Wizards don't get to prepare all their spells - every point of Intelligence is another spell they can bring to their daily grind, and nobody plays a wizard to not have a plethora of unique and fantastical spells at their fingertips.
Yep, they love having a massive list of amazing spells at their fingertips to spend 5 minutes looking at, only to repeat once again "I cast Fireball!"... 😝😂
It doesn't really allow for much more powerful characters than before it just means you can get that +2 in your favored stat regardless of the race you choose. It allows more freedom to play the race/class combo you want without feeling like you're sacrificing stats by playing the 'wrong' race for your class. And I'm in full support of this.
It doesn't really allow for much more powerful characters than before it just means you can get that +2 in your favored stat regardless of the race you choose. It allows more freedom to play the race/class combo you want without feeling like you're sacrificing stats by playing the 'wrong' race for your class. And I'm in full support of this.
My only problems with this is that it was not done for the right reasons, only political correctness
Given the people just on these forums who have spoken about how painful it can be to have the concepts embodied in the racial ASIs thrown in their face, I think saying it is only for political correctness is.... misguided. I would suggest it is done to make more people feel welcome and included.
that it robs the game of part of its soul, again for no good reason,
Given that they are optional rules, I'm not sure how it robs the game of anything. If anything, it adds to the game, because those who wish to use the new rules can do so, although you are perfectly at liberty. The reason is given above.
and that the only people who benefit from it are the powergamers
Or anyone who was made to feel uncomfortable or was otherwise negatively affected in some way by the rules and systems which the rules in Tasha's address?
I'm not going to carry on discussing this point by point right now. I feel like these discussions have already take place many times before. If you weren't (purposely, it seems) ignoring the discussions which have been had and the valid points raised by many involved and apparently wanting to start the same arguments again, I wouldn't even have responded.
Everyone can play the game as they want, if some people want more powerful characters, all the best to their games. Note that I've played a ton of Amber Diceless RPG, in which one of the motto is "So your players want power ? Don't be afraid to give it to them, just make them sure that they pay for it..."
The problem is that D&D is a much more technical game than ADRPG, and therefore IMHO it makes the game harder to prepare for the DM, because not only are the tools misaligned, and requiring correction, but the characters are also more single-mindedly powerful, with greater strengths but also greater weaknesses. And, as a side note, it's ironic to hear all the people absolutely want that imbalance also criticise the game for not being balanced and providing the right tool to compute encounter power. But then, internet has never been the realm of consistent people speaking in good faith.
So in the end, at a given table it does not matter, you have more powerful stats, here are more powerful monsters and higher DCs, so what's your point exactly ? You will fail exactly as much at challenges tailored for your specialised level of power, but you will actually fail MORE at other challenges because your character is extremely specialised and proportionately weaker in other areas. Was this really what you intended ?
My only problems with this is that it was not done for the right reasons, only political correctness, that it robs the game of part of its soul, again for no good reason, and that the only people who benefit from it are the powergamers (all the others accept the penalties (or let's say the lack of the max bonuses that they crave) with the bonuses, it gives them a more solid roleplay concept). If everyone around the table is a powergamer, refer to the first paragraph. But if only some are, it imbalances the game even further and emphasizes the differences in game play by even stronger differences in power, and it's not the way to a harmonious table.
And no, the system does not work as intended, as the intention of the game is not technical freedom and power, you should re-read the introduction to the PH: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."
So these changes are soulless, purely technical changes. But thankfully they are only options, and any DM who intends to play in the intended spirit of the game can refuse to allow them at his table, and give much more freedom to their players in the game world without being constrained by even more rules.
Lyxen, I know you understand that players that use the abomination that shall not be named, and 4d6 rolls, to create their uber chars, don't care one whit about if it makes the game more difficult for the DM, or for other players that used the more balanced methods to create stats. Every single DM that has had a group with unbalanced strength level chars in the group knows how difficult it is to create encounters that are challenging and fair for ALL chars in the group.
I have come up with one solution. Every single BBEG has an invisible familiar that has been spying on the group for some time, and has identified the most powerful players in the group. When the inevitable fights with the BBEG and the various minions happens, said bad guys will focus fire on the most powerful char, which is often done in combat tactics.
What kind of people ? Halflings ? Elves ? Gnomes ? Come on...
Uuuuuuughhh.... I hate this argument. OBVIOUSLY the supporters of removing racial ability scores aren't saying "its offensive to fantasy races" that would be preposterous.
