Eugenics don't get applied to me in real life. If they get applied to you, i suggest seeking help immediately and i wish you the best. But please don't try to push the eugenics button all the time as it simple isn't anything related to my comment. Its a far stretch imho and non thats appreciated.
But trying to put eugenics as a descriptor on my comment is stretching my comfy calm mood and is upsetting.
Think how upsetting it is to have it's principles applied to you in real life.
All due respect, you are casting the other poster as some sort of eugenics-invoking deplorable in real life. It seems clear to me, and I imagine other readers, as folks who have been folliwng this conversation since post 1, that OldMighty was articulating or speculating the possibility that the elimination of fixed modifiers may reduce race/species/ancestry too much to an anthropomorphised standard, and while sure many to most players do anthropomorphize their characters, the possibility of playing something alien to base line human being is lost in this movement within 5e (as opposed to say SW Saga, a very popular D&D esque system that's got +2s and -2s all over the place). I don't necessarily agree with the line of reasoning, but I wouldn't 1.) presume my tangent in this thread amounts to ownership of the conversation and 2.) presume OldMighty is floating eugenics thinking and 3.) Use my trauma to defend my insulting of another poster to claim the mud slung came from a moral high ground.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
But trying to put eugenics as a descriptor on my comment is stretching my comfy calm mood and is upsetting.
Think how upsetting it is to have it's principles applied to you in real life.
All due respect, you are casting the other poster as some sort of eugenics-invoking deplorable in real life. It seems clear to me, and I imagine other readers, as folks who have been folliwng this conversation since post 1, that OldMighty was articulating or speculating the possibility that the elimination of fixed modifiers may reduce race/species/ancestry too much to an anthropomorphised standard, and while sure many to most players do anthropomorphize their characters, the possibility of playing something alien to base line human being is lost in this movement within 5e (as opposed to say SW Saga, a very popular D&D esque system that's got +2s and -2s all over the place). I don't necessarily agree with the line of reasoning, but I wouldn't 1.) presume my tangent in this thread amounts to ownership of the conversation and 2.) presume OldMighty is floating eugenics thinking and 3.) Use my trauma to defend my insulting of another poster to claim the mud slung came from a moral high ground.
Thanks. I think my point is simply that while i think that players should have equal opportunity i don't think that "all sentient intelligent life is mentally and physically equal in ability and opportunity". And while that seems to be some strange controversial standpoint, i simple don't see anything wrong with it.
Are all humans equal in ability no matter their heritage, skin, gender or culture etc? 100%. I don't even know how that would be a point worthy of discussion....
If a persons approach to characters is that humanoids are just different skinned humans i see how this might be misconstructed as eugenics, but that is so fundamentally different from how i see species in fantasy games that we aren't talking in the same sphere and definitions and as such will always miss each others point of view cause of it.
A common request regarding dnd races is to simply change the word race to species or an analogous term because it carries less baggage and is probably more accurate. Given none of the changes even removing asi significantly address the criticisms regarding race in dnd and that no comment has really been made to the effect of it being about race; I really doubt that addressing race as a construct is the motivation for the changes.
The only people pushing for changing the word to 'species' are people who want to keep racial ASIs and think a wording change will be adequate for solving the problem. Since it isn't, it isn't an idea that's likely to get much traction.
Wizards has two separate reasons for making a change:
They wish to cut down on offensive stereotypes. Racials ASIs are a big part of that, though racial cultures, racial alignments, and a few other specialized abilities (such as the kobold groveling) are also suspect. On the other hand, racial features that simply aren't related to real-world stereotypes aren't an issue.
From a gamist standpoint, they want to eliminate trap options. If the game permits you to make an orc bard, that should be just as good a character as a half-elf bard.
Yeah as a scientific point is a bad idea to conflate eugenics with descriptions of different species capabilities, that suggests a degree of scientific validity to eugenics that just isn't there. Eugenics is a moral position that suggests that a True genetic line I.e a selectively bred genetic line will create an objectively better society. Its unscientific in how it ignores that problems in society extend beyond genes and is unscientific in how it assumes that one set of traits is objectively better than others. As an example of the mistake eugenics makes while some fish can see and some can't; and that is a scientific fact, it is not true that having eyes is necessarily better than not. The same idea is true for any human feature as well. Eugenics would assume for example having eyes is objectively better for fish and breed fish who live in dark caves to have perfect eye sight because that makes it a super fish. It ignores the fish couldn't see because of its environment. That's the idiocy of eugenics
I personally don't think it has anything to do with it and its not even implied in any shape or form by my comment. That you are trying to make it sound like it does is a bit hilarious and gross at the same time.
You haven't been following the conversation, I see. What you're doing above is applying the same kind of thinking to people as we would apply to dog breeds. This kind of talk is something that some of us have had applied to us in real life and it's highly uncomfortable and upsetting. Which is why it has no place in gaming.
Eugenics isn't natural selection Ophidimancer. Eugenics is artifificial selection within your own species. Normal evolution is just normal evolution. Your instance that evolution doesn't apply to "people" is as absured and gross as you think our counter argument is. Everyone evolves, creatures speciate on their own whether or not they are sapient, everyone still evolves. However scientifically innacurate the concept of Eugenics may me, the concept of Random mutation and Natural selection is fully accepted science. OldMightyFriendlyGa... is correct. different kinds of creatures are actually different kinds of creatures, they are not just variations on one kind of creature; and it has nothing to do with eugenics; nothing to do with sapience, and it DOES have a place in THIS game.
“For quite some time, we have not liked how the choice of race in the game had often too much weight on the player’s choice of class,” Crawford admitted. “Fans often talk about this—that connection between race and class is not something we as designers actually desire. We want players to pick those two critical components of their character and choose the two that really sing to them so they don’t feel like they’re pigeonholed. [In Monsters of the Multiverse] people will get the floating bonuses we introduced in Tasha’s Cauldron. If somebody is making a character, and wants to recreate the bonuses that existed previously, the advantage of the floating bonus system is they can do exactly that.”
“Player characters are the beloved creations of our players, and again, we didn’t want to give the impression we were putting our hand on the scale and the personality and values of a player’s personal character. But again, alignment is still in the game, but as it’s always been, it’s the player’s choice and the DM’s choice.”
