Making the various species identical in terms of ability score improvement does indeed change the physical norms of those species. Now the average orc has a strength of 10, just like humans. The average elf has a dex of 10, just like humans. The average gnome has intelligence of 10, just like a human.
Well, orcs in the Monster Manual still have a STR of 16, while commoners (listed as humanoid, any race) still have a STR of 10
So either it's not at all true that "the average orc" has a STR of 10, or it was true long before Tasha's. Take your pick
"This book that was written along with the original rules used the original rules, so therefore the new rules don't change the original rules and Wizards is completely consistent in everything it does, so I win. Ha."
What?
Yeah, what?
Define "average orc" and maybe other people will be able to figure out what you're trying to say
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm confused. Rules around the core PHB characters hasn't changed... or am I missing something? I mean - Tasha's is still optional for them, isn't it?
As someone who likes to home-brew settings, I think decoupling species from the core setting is a good move although it still makes assumptions about the universe that may or may not hold in a home-brew (fey, shodowfell, astral plane, etc). As others have noted, though, the removal of certain cultural defaults (evil goblins) means there's no more playing against type because there is no type. You can build the type into your setting, of course, but it's not the same. But I guess you can't have it both ways - do I want a stereotype or do I want flexibility for my setting? Honestly, I'm not sure. Some ASI combinations are a bit weird, like strong halflings, but whatever floats your boat.
It's like this:
Sure, we can totally choose to add set bonuses for the races, that's still allowed as the DM and the player. However, making it the rule going forward that no race has set bonuses(that you can optionally allow to replace any bonus with Tasha's) takes away from the feeling of every race being different. If you can have the same bonuses as a halfling as an orc or goliath, it just feels very 'samey' and not as much sets them apart. So for the new races coming out, as well as the replacements for old races in MotM, the set bonuses don't exist any more. Don't get me wrong, most of us are still fine with the optional Tasha's rule, but we like it to be a case by case basis for allowing it, instead of having to tell players that it isn't allowed for a specific campaign, or trying to impose penalties on ourselves manually as players. I know that it might not be a big deal to other people, and honestly it's not a huge deal to me, it's just a bit annoying, but a large portion of the people I've seen discussing it just like it. It's not really hurting other people, and in some cases it's really hard to explain why we like it, as in the case of alignment. But because we like it, and it's being taken away, we're a bit irritated.
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
Making the various species identical in terms of ability score improvement does indeed change the physical norms of those species. Now the average orc has a strength of 10, just like humans. The average elf has a dex of 10, just like humans. The average gnome has intelligence of 10, just like a human.
Well, orcs in the Monster Manual still have a STR of 16, while commoners (listed as humanoid, any race) still have a STR of 10
So either it's not at all true that "the average orc" has a STR of 10, or it was true long before Tasha's. Take your pick
"This book that was written along with the original rules used the original rules, so therefore the new rules don't change the original rules and Wizards is completely consistent in everything it does, so I win. Ha."
What?
Yeah, what?
Define "average orc" and maybe other people will be able to figure out what you're trying to say
I'll be honest here I have no idea what either of you are saying.
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'll be honest here I have no idea what either of you are saying.
LegendofZub claims that changing the way initial PC stats are derived changes "the physical norms" of the race/species/whatever in question
I think that's kind of ridiculous
Ahhh. I think what Zub is saying is that an average person from a race would have it's bonuses applied to the base point from point buy, like an elf would have a 10 dexterity, 9 in one thing based on sub race, and then all 8s. Then, for stat blocks like 'orc' or 'drow', those stats are what the society molds the average member of that race into, and that's what they choose for things like point buy and ability score improvements after level 1. Orcs on average should have like 10 strength if their culture didn't push them to be warriors. Racial ability score improvements are genetics, while point buy or standard array is culture and what you choose to do with yourself.
At least I think that's what Zub is saying. I could be totally off. Hopefully this can help you guys understand each other. I'll delete it if it causes more arguments.
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
Half-Elf: +2CH, +1any, +1any other. Cannot be Lawful.
Halfling (Stout): +2DX, +1CN. Cannot be Chaotic
Halfling (Lightfoot): +1DX, +1CH. Cannot be Chaotic
Half-orc: +2STR, +1CN. Cannot be Lawful or Good
Human: +1 All. No alignment restriction.
Tiefling: +2CH, +1IQ. Cannot be Lawful.
All characters must choose a class that aligns to one of their innate species bonuses. No "off" combinations; if your class uses neither of your numbers you must choose a new class or a new species.
Took me 'bout ten minutes to compile that, and most of that was cross-referencing to DDB to ensure I was getting the PHB-specific subspecies right. If I were doing an Old School-style game with PHB-only species, fixed ASIs, and restricted alignment? That chart would be in my campaign pitch to my players and/or covered in pre-campaign prep, and players would know ahead of time that this would be a requirement. If they don't sign on? Then either that game doesn't get played, or I have to figure out how to entice my players to sign on. Or, just maybe, I need to unclench a little and relax?