The issue is the WHOLE IDEA of racial ability scores. The thought that some races are just biologically smarter/stronger than others and some are just dumber because of their race is a harmful ideology that is often used in real life.
The point of the Tasha's change isn't the ridiculous "lets not be racist to fantasy orcs" Its to move the TONE and underlying principal away from ACTUAL racist ideologies that are only enforced by the idea of racial ability scores.
It robs the FANTASY races of the game of their identity....
Once again, it "robs" NOTHING if you just don't use it at your table??? I will never understand the concept of "new version of thing = different, Therefore now old version of thing = bad" Tasha's cannot "ruin" or "rob" 5e or any DnD of ANYTHING, because the old version is still there. You always have the choice to just NOT use it
The issue is the WHOLE IDEA of racial ability scores. The thought that some races are just biologically smarter/stronger than others and some are just dumber because of their race is a harmful ideology that is often used in real life.
This ideology uses incorrect terminology. There’s only one human race. Humans are smarter than dogs, most dog breeds are faster than humans, elephants are stronger than both. But white, black, yellow, red or otherwise, humans are humans.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I can understand not liking the fully customized origin where you basically can make a variant human with any race. I have no problem with this, but I can understand more where people are coming from not liking it.
The ASIs though are IMO the most boring part of racial identity anyway. The other racial features are IMO much more interesting in terms of flavor. IMO you're not losing much flavor by allowing a player character, not the entire race, to shift those numbers from one stat to another.
And even then, the general sterotypical stats are still there for monster/npc stat blocks etc, the races still have their own lore and flavor. It just allows the individual adventurer, who is not always a typical sterotypical member of their race anyway, have a little more flexibility.
Different humans can have varying strengths and weaknesses both physically and mentally, I don't see why fantasy races need to be pigeon holed in that way.
The issue is the WHOLE IDEA of racial ability scores. The thought that some races are just biologically smarter/stronger than others and some are just dumber because of their race is a harmful ideology that is often used in real life.
This ideology uses incorrect terminology. There’s only one human race. Humans are smarter than dogs, most dog breeds are faster than humans, elephants are stronger than both. But white, black, yellow, red or otherwise, humans are humans.
However, it is strongly implied (and in many places, specifically stated) that the races can inter-breed. Similarly, some are described as having been descended from one another. This makes them much closer to the human races, or dog breeds, than they are to entirely different species.
We also need to consider plain English terminology. When we discuss race, it will always be strongly linked to racial issues because race is commonly used to indicate ethnic groupings etc. By saying one race is smarter/dumber/stronger/weaker than another, it will evoke links to that being the case among groups of humans, especially to those who have suffered through such ideologies.
The issue is the WHOLE IDEA of racial ability scores. The thought that some races are just biologically smarter/stronger than others and some are just dumber because of their race is a harmful ideology that is often used in real life.
This ideology uses incorrect terminology. There’s only one human race. Humans are smarter than dogs, most dog breeds are faster than humans, elephants are stronger than both. But white, black, yellow, red or otherwise, humans are humans.
Exactly. Human ethnic groups. Fantasy races. Moreover, (and this proves the overall hypocrisy that blankets all these discussions in general), Tasha has changed nothing, gnomes in general are still more intelligent than half-orcs.
Gnome
Basic Rules
A gnome’s energy and enthusiasm for living shines through every inch of his or her tiny body.
Half-orcs’ grayish pigmentation, sloping foreheads, jutting jaws, prominent teeth, and towering builds make their orcish heritage plain for all to see.
That is the one thing that many people miss. Gygax had no idea back in the late 70's of where today's identity politics would be at. He would have saved a ton of grief he had used the word species instead of race. All are sentient, but they are NOT the same the same species.
I wonder how long it will take for the Mods to shut this one down? Why is it that no one on these forums ever learns that some topics just should not be discussed here?
The issue is the WHOLE IDEA of racial ability scores. The thought that some races are just biologically smarter/stronger than others and some are just dumber because of their race is a harmful ideology that is often used in real life.
This ideology uses incorrect terminology. There’s only one human race. Humans are smarter than dogs, most dog breeds are faster than humans, elephants are stronger than both. But white, black, yellow, red or otherwise, humans are humans.
Exactly. Human ethnic groups. Fantasy races. Moreover, (and this proves the overall hypocrisy that blankets all these discussions in general), Tasha has changed nothing, gnomes in general are still more intelligent than half-orcs.