My issue with this is twofold. First, complaints are always voiced more loudly than satisfaction. Again, not saying complaints, and this one in particular, aren't valid. Just that people who like something aren't likely to go out of their way to tell you; people with a problem are. Second, recreating bonuses that existed previously doesn't help with those that didn't exist and won't exist. We can keep discussing if and how this should be presented, but continuing with optional racial ASIs would have achieved that particular goal too.
I imagine this has come out of balanced questionnaires, surveys and other feedback sessions as opposed to simply looking at boards and forums. The designers are also in there rights to decide they are shifting the way the game is designed and make the choice that if they are going with floating ASI's they are going all in and not worrying about setting fixed ASI's in future. I imagine that there was some play testing and balancing done for racial ASI's in the past, this is time in the future that the designers can spend focussed on other things rather then having to work out what the correct racial ASI is and how it might impact a table.
I think the repetition is one of the worst parts of this topic and all that it entails. It is always the same arguments and it is always ends with the thread being locked after things get heated with no change to what WotC is doing. I am more surprised that this thread has been fairly civil in comparison to the previous versions.
I am going to go back to a comment I made earlier, of those who are against floating ASI's how many of you have actually run them at your table since Tasha's came out. How many of you can quote situations where floating ASI's broke your game, or prevented players from "getting into the race of a character".
Many of the arguments against come from assumption and opinion and are never based in the fact of, for instance.
I once let an Elf use floating ASI's it was awful for the game because of this this and this that unbalanced the game and made the player play like the elf was a goliath.
What Wizards needs to do is, put a bit of text somewhere in chapter 1 that says something like:
"We recognize that in the real world, race is a social construct, only very loosely scientifically supported*, and that basically every attempt at defining race has been done by with the expressed purpose of subjugating or outright eliminating so-called inferior beings, usually as defined by the ruling classes at various points in history. The idea that certain attributes such as high or low intelligence** are linked to identifiable racial groups is a fiction, and one that has been the backbone of many of humanity's most heinous crimes. However, this idea is so integral to Dungeons and Dragons that we can't remove it without collapsing the whole thing. "
Incorrect text struck out. It's objectively obvious that they can do so -- people might complain about the change, but it certainly doesn't break the system.
I get what you're saying, but it would have to go considerably further than what you're probably imagining. We really would have to make it so dwarves and humans and kobolds and so on are the same. Or, I guess from another perspective, there are only humans. Same thing, different words. You could have different training I guess. Stuff like weapon proficiencies, languages.
I agree that the system would still function -- the system is very flexible -- but the race stuff is so core to it that I think it would break for most people. I might be one of them, I don't know. Never tried it.
Exactly you have never tried it, I can tell you as a DM who has been applying floating ASI's for 8 years now (I know horror horror, I was home brewing a thing that is anti DnD) it most certainly does not collapse and break the game. Once you start rolling dice and roleplaying actually, having an intelligent orc, or a strong elf clumsy elf, or a dexterous dwarf really does not make you think, oh, we are not playing DnD anymore. It allows players to get even more in tune with a character, it allows them to play a character who is truly is "different to type" and that is a great thing. We are talking about shifting 2 stats around, not ripping up the 6 stat line, or turning DnD into a D10 roll and keep system.
I think the repetition is one of the worst parts of this topic and all that it entails. It is always the same arguments and it is always ends with the thread being locked after things get heated with no change to what WotC is doing. I am more surprised that this thread has been fairly civil in comparison to the previous versions.
I am going to go back to a comment I made earlier, of those who are against floating ASI's how many of you have actually run them at your table since Tasha's came out. How many of you can quote situations where floating ASI's broke your game, or prevented players from "getting into the race of a character".
Many of the arguments against come from assumption and opinion and are never based in the fact of, for instance.
I once let an Elf use floating ASI's it was awful for the game because of this this and this that unbalanced the game and made the player play like the elf was a goliath.
If I like Pizza with mushrooms, and then they come out with Pizza with lil'cubes of ham. I don't get upset that joint is now offering another flavor of pizza - whether I like that flavor or not; or whether I keep kosher and so can't eat that ham one myself, I still don't mind the joint serving it. Even if I do eat and also like the new flavor, I still get upset if the joint outright discontinues mushroom pizza because some of their clients are allergic to mushrooms and they don't want to take the trouble to have separate preparation tables or oven slots. It tells me those clients are more valued by the joint than I am.
I'm not arguing that Floating ASI's don't necessarily make for a good experience in their own right. I'm arguing that Static ASI's should still be available anyway, because two flavors of Pizza are better than one, and just because some people don't like MY favorite flavor of Pizza, does not give them the right to demand the neighborhood pizza joint should stop serving it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Ok I am going to try coming at this from a different angle, much of the arguments against floating ASI's seems to be "it stops a race feeling like that race" like somehow a half orc with +2 int is no longer a half orc, I am not sure what happens to them, does there skin change colour and they get pointy ears and long flowing hair?
If a player creates a dwarf with +2 dex, they are still a dwarf, they may still have a sense of honour and duty, they may still hold a grudge, they will be shorter then most other races and probably have a beard and like to drink. Being a bit more dextrous and a bit less resilient then other dwarfs doesn't suddenly change what they are and what there key motivations are as a race.
Alternatively a player could very well use the dwarf fixed ASI's and play the dwarf like they are a short elf, preferring whimsy, being a vegetarian, loving nature and thinking they are superior to all, hating mines (filthy dirty places) and not wanting to do a hard days work. Would that sit badly at your table, what about a dwarf raised by Elves, would they be "expected" to behave like a normal dwarf?
An Aarakocra with a strength +2 and a con +1 still has wings and feathers and flys, A Satyr still looks like a Satyr whatever ASI's you give them.
Where you put your +1,+2 ASI's really has no bearing on how you roleplay your character other than to allow a player to lean more into the character they want to portray. A Halfling or Gnome are still just that regardless of where the stats go. If your table is unable to comprehend that then there is a bigger problem than "floating ASI's".
I personally don't think it has anything to do with it and its not even implied in any shape or form by my comment. That you are trying to make it sound like it does is a bit hilarious and gross at the same time.
