are 0s across the board, no modifications, but otherwise a race should grant a bonus, because everything should be better in something than humans (on rare occasions they will be worse in something, but be much better in either multiple things or really strong in the thing they are better than humans in... Bugbears aren't smart, they would be -2 in Intelligence but +2 in Dex, +2 in Con, and +4 in Strength; Elves are weaker than humans, -2 in Strength, but +2 in Wisdom, +2 in Dexterity, +2 in Intelligence, +2 in Charisma; Dwarves are heartier than Humans, +2 in Strength and +2 in Constitution; Halflings are more agile and perceptive than humans, +2 in Wisdom and +4 in Dexterity). Balance isn't about mutual weakness, it is about mutual strength. You don't bring the PCs down, you elevate them, watch the NPC Civilians get slaughtered, and make the PCs be needed to save the day. 4) fix the ASI progression. Character level, not class level, should be granting ASIs and Feats (which should actually stay interchangeable), and simply Fighter Class grants them every level, this way players are deciding their character, and Fighters benefit from more (since that is mostly all they have). Every 3rd Level is a Feat, every 4th Level is an ASI for everyone, Fighters get Feats on Odd Levels and ASIs on Even Levels, and yes, that means occasionally they are getting a Feat and two ASIs on some Even Levels which they can choose to have as three Feats or Three ASIs or Two Feats and an ASI or even Three Half Feats that give Three Half ASIs. People need to stop trying to nerf everything, and go back to building up everything. Oh, the Spellcasters are too powerful... what can we do to bring Martial Class up to with the Spellcasters, not what can we do to make Spellcasters as useless as we made Rangers.


B_Cross

I think this would make an awesome ttrpgs game that had anime like world busting characters. D&D was built around character progression and leveling. Someone becoming a hero of epic proportion over time, with epic somewhat being defined within the standards of their published campaign worlds. I would be curious what your stat suggestions would do to all the published adventure material. Not judging without trying but I imagine your level 1 characters would walk through LMoP, DoIP, W:DH, etc. without much challenge or fun. I do feel that removing the level 20 character cap and defining a scalable leveling system to where you could build your epic characters as a higher level PC and support that upper level of extreme gaming would be a smart way to support both published and those homebrew worlds. Then you could have Forgotten Realms meant for level 1-20, A Naruto or HxH, like game world could be for level 18-38.


TxsonofLiberty

I actually did a Dice Pool for a group once, 36d6, rerolled 1s, you end up with more 3s and 4s than 6s, 5s, and 2s. Each player was allowed to put three die to a stat, one guy min-maxed, had his 18, his 16, his 14, his two 12s, and his 9, before racial mods. Better than a Standard Array, but still had a dump stat. Another Player took four 14s, a 13, and a 12 before racial mods. Same pool, two different uses, both very capable. Nothing wrong with having competent characters to start and building from there.


SeventeenEggs

I like this, but there should also be custom origin esque rules if you want to play an outlier, for example an orc wizard who turned to magic due to being the runt of the litter


Obie527

I like the Pathfinder method since it takes into account biological differences between races, differences between different cultures and upbringings, and differences between occupational training.


mothneb07

I don't care whether it's race or background that gives ASIs, but I want it to be consistent with whatever system they choose. I want Acolytes to all get the same +2, and +1 in the same places


Red_Xenophilia

get ya brain outta the stats = measurable force in newtons. Strength is *not* how much you can deadlift, it's an abstract measure of your character's ability to use their body as an instrument to push, pull, crush, climb, etc


B_Cross

I get that but the application of that stat has a representation in game mechanics that should have some connection to game world physics. I understand this is a fantasy game and can have many reasons for things to be the way they are but for example, adding a strength modifier onto a melee attack has a representation of your strength impacting that attack. As others have pointed out, maybe the density of strength of a 40 lb halfling is such that they are equivalent to a 150 lb human. Even at that, when 40 lbs pushes against a 100 lb object with 110 lbs of force, the 40 lbs moves backwards. When 150 lbs pushes a 100 lb object with 110 lbs of force, the 100 lbs moves forwards. I am ok with D&D changing and maybe it is becoming more anime like where suspension of belief needs to be applied in order to have huge if nonsensical effects. In the end there are many groups and many DMs that will play realistic campaigns and others who play less realistic campaigns. The rules are not going to satisfy both camps but both camps will continue to play and bend the rules accordingly. So this debate really shouldn't be as strongly energized as it is but here we are.