Gnome
Basic Rules
A gnome’s energy and enthusiasm for living shines through every inch of his or her tiny body.
Half-orcs’ grayish pigmentation, sloping foreheads, jutting jaws, prominent teeth, and towering builds make their orcish heritage plain for all to see.
Not at my table they're not. Obviously Tasha's didn't change the past, nor did it change how people who only play with PHB create their characters. It offers an ALTERNATIVE. At my table, we use Tasha's and because of that, the starting stats for half-orc, elf, gnome, goblin w/e ARE all +2/+1. I could care less whether or not "The original still has the racial ability mods" because my table has Tasha's and elected for those optional rules and doesn't USE the original. Therefore its completely irrelevant that the archaic racial abilities still exist at some tables because we don't play there.
Your logic is implying that because WoC did not go back and change every past instance of 5e racial ability scores, that Tasha's effectively did nothing. So because they didn't change it 100% across the board at every table, they shouldn't have even tried?
And absolutely not. The defenders of this rule are NOT all power gamers and to say so is just a way to discredit defenders with a label generally seen as negative. At my table, every instance of Tasha's movable ASI has been used for Better fleshing out character concepts. Our Half-Orc is elderly and retired so his STR was changed to CHA, Our Elf was sheltered and doesn't know much of the world so her INT was changed to WIS. Obviously there are going to be powergamers who only use this for the better starting stats, but to discount ALL supporters as just "Power gamers trying to get away with broken builds" is insulting to those who aren't.
As mentioned previously, that doesn't really fit either, because species cannot generally interbreed. As we have half-elves and half-orcs, it strongly suggests that Humans, Elves and Orcs are very closely related, to the point where they are probably not far from human ethnic groups etc.
At my table, we use Tasha's and because of that, the starting stats for half-orc, elf, gnome, goblin w/e ARE all +2/+1.
I feel you are going further than TCoE's rules there. TCoE allows you to move the racial ASIs from the stat they are assigned to to another, they don't give every race +2/+1. That's not to say that isn't a valid way to play, but I feel it is certainly a house rule, not TCoE.
The issue is the WHOLE IDEA of racial ability scores. The thought that some races are just biologically smarter/stronger than others and some are just dumber because of their race is a harmful ideology that is often used in real life.
This ideology uses incorrect terminology. There’s only one human race. Humans are smarter than dogs, most dog breeds are faster than humans, elephants are stronger than both. But white, black, yellow, red or otherwise, humans are humans.
However, it is strongly implied (and in many places, specifically stated) that the races can inter-breed. Similarly, some are described as having been descended from one another. This makes them much closer to the human races, or dog breeds, than they are to entirely different species.
We also need to consider plain English terminology. When we discuss race, it will always be strongly linked to racial issues because race is commonly used to indicate ethnic groupings etc. By saying one race is smarter/dumber/stronger/weaker than another, it will evoke links to that being the case among groups of humans, especially to those who have suffered through such ideologies.
Sure. At the same time, there are plenty of D&D species unable to interbreed, and others that are the explicit result of magic. It’s not as clear-cut as it might be made out to be. And more to the point, as others have mentioned, there still are explicit differences between the various species’ racial modifiers (Tasha’s removed them for PCs, not for the entire species) and they all still have other benefits - not every race has darkvision, some can lift more than others, a few can fly and one comes with body armor in the form of a shell. I empathize with the plight of those who are being discriminated and abhor bigotry, but “race” in D&D’s context s a very different concept than the (incorrect) colloquialism used to refer to ethnicity in real life.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I was simplifying for the sake of wordiness. I don't mean that "we overwrite every instance of starting ASI with +2/+1". I just used that example because the majority of races use that formula. If someone used a half-elf, mountain dwarf, or whatever other race that gives different starting increases, they could move them around. Sorry for the oversimplification!
As mentioned previously, that doesn't really fit either, because species cannot generally interbreed. As we have half-elves and half-orcs, it strongly suggests that Humans, Elves and Orcs are very closely related, to the point where they are probably not far from human ethnic groups etc.
I think they’re pretty darn far from that myself, but to each their opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As mentioned previously, that doesn't really fit either, because species cannot generally interbreed. As we have half-elves and half-orcs, it strongly suggests that Humans, Elves and Orcs are very closely related, to the point where they are probably not far from human ethnic groups etc.