You haven't been following the conversation, I see. What you're doing above is applying the same kind of thinking to people as we would apply to dog breeds. This kind of talk is something that some of us have had applied to us in real life and it's highly uncomfortable and upsetting. Which is why it has no place in gaming.
Eugenics isn't natural selection Ophidimancer. Eugenics is artifificial selection within your own species. Normal evolution is just normal evolution. Your instance that evolution doesn't apply to "people" is as absured and gross as you think our counter argument is. Everyone evolves, creatures speciate on their own whether or not they are sapient, everyone still evolves. However scientifically innacurate the concept of Eugenics may me, the concept of Random mutation and Natural selection is fully accepted science. OldMightyFriendlyGa... is correct. different kinds of creatures are actually different kinds of creatures, they are not just variations on one kind of creature; and it has nothing to do with eugenics; nothing to do with sapience, and it DOES have a place in THIS game.
Ok so all humans are identical right, we all have the exact same "strengths and weaknesses"?
This argument about DnD races falls down on so many levels, for one thing not all dwarfs are the same, you have hill dwarfs, duregar, mountain dwarfs. The thing they have in common are not there ASI's there are other key factors that make them distinct from the other races and all recognisable as Dwarfs. Why is it so hard to imagine that a dwarf, born to dwarf parents, might be a bit more sickly, or not have the same muscle mass, but make up for it in how charismatic they are, or how intelligent? Why is it so hard to imagine that your very argument about "genetics" might put as much variation through the dwarf race as it does our own human race, it might mean that a dwarf is born who is not as strong willed and resilient as other dwarfs. In fact this dwarf may be more likely to strike out and try and find there place in the world, or these more intelligent dwarfs that are born might find a place as artisans, story tellers, or even leaders in dwarf society.
Ok so all humans are identical right, we all have the exact same "strengths and weaknesses"?
This argument about DnD races falls down on so many levels, for one thing not all dwarfs are the same, you have hill dwarfs, duregar, mountain dwarfs. The thing they have in common are not there ASI's there are other key factors that make them distinct from the other races and all recognisable as Dwarfs. Why is it so hard to imagine that a dwarf, born to dwarf parents, might be a bit more sickly, or not have the same muscle mass, but make up for it in how charismatic they are, or how intelligent? Why is it so hard to imagine that your very argument about "genetics" might put as much variation through the dwarf race as it does our own human race, it might mean that a dwarf is born who is not as strong willed and resilient as other dwarfs. In fact this dwarf may be more likely to strike out and try and find there place in the world, or these more intelligent dwarfs that are born might find a place as artisans, story tellers, or even leaders in dwarf society.
First of all, nobody said all humans are identical. Second, racial ASIs don't make all individuals of a given race identical either. A somewhat sickly but bookish dwarf will have stick an 8 in Con and a 15 in Int. Even with the racial bonus that dwarf will still be sickly compared to the average other dwarf, and certainly more intelligent. I know - that feels like a waste to some players, or they feel it's unfair they couldn't get a 17 Int instead of that 15, or the whole notion of racial modifiers might feel icky. Sure. None of that applies to this particular argument though. There is plenty of variation because we get to assign different, possibly even randomized, stats to attributes. Racial ASIs change the base line for attributes, they don't change the potential and they certainly don't lock them into a generic value.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Ok so all humans are identical right, we all have the exact same "strengths and weaknesses"?
This argument about DnD races falls down on so many levels, for one thing not all dwarfs are the same, you have hill dwarfs, duregar, mountain dwarfs. The thing they have in common are not there ASI's there are other key factors that make them distinct from the other races and all recognisable as Dwarfs. Why is it so hard to imagine that a dwarf, born to dwarf parents, might be a bit more sickly, or not have the same muscle mass, but make up for it in how charismatic they are, or how intelligent? Why is it so hard to imagine that your very argument about "genetics" might put as much variation through the dwarf race as it does our own human race, it might mean that a dwarf is born who is not as strong willed and resilient as other dwarfs. In fact this dwarf may be more likely to strike out and try and find there place in the world, or these more intelligent dwarfs that are born might find a place as artisans, story tellers, or even leaders in dwarf society.
First of all, nobody said all humans are identical. Second, racial ASIs don't make all individuals of a given race identical either. A somewhat sickly but bookish dwarf will have stick an 8 in Con and a 15 in Int. Even with the racial bonus that dwarf will still be sickly compared to the average other dwarf, and certainly more intelligent. I know - that feels like a waste to some players, or they feel it's unfair they couldn't get a 17 Int instead of that 15, or the whole notion of racial modifiers might feel icky. Sure. None of that applies to this particular argument though. There is plenty of variation because we get to assign different, possibly even randomized, stats to attributes. Racial ASIs change the base line for attributes, they don't change the potential and they certainly don't lock them into a generic value.
At the same time nothing you've suggested says that a dwarf couldn't have a 17 int (without rolling for stats)...
Either way works and the default offering more choice just seems like a better option to me.
Ok so all humans are identical right, we all have the exact same "strengths and weaknesses"?
This argument about DnD races falls down on so many levels, for one thing not all dwarfs are the same, you have hill dwarfs, duregar, mountain dwarfs. The thing they have in common are not there ASI's there are other key factors that make them distinct from the other races and all recognisable as Dwarfs. Why is it so hard to imagine that a dwarf, born to dwarf parents, might be a bit more sickly, or not have the same muscle mass, but make up for it in how charismatic they are, or how intelligent? Why is it so hard to imagine that your very argument about "genetics" might put as much variation through the dwarf race as it does our own human race, it might mean that a dwarf is born who is not as strong willed and resilient as other dwarfs. In fact this dwarf may be more likely to strike out and try and find there place in the world, or these more intelligent dwarfs that are born might find a place as artisans, story tellers, or even leaders in dwarf society.
First of all, nobody said all humans are identical. Second, racial ASIs don't make all individuals of a given race identical either. A somewhat sickly but bookish dwarf will have stick an 8 in Con and a 15 in Int. Even with the racial bonus that dwarf will still be sickly compared to the average other dwarf, and certainly more intelligent. I know - that feels like a waste to some players, or they feel it's unfair they couldn't get a 17 Int instead of that 15, or the whole notion of racial modifiers might feel icky. Sure. None of that applies to this particular argument though. There is plenty of variation because we get to assign different, possibly even randomized, stats to attributes. Racial ASIs change the base line for attributes, they don't change the potential and they certainly don't lock them into a generic value.