Half-Elf: +2CH, +1any, +1any other. Cannot be Lawful.
Halfling (Stout): +2DX, +1CN. Cannot be Chaotic
Halfling (Lightfoot): +1DX, +1CH. Cannot be Chaotic
Half-orc: +2STR, +1CN. Cannot be Lawful or Good
Human: +1 All. No alignment restriction.
Tiefling: +2CH, +1IQ. Cannot be Lawful.
All characters must choose a class that aligns to one of their innate species bonuses. No "off" combinations; if your class uses neither of your numbers you must choose a new class or a new species.
Took me 'bout ten minutes to compile that, and most of that was cross-referencing to DDB to ensure I was getting the PHB-specific subspecies right. If I were doing an Old School-style game with PHB-only species, fixed ASIs, and restricted alignment? That chart would be in my campaign pitch to my players and/or covered in pre-campaign prep, and players would know ahead of time that this would be a requirement. If they don't sign on? Then either that game doesn't get played, or I have to figure out how to entice my players to sign on. Or, just maybe, I need to unclench a little and relax?
Who are you trying to convince and what of? I genuinely don't understand this. Not trying to be argumentative, I just am very confused.
In my attempt to reply to this:
I doubt that many DMs who don't like Tasha's rule being the requirement actually do this, and doubt that any at all would be against players using a race that doesn't automatically fit a certain class. Also I don't know where you got required alignment from, because that was never part of this discussion. For the record, I don't require players to even use alignment, or choose a particular one depending on their race, and I allow players to change their characters' alignment at any time as long as it makes sense.
Could you please explain what you meant by that post?
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
I'm confused. Rules around the core PHB characters hasn't changed... or am I missing something? I mean - Tasha's is still optional for them, isn't it?
As someone who likes to home-brew settings, I think decoupling species from the core setting is a good move although it still makes assumptions about the universe that may or may not hold in a home-brew (fey, shodowfell, astral plane, etc). As others have noted, though, the removal of certain cultural defaults (evil goblins) means there's no more playing against type because there is no type. You can build the type into your setting, of course, but it's not the same. But I guess you can't have it both ways - do I want a stereotype or do I want flexibility for my setting? Honestly, I'm not sure. Some ASI combinations are a bit weird, like strong halflings, but whatever floats your boat.
I'm sure I will surprise most of the people who have been against me by saying I completely agree with almost everything you have said. The one thing I disagree with is the implication that having defaults affects the flexibility of your setting in any way.
D&D have always been "specific bears general. In general, orcs are strong and resilient. "In my setting, orcs are intelligent and dextrous" overwrites that. Yes, you could say "in my setting, you need to abide by these racial ability score improvements," but because the default in recent books and seemingly in all future books (including those that effectively overwrite the existing of old books like this does to MToF and VGtM), now the DM needs to look like the bad guy taking away the agency of players in order to make playing against type an option. I would much rather have the option as a DM to look like the good guy and give the players the option to override the defaults.
Mechanically, the two options are identical, and I completely understand why people think that giving people the flexibility of choosing their own ASI up front gives players more agency. But it has always been the case that you have been able to make those changes. I have wasted spent a great deal of time reading the responses on these threads over the past few days. From what I've seen, the vast majority of people arguing against this rule would have happily obliged a player who wanted to give their character a different ASI, especially if a reason was given. Even before the optional rule from Tasha's was published. Sure, there are DMs who would say no, but they're the ones running the game. That's their right as a DM. It's been said many times already, but in order to play against type, there needs to be a type to play against.
Here is an example that may shed some light for those who still can't see where we're coming from. You have a group in which everyone is playing an orc, and everyone but one player uses non-standard ASIs with that one player with the non-standard ASIs doing so to play against type. There are two wizards in the group, one of which is the one playing against type. Let's look at two ways to get there. In the current case, that one person wanting to play against type chose to be at a disadvantage while everyone else just was better at what they do because the rules said they could be. Now you have a character (orc wizard) who devoted his life to breaking the apparent norm of his culture to become a wizard in the same party as another orc wizard who grew up on the streets picking pockets to get by is just straight up a better wizard for no reason other than the character's player wanted him to be a better wizard. Now let's look at how you could get the same party and the same characters using the old approach. One of the characters was blessed by a god. One of the characters was involved in a magic-related accident that caused major changes in said character's body. One character (the better wizard) was transported from another world where orcs are intelligent, but arrived alone and with nothing in this unknown world and thus had to grow up on the streets picking pockets to survive. The character playing against type grew up in this world and is working to overcome the challenges presented by this world. In the first scenario, the motivation of the character seems like a sham. If you can't see why some people would find the character more fun to play in the second scenario, I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion.