At my table, we use Tasha's and because of that, the starting stats for half-orc, elf, gnome, goblin w/e ARE all +2/+1.
I feel you are going further than TCoE's rules there. TCoE allows you to move the racial ASIs from the stat they are assigned to to another, they don't give every race +2/+1. That's not to say that isn't a valid way to play, but I feel it is certainly a house rule, not TCoE.
There are many examples in real word nature of different species interbreeding, and at least one, the fin/blue whale hybrid, can produce offspring with one of the original species. So that entire line of reasoning of yours is incorrect.
The book that shall not be named was a response to a political movement, and the butchered response by WOTC has resulted in a power-gamer's paradise. You can say the intent was something else. But the ultimate result is evident.
And did you change the stats for all the NPCs as well ? All the members of the fantasy species that your adventurers come across when playing ? Are goblins are a species all as strong as ogres ? Are gully dwarves as intelligent as mind flayers ?
No? Because I don't use character creation rules for NPCs so this argument is irrelevant? If I want to use the "evoker" statblock I just do that and call it a half-orc, elf, dragonborn or whatever. Same thing If I want to use one of the racial specific statblocks. If I want to use the drow priestess, but make it a gnome...I just do that? My player will literally NEVER see my notes so what does it matter what their Ability scores are? NPC's aren't players so it doesn't matter how they're built. If I want to use an ancient white dragon and call it a halfling with a frost cannon, I can because WHO CAAAAAAAARES?? And no, not all goblins are as strong as ogres, but if I wanted a goblin that IS stronger than an Ogre, who's gonna stop me? The DnD purity police?
Alright then, as I really don't see the logic of changing STR to CHA due to age, or changing INT to WIS due to sheltering (honestly, I would probably have done exactly the reverse at least for the elfd), I'm sure you can tell us a bit more about the characters and why these changes were made. So far, all I've seen about characters built up using Tasha have been made to boost stats and combine the racial abilities with those of the classes. But I would be happy to meet characters for whom the choices were not made for powergaming reasons and understand them a bit more.
Half-Orc (swap STR for CHA): Ex-Soldier who retired, got married, had a kid, and lived a life of peace. He didn't participate in combat for decades so his strength isn't what it was when he was younger. However, He did become a pillar of his community becoming a beloved giver of advice, emotional support, and overall kind caring person. (then call to adventure which I won't get into)
Elf (Swap INT for WIS): Raised by a druidic/religious cult who taught the values of being in tune with your surroundings and how to read people, but purposefully kept knowledge about history, science, politics, and other secular events away from their people. As well as stifling their critical thinking and questioning at a young age in order to prevent "free thinkers" from questioning cult ideologies.
No, I'm saying that those who base their fondness for Tasha's options are, under the guise of "it's bad to have racial ability modifiers" mostly defending optimisation of a build for purely technical reasons, because the races have actually not changed at all in their games, just a few PCs even more optimised than before.
You can keep writing that, but you're still wrong.
You're putting words in people's mouths, constructing a strawman argument, and denigrating large numbers of players, all at the same time.
As a point to the whole "if you super-minmax your stats you'll succeed as often as a Real Proper Built-Correctly Character but just fail MORE at the things you're weaker at, is that what you want?!" argument:
Yes, actually. Yes, that is exactly what some of us want.
For a new campaign we're doing the Session 0 for tonight, the server I'm playing on has an exceptionally generous stat generation system - you punch !goodstats into the dice tray and Avrae gives you three different arrays, 4d6kh3 with a floor of 75, and you may choose which array to use. Players regularly roll 80+ point arrays using this system. I didn't design it and I do think it's overly generous, but it ain't my server so nyeh. Regardless, when I rolled my three-array choice for this game, I was given the following options:
I chose the second array, despite there being a 'better' BST available to me, precisely because it was/is God's perfect stat roll. When building a new character, I specifically look to be very good at the things I choose to be good at, absolute shit at the things I choose to be bad at, and distinctly meh at the things which are neither of those two ends. I actively enjoy having a-2 deep cut somewhere in my stats that causes me Capital "I" Issues in play and forces me to get creative or rely on my comrades to compensate for it. I also actively prefer for half my non-Deep Cut stats to be in the 0 to +1 range, average at best and things I cannot rely on without training. I saw that minimum-score, five-odd-stat, 75 BST roll in a server dominated by 80+ or even 90+-point Thuggernauts and I was delighted.