At the same time nothing you've suggested says that a dwarf couldn't have a 17 int (without rolling for stats)...
Either way works and the default offering more choice just seems like a better option to me.
That's fine. Just wanted to point out that arguing fixed ASIs make everyone the same is bogus.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So weird as it might seem after all the digital ink I've spilled on this topic, but I don't hate fixed racial ASI's. Or at least, I didn't.
I was ... used to them. It was just kind of the default in fantasy gaming. And then the blinders were taken off and I could see what things could be like without them and things were so much better. It's almost like I didn't realize the burden I was carrying until it was lifted. Through discussions here on the forums I got stories about how other gamers, mostly gamers of color, had had negative experiences with racialized stats and I remembered how I've run into stereotypes irl that were irritating and othering in ways that's hard to explain, like the seemingly positive stereotypes, "Oh you're Asian, you're good at math, right?" that made me feel like even my friends didn't really see me they just saw some cookie cutter movie archetype that looked like me. It kind of clicked something and thinking about playing with racialized ASI's, even the mostly all positive ones in 5E started to feel like when someone cracks a joke and you don't quite know what it means but it kinda feels like they're making fun of you but you just laugh along with them because you don't want to spoil the mood.
After that I internally just came to the conclusion that, "Nope, racial ASI's shouldn't be a thing." The thing is I honestly think the game is better and healthier without them. If I were to develop chargen suggestions for the different peoples of D&D I would probably make them very specific. Maybe some lore blurbs in the writeups that go something like: "The gnomish communities of Lantan pride themselves on producing highly skilled engineers and artificers." You get a feel of what kind of reputation the people have in a particular world without the developers telling you this is how these people are.
Gonna repost and echo this, after the mire of people trying to glorify human eugenics and all the ick that caused.
It was indeed very much a well-worn rut, and one a player didn't necessarily realize was as unpleasant as it was, until Wizards asked "Hey! What if you didn't have to constantly feel punished for playing off type? What if you could make the choices you wanted to make in chargen without having to contrive a reason for three points to be in places that don't make sense for your character? What if you could just do what feels right for you and your game, instead of always having to conform to someone else's arbitrary idea of what your species should be all about?"
And then, even though you were used to species with fixed baked-in ASIs, used to having to ignore that feeling of castigation and punishment whenever you wanted to do something like a tabaxi wizard or a dragonborn rogue or a halfling sorcerer, used to having to say "no really, I'm serious, I think it could be really cool and work out" when the DM just looks at you every time you check with them on a new character idea, used to finding ways to contort your story to find reasons why your numbers are so bloody weird, used to abandoning concepts that simply didn't match up, used to all of that and more...you think about it for a minute and go "Damn. That just sounds nice." And the more you think about it, the nicer it sounds, and the more you realize that's just how you wish your game was.
Then a bunch of folks start jabbering about how this move is gonna Ruin D&D Forever, how fantasy racism is A.) not real racism, not really, and B.) also actually pretty cool if you think about it, how anyone who doesn't reject this idea wholesale is No True Fan of D&D, and all the other shit that keeps getting tossed around. And you abruptly realize how tired you are of dealing with it, and dealing with all the baggage that comes from the idea that Species [X] is genetically good at Job/Lifestyle [A] and genetically bad at Job/Lifestyle [B]. That only an idiot or an edgy teen emo punkass would bother with Job/Lifestyle [B] as Species [X] instead of following Job/Lifestyle [A] like their pappy, his pappy, and his pappy before him, because Job/Lifestyle [A] is just the way they are, always have been, and always will be.
And you find that your patience for dealing with it has just as abruptly reached near zero, even though not too long ago you were happily* playing games with your friends with all these rules in place, not even realizing how draining it all could be until somebody asked the question.
I ain't putting up with that drain anymore. Not as a hobby-wide thing. If a specific DM wants to do specific numbers for their specific world and they can sell me on the game despite that? Then fine. That's a houserule I've agreed to play by to gain access to the game. But as an entire game-wide thing that every last single D&D player has to either do or manage to actively convince a DM not to enforce for a specific character?
Nah. I'm done with that idea. I haven't even been playing this game since the eighties and I'm already done with that idea. I'm just done with it. Whatever value it might have once had for me has long since been expended, and the drag it provides on my characters and my games is no longer invisible and no longer a freebie. Fixed numbers get to justify themselves now, not the other way around.
I personally don't think it has anything to do with it and its not even implied in any shape or form by my comment. That you are trying to make it sound like it does is a bit hilarious and gross at the same time.
You haven't been following the conversation, I see. What you're doing above is applying the same kind of thinking to people as we would apply to dog breeds. This kind of talk is something that some of us have had applied to us in real life and it's highly uncomfortable and upsetting. Which is why it has no place in gaming.
Eugenics isn't natural selection Ophidimancer. Eugenics is artifificial selection within your own species. Normal evolution is just normal evolution. Your instance that evolution doesn't apply to "people" is as absured and gross as you think our counter argument is. Everyone evolves, creatures speciate on their own whether or not they are sapient, everyone still evolves. However scientifically innacurate the concept of Eugenics may me, the concept of Random mutation and Natural selection is fully accepted science. OldMightyFriendlyGa... is correct. different kinds of creatures are actually different kinds of creatures, they are not just variations on one kind of creature; and it has nothing to do with eugenics; nothing to do with sapience, and it DOES have a place in THIS game.
Ok so all humans are identical right, we all have the exact same "strengths and weaknesses"?
This argument about DnD races falls down on so many levels, for one thing not all dwarfs are the same, you have hill dwarfs, duregar, mountain dwarfs. The thing they have in common are not there ASI's there are other key factors that make them distinct from the other races and all recognisable as Dwarfs. Why is it so hard to imagine that a dwarf, born to dwarf parents, might be a bit more sickly, or not have the same muscle mass, but make up for it in how charismatic they are, or how intelligent? Why is it so hard to imagine that your very argument about "genetics" might put as much variation through the dwarf race as it does our own human race, it might mean that a dwarf is born who is not as strong willed and resilient as other dwarfs. In fact this dwarf may be more likely to strike out and try and find there place in the world, or these more intelligent dwarfs that are born might find a place as artisans, story tellers, or even leaders in dwarf society.