The only good argument I've seen for shifting Tasha's optional rule to be the default rule is one that I came up with trying to figure out how people could argue that it's better this way. That argument is that now you can pick your ASI in adventure league. Yes. That is a legitimate benefit. But why does it need to be done this way? Why not just explicitly state that players have the option to choose their own ASI in adventure league, at least if they provide a reason their character would be different, perhaps offering some examples that the players could use to achieve such a change.
I'll be honest here I have no idea what either of you are saying.
LegendofZub claims that changing the way initial PC stats are derived changes "the physical norms" of the race/species/whatever in question
I think that's kind of ridiculous
Ahhh. I think what Zub is saying is that an average person from a race would have it's bonuses applied to the base point from point buy, like an elf would have a 10 dexterity, 9 in one thing based on sub race, and then all 8s. Then, for stat blocks like 'orc' or 'drow', those stats are what the society molds the average member of that race into, and that's what they choose for things like point buy and ability score improvements after level 1. Orcs on average should have like 10 strength if their culture didn't push them to be warriors. Racial ability score improvements are genetics, while point buy or standard array is culture and what you choose to do with yourself.
At least I think that's what Zub is saying. I could be totally off. Hopefully this can help you guys understand each other. I'll delete it if it causes more arguments.
You are correct. Thank you for rephrasing in such a way that might help the others understand.
A very common argument against TC-style floating points is that it's a great deal of work and effort for a DM to compile a list of fixed modifiers for their specific game/world, and that it's impossible to convince players to adhere to such a list.
For the PHB species, at least - and we have evidence that many of the folks who consider TCoE to be an 'abomination' also consider any species not in the PHB to be Banned Forever - it's the work of maybe ten minutes to compile a list of fixed modifiers players must adhere to. Alignment, the other bugbear everybody claims to hate 'losing', is equally easy to bolt onto said list. It's not at all hard, it's not any significant effort, and it doesn't take much time.
If players are fighting hard against it? Well, that's a different discussion. But the idea I keep seeing alluded to that Old School bioessential 'this species is good at [X] and moose piss at everything else' rules are a huge hassle to implement is just...odd. On DDB especially, you can see your player's sheets and double-check their numbers if you want. And if you categorically cannot trust your players to follow the chargen rules you set up, again - that is an entirely different problem and conversation, ne?
I think what Zub is saying is that an average person from a race would have it's bonuses applied to the base point from point buy, like an elf would have a 10 dexterity, 9 in one thing based on sub race, and then all 8s. Then, for stat blocks like 'orc' or 'drow', those stats are what the society molds the average member of that race into, and that's what they choose for things like point buy and ability score improvements after level 1. Orcs on average should have like 10 strength if their culture didn't push them to be warriors. Racial ability score improvements are genetics, while point buy or standard array is culture and what you choose to do with yourself.
That... doesn't make sense though
For one thing, an "average" score (in the sense that it's the baseline), across all peoples, is 10. Saying the "average" person of a race has 8's in four of the six stats (or, if you're a human, 9 in all six stats) simply doesn't work, mathematically or logically
This is why I brought up the commoner stat block, which indicates it applies to "normal" folk of all humanoid races. An orc merchant has 10s across the board, just like a halfling fisher or a tiefling farmer
For another, why are you even using point buy as the standard? It's a specific method for players to generate stats for their PC. It's got no relevance at all to the vast majority of the population of a D&D world
Again, this is why I wanted LoZ to define what they meant by "average orc". Average PC orc? Average PC+NPC orc? Average of all adults orcs in an average campaign world? What?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
A very common argument against TC-style floating points is that it's a great deal of work and effort for a DM to compile a list of fixed modifiers for their specific game/world, and that it's impossible to convince players to adhere to such a list.
For the PHB species, at least - and we have evidence that many of the folks who consider TCoE to be an 'abomination' also consider any species not in the PHB to be Banned Forever - it's the work of maybe ten minutes to compile a list of fixed modifiers players must adhere to. Alignment, the other bugbear everybody claims to hate 'losing', is equally easy to bolt onto said list. It's not at all hard, it's not any significant effort, and it doesn't take much time.
If players are fighting hard against it? Well, that's a different discussion. But the idea I keep seeing alluded to that Old School bioessential 'this species is good at [X] and moose piss at everything else' rules are a huge hassle to implement is just...odd. On DDB especially, you can see your player's sheets and double-check their numbers if you want. And if you categorically cannot trust your players to follow the chargen rules you set up, again - that is an entirely different problem and conversation, ne?
Maybe I'm reading a different set of comments, but I have seen very few if any comments like the ones you describe.
Could those comments have existed in the dark times of yore you keep mentioning when Tasha's came out? Sure, but that is not what is being debated now.
Is it a great deal of work? No. But it adds work for some DMs and grants no real benefit. The rules exist to make a DMs life easier.