Sure, the second 15 is maybe a little generous. But to be frank, this character averages six to ten stat points behind everyone else in the party and I don't really care. Talisman does exactly what I want a D&D character to do, stat-wise - she is excellent within her specialization, she is terrible when confronted with her weakness, and she is okay-but-not-exceptional at things she does not choose to focus on. All is as it should be.
Frankly? When the DM for Saint of Graves asks my 6-Wisdom artificer for a Perception roll and I throw a dice at -2 because Star is untrained in Perception, it's a point of amusement for the party. "Star, roll Perception." "Oh boy! Let's see what I miss this time!" [Laughs around the table at some of the shit Star's managed to not notice in the past.] And when she does get a high natural roll and sees something - or even better, when she's the only one that doesn't flub her roll and is the only one that DOES see something? That's a great comedy point for the party and a way for the DM to have some fun hilariously narrating the results of that unlikely roll. Wouldn't be a thing that happened if I was never permitted to have more than two points of difference between the absolute best possible Expertise-boosted skill my character's spent her entire life honing and the untrained junk skill with no bonus whatsoever from her weakest stat.
Yes, I do want to Fail More(C) at the things I'm weak at. The difference between me and a Bohemian Failure Monkey is that I don't actively seek failure in all things at all times because failure is somehow more artistic than success. Success earned through talent, effort, and clever/stalwart play is the goal, not failure for its own sake.
Defeating challenges is the goal. Some players like to approach that differently than others is all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yep, they love having a massive list of amazing spells at their fingertips to spend 5 minutes looking at, only to repeat once again "I cast Fireball!"... 😝😂
It doesn't really allow for much more powerful characters than before it just means you can get that +2 in your favored stat regardless of the race you choose. It allows more freedom to play the race/class combo you want without feeling like you're sacrificing stats by playing the 'wrong' race for your class. And I'm in full support of this.
Yeah, this. The system works as intended. :)
Given the people just on these forums who have spoken about how painful it can be to have the concepts embodied in the racial ASIs thrown in their face, I think saying it is only for political correctness is.... misguided. I would suggest it is done to make more people feel welcome and included.
Given that they are optional rules, I'm not sure how it robs the game of anything. If anything, it adds to the game, because those who wish to use the new rules can do so, although you are perfectly at liberty. The reason is given above.
Or anyone who was made to feel uncomfortable or was otherwise negatively affected in some way by the rules and systems which the rules in Tasha's address?
I'm not going to carry on discussing this point by point right now. I feel like these discussions have already take place many times before. If you weren't (purposely, it seems) ignoring the discussions which have been had and the valid points raised by many involved and apparently wanting to start the same arguments again, I wouldn't even have responded.
Lyxen, I know you understand that players that use the abomination that shall not be named, and 4d6 rolls, to create their uber chars, don't care one whit about if it makes the game more difficult for the DM, or for other players that used the more balanced methods to create stats. Every single DM that has had a group with unbalanced strength level chars in the group knows how difficult it is to create encounters that are challenging and fair for ALL chars in the group.
I have come up with one solution. Every single BBEG has an invisible familiar that has been spying on the group for some time, and has identified the most powerful players in the group. When the inevitable fights with the BBEG and the various minions happens, said bad guys will focus fire on the most powerful char, which is often done in combat tactics.
Uuuuuuughhh.... I hate this argument. OBVIOUSLY the supporters of removing racial ability scores aren't saying "its offensive to fantasy races" that would be preposterous.
The issue is the WHOLE IDEA of racial ability scores. The thought that some races are just biologically smarter/stronger than others and some are just dumber because of their race is a harmful ideology that is often used in real life.
The point of the Tasha's change isn't the ridiculous "lets not be racist to fantasy orcs" Its to move the TONE and underlying principal away from ACTUAL racist ideologies that are only enforced by the idea of racial ability scores.
Once again, it "robs" NOTHING if you just don't use it at your table??? I will never understand the concept of "new version of thing = different, Therefore now old version of thing = bad" Tasha's cannot "ruin" or "rob" 5e or any DnD of ANYTHING, because the old version is still there. You always have the choice to just NOT use it
This ideology uses incorrect terminology. There’s only one human race. Humans are smarter than dogs, most dog breeds are faster than humans, elephants are stronger than both. But white, black, yellow, red or otherwise, humans are humans.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I can understand not liking the fully customized origin where you basically can make a variant human with any race. I have no problem with this, but I can understand more where people are coming from not liking it.