Close enough, yeah, at least as far as attribute score abstractions are concerned. Humans (and also cheetah's I think this was true of) are one of the most closely related species on earth due to a bottleneck event experienced in the wake of the toba catastrophe, a supervolcanic eruption that occured about 70K years ago. It reduced our numbers to such a point that today, not only are all humans 1 species, we are also literally, one family. Not family like "Primates", I mean family, like we all share a single individual great ancestor. I've heard it said there is more genetic variability in t the genome between two individual chimps, then between all of humanity, and chimps - don't remember if that's true, but it's like a thing that I've heard back in my college days. So humans are indeed all VERY similar at the genetic level to one another.
Nods. Because prior to Floating ASI's, you needed a different mechanism to allow for shifting bonuses around, and subtypes were the mcGuffin to allow for it. I suspect in future versions of the game, there will be fewer subtypes going forward, and current ones will start being grouped together. Look how the Wood Elf entry right now has been made to encompass both Grugatch (wild elves) and the green/forest elves. Gurgatch were meant to accommodate the elven barbarian template while Green/Forest elves, the Druid/Ranger template, and High Elves the Wizard template, etc. Floating ASi's simply streamline this effect, specifically as Yurei stated somewhere, they want to move away from the idea of groups by type to more individual variety within a single group.
Because this kind of "what if" scenarios you are describing are better represented by where you place your [8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15] then where you place your [+2,+1]. i.e they represent your class choice; your training etc. The Steven Hawking of Dwarves would have a 15 in Int rather than in Con or STR, but his Con score will still be 10(8+2) rather than 8 because even such a Dwarf would still be slightly hardier than the Steven Hawking of most non-Dwarves. Dwarven "Stoutness" is still literally a part of being dwarven, even if any given particular Dwarf never chooses to, or finds themself otherwise incapable of, actually developing any further stoutness (putting any points into Con).
Remember also, people really want those floaters to give themselves [8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17], and are thinking they will be screwed otherwise. I'd love to see people try a game using floating [+2, +1, -2] to take an array of [10, 11, 12, 13, 13, 14] across the whole party - really get back into the habit of having to EARN your superpowers. People forget that 10 is the extrapolation of "Average" ability. So for example an INT of 10 would be like a 108 I.Q. and a 13 is like Mensa status - you are one of the top 2% in all the world at the task of "thinking"; and this is what's needed for just 1st tier wizardry.
I.E. Wizardy is hard! Magic in general is hard; and so are heavy weapons, good archery skills, etc. People have been spoiled by the last 20 years of powercreep and take 13's for granted and begrudge any reason not to be able to start with a +4 modifier; and think it's more fun to start out as the superhero, then as just an above average person in the world who accrues their power as part of the rewards from taking heroic actions/doing heroic deeds. This is why you DON'T just pick the "iconic combination TM" but you DO have the static traits - because not having that 17 IS a better story.
Have you ever written down "Dwarven Stoutness" on your sheet? Or "Elven Grace", or "Halfling Coordination" or whatever else? Have you ever invented a racial feature out of whole cloth to explain and constantly remind you of the fact that you have a bonus number somewhere that derives from your bloodline? No?
Follow-up question: Have you ever written down your ability scores as "13+2" or "11+1" or whatever else, made absolutely sure to keep your racial points distinct and segregated from your other points? Set them aside, report them differently, or otherwise make a big hooplah about having Big Bonus Numbahs from your bloodline? No?
Follow-up question Mk. II: Have you ever just written down your f@#$ing number and then played the game, never really thinking about where your number came from or why it is what it is beyond 'my character has really good Dex because she's a trained rogue that emphasizes Dexy abilities' or 'my character has really good Intelligence because he's a wizard, duh?" Do you always make it a specific point to remind yourself multiple times a session that your numbers are only the way they are because you picked the species you did, or do your hard-locked, species-defining, utterly critical fixed ASIs simply disappear without a trace into your scores and are never thought of as their own independent thing ever again?
If you, like the overwhelming majority of players, only answered "yes" to Follow-Up Mk. II? Then it doesn't matter what your points are. Floating, fixed, static, dynamic, doesn't matter. It. Doesn't. Matter. Your species allocations disappear and become invisible after chargen, they do nothingto inform gameplay. I've got a drow paladin whose second game is scheduled for tonight whose species, culture, heritage and origin are critically important to her story in a way they've never been for any other character I've ever made. her class is almost completely unimportant, as is her background - being what she is, where she (currently) is, has a massive impact on her storyline and a lesser but still significant impact on the storyline of the game as a whole.
Her fixed drowish DEX/cha still don't matter for spit. They don't make her feel more like an Umbragen Watcher displaced from her homeland. They sure as **** aren't the reason she feels like an Umbragen watcher displaced from her homeland. Sunlight Sensitivity and her exotic appearance were both much bigger factors in her first game. In point of fact, her numbers didn't come up once. At all. EVER. Mistletoe feels like an Umbragen watcher displaced from her homeland because I went out of my way to portray her as confused, off-balance, and a goodly bit overwhelmed by all the bizarre, alien weirdness of Khorvaire whilst playing into her sunlight sensitivity and having her be cautious about who she revealed herself to and what she said about her homeland.
All things that had absolutely nothing to do with her gods-be-damned-forever numbers, even with the fact that I Obeyed The Rules and kept her default allocations like a good little obedient player girl. If I'd Broken The Rules and given her INT/wis instead for whichever reason? Wouldn't have changed her portrayal one iota, wouldn't have changed how the others in her party perceived her, wouldn't have changed how the world reacts to her.
At. All.
If the fixed points don't do anything, if they don't change anything, if they don't have any impact whatsoever outside of chargen, why cling to them so hard and try to cram them down everybody else's throats?
All this talk of evolution is kind of funny when talking about a fantasy world where all the races were created by gods not evolution. There isn't any science at all behind the races in D&D. The writers never put much thought into how it works beyond, "You know what would be cool?! Half Dragons!" I find any discussion attempting to apply science to D&D funny since it is all just made up BS by people who mostly likely only have a high school level science education.