The ASIs though are IMO the most boring part of racial identity anyway. The other racial features are IMO much more interesting in terms of flavor. IMO you're not losing much flavor by allowing a player character, not the entire race, to shift those numbers from one stat to another.
And even then, the general sterotypical stats are still there for monster/npc stat blocks etc, the races still have their own lore and flavor. It just allows the individual adventurer, who is not always a typical sterotypical member of their race anyway, have a little more flexibility.
Different humans can have varying strengths and weaknesses both physically and mentally, I don't see why fantasy races need to be pigeon holed in that way.
However, it is strongly implied (and in many places, specifically stated) that the races can inter-breed. Similarly, some are described as having been descended from one another. This makes them much closer to the human races, or dog breeds, than they are to entirely different species.
We also need to consider plain English terminology. When we discuss race, it will always be strongly linked to racial issues because race is commonly used to indicate ethnic groupings etc. By saying one race is smarter/dumber/stronger/weaker than another, it will evoke links to that being the case among groups of humans, especially to those who have suffered through such ideologies.
It is fantasy species, not races.
That is the one thing that many people miss. Gygax had no idea back in the late 70's of where today's identity politics would be at. He would have saved a ton of grief he had used the word species instead of race. All are sentient, but they are NOT the same the same species.
I wonder how long it will take for the Mods to shut this one down? Why is it that no one on these forums ever learns that some topics just should not be discussed here?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Not at my table they're not. Obviously Tasha's didn't change the past, nor did it change how people who only play with PHB create their characters. It offers an ALTERNATIVE. At my table, we use Tasha's and because of that, the starting stats for half-orc, elf, gnome, goblin w/e ARE all +2/+1.
I could care less whether or not "The original still has the racial ability mods" because my table has Tasha's and elected for those optional rules and doesn't USE the original. Therefore its completely irrelevant that the archaic racial abilities still exist at some tables because we don't play there.
Your logic is implying that because WoC did not go back and change every past instance of 5e racial ability scores, that Tasha's effectively did nothing. So because they didn't change it 100% across the board at every table, they shouldn't have even tried?
And absolutely not. The defenders of this rule are NOT all power gamers and to say so is just a way to discredit defenders with a label generally seen as negative. At my table, every instance of Tasha's movable ASI has been used for Better fleshing out character concepts. Our Half-Orc is elderly and retired so his STR was changed to CHA, Our Elf was sheltered and doesn't know much of the world so her INT was changed to WIS. Obviously there are going to be powergamers who only use this for the better starting stats, but to discount ALL supporters as just "Power gamers trying to get away with broken builds" is insulting to those who aren't.
As mentioned previously, that doesn't really fit either, because species cannot generally interbreed. As we have half-elves and half-orcs, it strongly suggests that Humans, Elves and Orcs are very closely related, to the point where they are probably not far from human ethnic groups etc.
I feel you are going further than TCoE's rules there. TCoE allows you to move the racial ASIs from the stat they are assigned to to another, they don't give every race +2/+1. That's not to say that isn't a valid way to play, but I feel it is certainly a house rule, not TCoE.
Sure. At the same time, there are plenty of D&D species unable to interbreed, and others that are the explicit result of magic. It’s not as clear-cut as it might be made out to be. And more to the point, as others have mentioned, there still are explicit differences between the various species’ racial modifiers (Tasha’s removed them for PCs, not for the entire species) and they all still have other benefits - not every race has darkvision, some can lift more than others, a few can fly and one comes with body armor in the form of a shell. I empathize with the plight of those who are being discriminated and abhor bigotry, but “race” in D&D’s context s a very different concept than the (incorrect) colloquialism used to refer to ethnicity in real life.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I was simplifying for the sake of wordiness. I don't mean that "we overwrite every instance of starting ASI with +2/+1". I just used that example because the majority of races use that formula. If someone used a half-elf, mountain dwarf, or whatever other race that gives different starting increases, they could move them around. Sorry for the oversimplification!
I think they’re pretty darn far from that myself, but to each their opinion.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There are many examples in real word nature of different species interbreeding, and at least one, the fin/blue whale hybrid, can produce offspring with one of the original species. So that entire line of reasoning of yours is incorrect.
The book that shall not be named was a response to a political movement, and the butchered response by WOTC has resulted in a power-gamer's paradise. You can say the intent was something else. But the ultimate result is evident.