Sure, we like to attempt to apply real world physics, biology, and the like to the game, but it always breaks down at some point because it is a fantasy game, not the real world.
Who do you think you are to tell people what the better story for their character is?
Also, do you not know about bounded accuracy? The game was designed around being able to start with a maximum of a +3 bonus to any given stat and a 17 is in line with that.
This whole "You young whippersnappers don't know how good you have it, back in my day..." attitude is...uh...played out. Please let the conversation move forward so we can discuss more interesting and pertinent topics.
Eugenics don't get applied to me in real life. If they get applied to you, i suggest seeking help immediately and i wish you the best. But please don't try to push the eugenics button all the time as it simple isn't anything related to my comment. Its a far stretch imho and non thats appreciated.
All due respect, you are casting the other poster as some sort of eugenics-invoking deplorable in real life. It seems clear to me, and I imagine other readers, as folks who have been folliwng this conversation since post 1, that OldMighty was articulating or speculating the possibility that the elimination of fixed modifiers may reduce race/species/ancestry too much to an anthropomorphised standard, and while sure many to most players do anthropomorphize their characters, the possibility of playing something alien to base line human being is lost in this movement within 5e (as opposed to say SW Saga, a very popular D&D esque system that's got +2s and -2s all over the place). I don't necessarily agree with the line of reasoning, but I wouldn't 1.) presume my tangent in this thread amounts to ownership of the conversation and 2.) presume OldMighty is floating eugenics thinking and 3.) Use my trauma to defend my insulting of another poster to claim the mud slung came from a moral high ground.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Thanks. I think my point is simply that while i think that players should have equal opportunity i don't think that "all sentient intelligent life is mentally and physically equal in ability and opportunity". And while that seems to be some strange controversial standpoint, i simple don't see anything wrong with it.
Are all humans equal in ability no matter their heritage, skin, gender or culture etc? 100%. I don't even know how that would be a point worthy of discussion....
If a persons approach to characters is that humanoids are just different skinned humans i see how this might be misconstructed as eugenics, but that is so fundamentally different from how i see species in fantasy games that we aren't talking in the same sphere and definitions and as such will always miss each others point of view cause of it.
The only people pushing for changing the word to 'species' are people who want to keep racial ASIs and think a wording change will be adequate for solving the problem. Since it isn't, it isn't an idea that's likely to get much traction.
Wizards has two separate reasons for making a change:
Yeah as a scientific point is a bad idea to conflate eugenics with descriptions of different species capabilities, that suggests a degree of scientific validity to eugenics that just isn't there. Eugenics is a moral position that suggests that a True genetic line I.e a selectively bred genetic line will create an objectively better society. Its unscientific in how it ignores that problems in society extend beyond genes and is unscientific in how it assumes that one set of traits is objectively better than others. As an example of the mistake eugenics makes while some fish can see and some can't; and that is a scientific fact, it is not true that having eyes is necessarily better than not. The same idea is true for any human feature as well. Eugenics would assume for example having eyes is objectively better for fish and breed fish who live in dark caves to have perfect eye sight because that makes it a super fish. It ignores the fish couldn't see because of its environment. That's the idiocy of eugenics
Eugenics isn't natural selection Ophidimancer. Eugenics is artifificial selection within your own species. Normal evolution is just normal evolution. Your instance that evolution doesn't apply to "people" is as absured and gross as you think our counter argument is. Everyone evolves, creatures speciate on their own whether or not they are sapient, everyone still evolves. However scientifically innacurate the concept of Eugenics may me, the concept of Random mutation and Natural selection is fully accepted science. OldMightyFriendlyGa... is correct. different kinds of creatures are actually different kinds of creatures, they are not just variations on one kind of creature; and it has nothing to do with eugenics; nothing to do with sapience, and it DOES have a place in THIS game.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
I imagine this has come out of balanced questionnaires, surveys and other feedback sessions as opposed to simply looking at boards and forums. The designers are also in there rights to decide they are shifting the way the game is designed and make the choice that if they are going with floating ASI's they are going all in and not worrying about setting fixed ASI's in future. I imagine that there was some play testing and balancing done for racial ASI's in the past, this is time in the future that the designers can spend focussed on other things rather then having to work out what the correct racial ASI is and how it might impact a table.
I am going to go back to a comment I made earlier, of those who are against floating ASI's how many of you have actually run them at your table since Tasha's came out. How many of you can quote situations where floating ASI's broke your game, or prevented players from "getting into the race of a character".
Many of the arguments against come from assumption and opinion and are never based in the fact of, for instance.
I once let an Elf use floating ASI's it was awful for the game because of this this and this that unbalanced the game and made the player play like the elf was a goliath.
Exactly you have never tried it, I can tell you as a DM who has been applying floating ASI's for 8 years now (I know horror horror, I was home brewing a thing that is anti DnD) it most certainly does not collapse and break the game. Once you start rolling dice and roleplaying actually, having an intelligent orc, or a strong elf clumsy elf, or a dexterous dwarf really does not make you think, oh, we are not playing DnD anymore. It allows players to get even more in tune with a character, it allows them to play a character who is truly is "different to type" and that is a great thing. We are talking about shifting 2 stats around, not ripping up the 6 stat line, or turning DnD into a D10 roll and keep system.
If I like Pizza with mushrooms, and then they come out with Pizza with lil'cubes of ham. I don't get upset that joint is now offering another flavor of pizza - whether I like that flavor or not; or whether I keep kosher and so can't eat that ham one myself, I still don't mind the joint serving it. Even if I do eat and also like the new flavor, I still get upset if the joint outright discontinues mushroom pizza because some of their clients are allergic to mushrooms and they don't want to take the trouble to have separate preparation tables or oven slots. It tells me those clients are more valued by the joint than I am.
I'm not arguing that Floating ASI's don't necessarily make for a good experience in their own right. I'm arguing that Static ASI's should still be available anyway, because two flavors of Pizza are better than one, and just because some people don't like MY favorite flavor of Pizza, does not give them the right to demand the neighborhood pizza joint should stop serving it.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Ok I am going to try coming at this from a different angle, much of the arguments against floating ASI's seems to be "it stops a race feeling like that race" like somehow a half orc with +2 int is no longer a half orc, I am not sure what happens to them, does there skin change colour and they get pointy ears and long flowing hair?