No? Because I don't use character creation rules for NPCs so this argument is irrelevant? If I want to use the "evoker" statblock I just do that and call it a half-orc, elf, dragonborn or whatever. Same thing If I want to use one of the racial specific statblocks. If I want to use the drow priestess, but make it a gnome...I just do that? My player will literally NEVER see my notes so what does it matter what their Ability scores are? NPC's aren't players so it doesn't matter how they're built. If I want to use an ancient white dragon and call it a halfling with a frost cannon, I can because WHO CAAAAAAAARES??
And no, not all goblins are as strong as ogres, but if I wanted a goblin that IS stronger than an Ogre, who's gonna stop me? The DnD purity police?
Half-Orc (swap STR for CHA): Ex-Soldier who retired, got married, had a kid, and lived a life of peace. He didn't participate in combat for decades so his strength isn't what it was when he was younger. However, He did become a pillar of his community becoming a beloved giver of advice, emotional support, and overall kind caring person. (then call to adventure which I won't get into)
Elf (Swap INT for WIS): Raised by a druidic/religious cult who taught the values of being in tune with your surroundings and how to read people, but purposefully kept knowledge about history, science, politics, and other secular events away from their people. As well as stifling their critical thinking and questioning at a young age in order to prevent "free thinkers" from questioning cult ideologies.
You can keep writing that, but you're still wrong.
You're putting words in people's mouths, constructing a strawman argument, and denigrating large numbers of players, all at the same time.
As a point to the whole "if you super-minmax your stats you'll succeed as often as a Real Proper Built-Correctly Character but just fail MORE at the things you're weaker at, is that what you want?!" argument:
Yes, actually. Yes, that is exactly what some of us want.
For a new campaign we're doing the Session 0 for tonight, the server I'm playing on has an exceptionally generous stat generation system - you punch !goodstats into the dice tray and Avrae gives you three different arrays, 4d6kh3 with a floor of 75, and you may choose which array to use. Players regularly roll 80+ point arrays using this system. I didn't design it and I do think it's overly generous, but it ain't my server so nyeh. Regardless, when I rolled my three-array choice for this game, I was given the following options:
16 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 6 (BST 78)
17 | 15 | 15 | 11 | 11 | 6 (BST 75)
17 | 14 | 13 | 11 | 11 | 9 (BST 75)
I chose the second array, despite there being a 'better' BST available to me, precisely because it was/is God's perfect stat roll. When building a new character, I specifically look to be very good at the things I choose to be good at, absolute shit at the things I choose to be bad at, and distinctly meh at the things which are neither of those two ends. I actively enjoy having a-2 deep cut somewhere in my stats that causes me Capital "I" Issues in play and forces me to get creative or rely on my comrades to compensate for it. I also actively prefer for half my non-Deep Cut stats to be in the 0 to +1 range, average at best and things I cannot rely on without training. I saw that minimum-score, five-odd-stat, 75 BST roll in a server dominated by 80+ or even 90+-point Thuggernauts and I was delighted.
Sure, the second 15 is maybe a little generous. But to be frank, this character averages six to ten stat points behind everyone else in the party and I don't really care. Talisman does exactly what I want a D&D character to do, stat-wise - she is excellent within her specialization, she is terrible when confronted with her weakness, and she is okay-but-not-exceptional at things she does not choose to focus on. All is as it should be.
Frankly? When the DM for Saint of Graves asks my 6-Wisdom artificer for a Perception roll and I throw a dice at -2 because Star is untrained in Perception, it's a point of amusement for the party. "Star, roll Perception." "Oh boy! Let's see what I miss this time!" [Laughs around the table at some of the shit Star's managed to not notice in the past.] And when she does get a high natural roll and sees something - or even better, when she's the only one that doesn't flub her roll and is the only one that DOES see something? That's a great comedy point for the party and a way for the DM to have some fun hilariously narrating the results of that unlikely roll. Wouldn't be a thing that happened if I was never permitted to have more than two points of difference between the absolute best possible Expertise-boosted skill my character's spent her entire life honing and the untrained junk skill with no bonus whatsoever from her weakest stat.
Yes, I do want to Fail More(C) at the things I'm weak at. The difference between me and a Bohemian Failure Monkey is that I don't actively seek failure in all things at all times because failure is somehow more artistic than success. Success earned through talent, effort, and clever/stalwart play is the goal, not failure for its own sake.
Defeating challenges is the goal. Some players like to approach that differently than others is all.
Please do not contact or message me.