If a player creates a dwarf with +2 dex, they are still a dwarf, they may still have a sense of honour and duty, they may still hold a grudge, they will be shorter then most other races and probably have a beard and like to drink. Being a bit more dextrous and a bit less resilient then other dwarfs doesn't suddenly change what they are and what there key motivations are as a race.
Alternatively a player could very well use the dwarf fixed ASI's and play the dwarf like they are a short elf, preferring whimsy, being a vegetarian, loving nature and thinking they are superior to all, hating mines (filthy dirty places) and not wanting to do a hard days work. Would that sit badly at your table, what about a dwarf raised by Elves, would they be "expected" to behave like a normal dwarf?
An Aarakocra with a strength +2 and a con +1 still has wings and feathers and flys, A Satyr still looks like a Satyr whatever ASI's you give them.
Where you put your +1,+2 ASI's really has no bearing on how you roleplay your character other than to allow a player to lean more into the character they want to portray. A Halfling or Gnome are still just that regardless of where the stats go. If your table is unable to comprehend that then there is a bigger problem than "floating ASI's".
Ok so all humans are identical right, we all have the exact same "strengths and weaknesses"?
This argument about DnD races falls down on so many levels, for one thing not all dwarfs are the same, you have hill dwarfs, duregar, mountain dwarfs. The thing they have in common are not there ASI's there are other key factors that make them distinct from the other races and all recognisable as Dwarfs. Why is it so hard to imagine that a dwarf, born to dwarf parents, might be a bit more sickly, or not have the same muscle mass, but make up for it in how charismatic they are, or how intelligent? Why is it so hard to imagine that your very argument about "genetics" might put as much variation through the dwarf race as it does our own human race, it might mean that a dwarf is born who is not as strong willed and resilient as other dwarfs. In fact this dwarf may be more likely to strike out and try and find there place in the world, or these more intelligent dwarfs that are born might find a place as artisans, story tellers, or even leaders in dwarf society.
First of all, nobody said all humans are identical. Second, racial ASIs don't make all individuals of a given race identical either. A somewhat sickly but bookish dwarf will have stick an 8 in Con and a 15 in Int. Even with the racial bonus that dwarf will still be sickly compared to the average other dwarf, and certainly more intelligent. I know - that feels like a waste to some players, or they feel it's unfair they couldn't get a 17 Int instead of that 15, or the whole notion of racial modifiers might feel icky. Sure. None of that applies to this particular argument though. There is plenty of variation because we get to assign different, possibly even randomized, stats to attributes. Racial ASIs change the base line for attributes, they don't change the potential and they certainly don't lock them into a generic value.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
At the same time nothing you've suggested says that a dwarf couldn't have a 17 int (without rolling for stats)...
Either way works and the default offering more choice just seems like a better option to me.
That's fine. Just wanted to point out that arguing fixed ASIs make everyone the same is bogus.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Gonna repost and echo this, after the mire of people trying to glorify human eugenics and all the ick that caused.
It was indeed very much a well-worn rut, and one a player didn't necessarily realize was as unpleasant as it was, until Wizards asked "Hey! What if you didn't have to constantly feel punished for playing off type? What if you could make the choices you wanted to make in chargen without having to contrive a reason for three points to be in places that don't make sense for your character? What if you could just do what feels right for you and your game, instead of always having to conform to someone else's arbitrary idea of what your species should be all about?"
And then, even though you were used to species with fixed baked-in ASIs, used to having to ignore that feeling of castigation and punishment whenever you wanted to do something like a tabaxi wizard or a dragonborn rogue or a halfling sorcerer, used to having to say "no really, I'm serious, I think it could be really cool and work out" when the DM just looks at you every time you check with them on a new character idea, used to finding ways to contort your story to find reasons why your numbers are so bloody weird, used to abandoning concepts that simply didn't match up, used to all of that and more...you think about it for a minute and go "Damn. That just sounds nice." And the more you think about it, the nicer it sounds, and the more you realize that's just how you wish your game was.
Then a bunch of folks start jabbering about how this move is gonna Ruin D&D Forever, how fantasy racism is A.) not real racism, not really, and B.) also actually pretty cool if you think about it, how anyone who doesn't reject this idea wholesale is No True Fan of D&D, and all the other shit that keeps getting tossed around. And you abruptly realize how tired you are of dealing with it, and dealing with all the baggage that comes from the idea that Species [X] is genetically good at Job/Lifestyle [A] and genetically bad at Job/Lifestyle [B]. That only an idiot or an edgy teen emo punkass would bother with Job/Lifestyle [B] as Species [X] instead of following Job/Lifestyle [A] like their pappy, his pappy, and his pappy before him, because Job/Lifestyle [A] is just the way they are, always have been, and always will be.
And you find that your patience for dealing with it has just as abruptly reached near zero, even though not too long ago you were happily* playing games with your friends with all these rules in place, not even realizing how draining it all could be until somebody asked the question.
I ain't putting up with that drain anymore. Not as a hobby-wide thing. If a specific DM wants to do specific numbers for their specific world and they can sell me on the game despite that? Then fine. That's a houserule I've agreed to play by to gain access to the game. But as an entire game-wide thing that every last single D&D player has to either do or manage to actively convince a DM not to enforce for a specific character?
Nah. I'm done with that idea. I haven't even been playing this game since the eighties and I'm already done with that idea. I'm just done with it. Whatever value it might have once had for me has long since been expended, and the drag it provides on my characters and my games is no longer invisible and no longer a freebie. Fixed numbers get to justify themselves now, not the other way around.
Please do not contact or message me.
Close enough, yeah, at least as far as attribute score abstractions are concerned. Humans (and also cheetah's I think this was true of) are one of the most closely related species on earth due to a bottleneck event experienced in the wake of the toba catastrophe, a supervolcanic eruption that occured about 70K years ago. It reduced our numbers to such a point that today, not only are all humans 1 species, we are also literally, one family. Not family like "Primates", I mean family, like we all share a single individual great ancestor. I've heard it said there is more genetic variability in t the genome between two individual chimps, then between all of humanity, and chimps - don't remember if that's true, but it's like a thing that I've heard back in my college days. So humans are indeed all VERY similar at the genetic level to one another.
Nods. Because prior to Floating ASI's, you needed a different mechanism to allow for shifting bonuses around, and subtypes were the mcGuffin to allow for it. I suspect in future versions of the game, there will be fewer subtypes going forward, and current ones will start being grouped together. Look how the Wood Elf entry right now has been made to encompass both Grugatch (wild elves) and the green/forest elves. Gurgatch were meant to accommodate the elven barbarian template while Green/Forest elves, the Druid/Ranger template, and High Elves the Wizard template, etc. Floating ASi's simply streamline this effect, specifically as Yurei stated somewhere, they want to move away from the idea of groups by type to more individual variety within a single group.
Because this kind of "what if" scenarios you are describing are better represented by where you place your [8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15] then where you place your [+2,+1]. i.e they represent your class choice; your training etc. The Steven Hawking of Dwarves would have a 15 in Int rather than in Con or STR, but his Con score will still be 10(8+2) rather than 8 because even such a Dwarf would still be slightly hardier than the Steven Hawking of most non-Dwarves. Dwarven "Stoutness" is still literally a part of being dwarven, even if any given particular Dwarf never chooses to, or finds themself otherwise incapable of, actually developing any further stoutness (putting any points into Con).
Remember also, people really want those floaters to give themselves [8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17], and are thinking they will be screwed otherwise. I'd love to see people try a game using floating [+2, +1, -2] to take an array of [10, 11, 12, 13, 13, 14] across the whole party - really get back into the habit of having to EARN your superpowers. People forget that 10 is the extrapolation of "Average" ability. So for example an INT of 10 would be like a 108 I.Q. and a 13 is like Mensa status - you are one of the top 2% in all the world at the task of "thinking"; and this is what's needed for just 1st tier wizardry.
I.E. Wizardy is hard! Magic in general is hard; and so are heavy weapons, good archery skills, etc. People have been spoiled by the last 20 years of powercreep and take 13's for granted and begrudge any reason not to be able to start with a +4 modifier; and think it's more fun to start out as the superhero, then as just an above average person in the world who accrues their power as part of the rewards from taking heroic actions/doing heroic deeds. This is why you DON'T just pick the "iconic combination TM" but you DO have the static traits - because not having that 17 IS a better story.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
So. Thought experiment.
Have you ever written down "Dwarven Stoutness" on your sheet? Or "Elven Grace", or "Halfling Coordination" or whatever else? Have you ever invented a racial feature out of whole cloth to explain and constantly remind you of the fact that you have a bonus number somewhere that derives from your bloodline? No?
Follow-up question: Have you ever written down your ability scores as "13+2" or "11+1" or whatever else, made absolutely sure to keep your racial points distinct and segregated from your other points? Set them aside, report them differently, or otherwise make a big hooplah about having Big Bonus Numbahs from your bloodline? No?
Follow-up question Mk. II: Have you ever just written down your f@#$ing number and then played the game, never really thinking about where your number came from or why it is what it is beyond 'my character has really good Dex because she's a trained rogue that emphasizes Dexy abilities' or 'my character has really good Intelligence because he's a wizard, duh?" Do you always make it a specific point to remind yourself multiple times a session that your numbers are only the way they are because you picked the species you did, or do your hard-locked, species-defining, utterly critical fixed ASIs simply disappear without a trace into your scores and are never thought of as their own independent thing ever again?
If you, like the overwhelming majority of players, only answered "yes" to Follow-Up Mk. II? Then it doesn't matter what your points are. Floating, fixed, static, dynamic, doesn't matter. It. Doesn't. Matter. Your species allocations disappear and become invisible after chargen, they do nothing to inform gameplay. I've got a drow paladin whose second game is scheduled for tonight whose species, culture, heritage and origin are critically important to her story in a way they've never been for any other character I've ever made. her class is almost completely unimportant, as is her background - being what she is, where she (currently) is, has a massive impact on her storyline and a lesser but still significant impact on the storyline of the game as a whole.
Her fixed drowish DEX/cha still don't matter for spit. They don't make her feel more like an Umbragen Watcher displaced from her homeland. They sure as **** aren't the reason she feels like an Umbragen watcher displaced from her homeland. Sunlight Sensitivity and her exotic appearance were both much bigger factors in her first game. In point of fact, her numbers didn't come up once. At all. EVER. Mistletoe feels like an Umbragen watcher displaced from her homeland because I went out of my way to portray her as confused, off-balance, and a goodly bit overwhelmed by all the bizarre, alien weirdness of Khorvaire whilst playing into her sunlight sensitivity and having her be cautious about who she revealed herself to and what she said about her homeland.
All things that had absolutely nothing to do with her gods-be-damned-forever numbers, even with the fact that I Obeyed The Rules and kept her default allocations like a good little obedient player girl. If I'd Broken The Rules and given her INT/wis instead for whichever reason? Wouldn't have changed her portrayal one iota, wouldn't have changed how the others in her party perceived her, wouldn't have changed how the world reacts to her.
At. All.
If the fixed points don't do anything, if they don't change anything, if they don't have any impact whatsoever outside of chargen, why cling to them so hard and try to cram them down everybody else's throats?
Please do not contact or message me.
All this talk of evolution is kind of funny when talking about a fantasy world where all the races were created by gods not evolution. There isn't any science at all behind the races in D&D. The writers never put much thought into how it works beyond, "You know what would be cool?! Half Dragons!" I find any discussion attempting to apply science to D&D funny since it is all just made up BS by people who mostly likely only have a high school level science education.
Sure, we like to attempt to apply real world physics, biology, and the like to the game, but it always breaks down at some point because it is a fantasy game, not the real world.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Who do you think you are to tell people what the better story for their character is?
Also, do you not know about bounded accuracy? The game was designed around being able to start with a maximum of a +3 bonus to any given stat and a 17 is in line with that.
This whole "You young whippersnappers don't know how good you have it, back in my day..." attitude is...uh...played out. Please let the conversation move forward so we can discuss more interesting and pertinent topics.