Here is an example that may shed some light for those who still can't see where we're coming from. You have a group in which everyone is playing an orc, and everyone but one player uses non-standard ASIs with that one player with the non-standard ASIs doing so to play against type. There are two wizards in the group, one of which is the one playing against type. Let's look at two ways to get there. In the current case, that one person wanting to play against type chose to be at a disadvantage while everyone else just was better at what they do because the rules said they could be. Now you have a character (orc wizard) who devoted his life to breaking the apparent norm of his culture to become a wizard in the same party as another orc wizard who grew up on the streets picking pockets to get by is just straight up a better wizard for no reason other than the character's player wanted him to be a better wizard. Now let's look at how you could get the same party and the same characters using the old approach. One of the characters was blessed by a god. One of the characters was involved in a magic-related accident that caused major changes in said character's body. One character (the better wizard) was transported from another world where orcs are intelligent, but arrived alone and with nothing in this unknown world and thus had to grow up on the streets picking pockets to survive. The character playing against type grew up in this world and is working to overcome the challenges presented by this world. In the first scenario, the motivation of the character seems like a sham. If you can't see why some people would find the character more fun to play in the second scenario, I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion.
Now I'm going to need you to define "better wizard", because in my experience, having a higher INT score at level 1 is not at all what makes someone a "better wizard"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Here is an example that may shed some light for those who still can't see where we're coming from. You have a group in which everyone is playing an orc, and everyone but one player uses non-standard ASIs with that one player with the non-standard ASIs doing so to play against type. There are two wizards in the group, one of which is the one playing against type. Let's look at two ways to get there. In the current case, that one person wanting to play against type chose to be at a disadvantage while everyone else just was better at what they do because the rules said they could be. Now you have a character (orc wizard) who devoted his life to breaking the apparent norm of his culture to become a wizard in the same party as another orc wizard who grew up on the streets picking pockets to get by is just straight up a better wizard for no reason other than the character's player wanted him to be a better wizard. Now let's look at how you could get the same party and the same characters using the old approach. One of the characters was blessed by a god. One of the characters was involved in a magic-related accident that caused major changes in said character's body. One character (the better wizard) was transported from another world where orcs are intelligent, but arrived alone and with nothing in this unknown world and thus had to grow up on the streets picking pockets to survive. The character playing against type grew up in this world and is working to overcome the challenges presented by this world. In the first scenario, the motivation of the character seems like a sham. If you can't see why some people would find the character more fun to play in the second scenario, I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion.
Now I'm going to need you to define "better wizard", because in my experience, having a higher INT score at level 1 is not at all what makes someone a "better wizard"
Well that's the reason people have for not wanting to play "unusual combinations." And I would tend to agree that someone with higher attack and DC modifiers are "better." However, I also agree that you are correct in saying that it doesn't really matter at level 1, and the playing field will be levelled quickly. That's the beauty of it, and that's the reason it was nice the way it was. You could catch up despite your disadvantaged start. Or you could skip over that disadvantaged start if your DM was okay with it.
Now I am working on a response to your other comment about numbers. Because I'm a physicist/engineer, and I like numbers.
I think what Zub is saying is that an average person from a race would have it's bonuses applied to the base point from point buy, like an elf would have a 10 dexterity, 9 in one thing based on sub race, and then all 8s. Then, for stat blocks like 'orc' or 'drow', those stats are what the society molds the average member of that race into, and that's what they choose for things like point buy and ability score improvements after level 1. Orcs on average should have like 10 strength if their culture didn't push them to be warriors. Racial ability score improvements are genetics, while point buy or standard array is culture and what you choose to do with yourself.
That... doesn't make sense though
For one thing, an "average" score (in the sense that it's the baseline), across all peoples, is 10. Saying the "average" person of a race has 8's in four of the six stats (or, if you're a human, 9 in all six stats) simply doesn't work, mathematically or logically
This is why I brought up the commoner stat block, which indicates it applies to "normal" folk of all humanoid races. An orc merchant has 10s across the board, just like a halfling fisher or a tiefling farmer
For another, why are you even using point buy as the standard? It's a specific method for players to generate stats for their PC. It's got no relevance at all to the vast majority of the population of a D&D world
Again, this is why I wanted LoZ to define what they meant by "average orc". Average PC orc? Average PC+NPC orc? Average of all adults orcs in an average campaign world? What?
Maybe that's because an orc has a 10 naturally, so as a commoner, orcs don't use their "Point buy" in strength, and just use it to even out the other stats. Same with other races. Elves get a 10 in dexterity naturally, and have no need for a higher one, and so use points in the other ability scores. Commoners also don't have any racial abilities, but that can be attributed to racial abilities being PC only stuff.
I used point buy because it was the closest thing that would work for getting specific stats for monster stat blocks. Even if you don't subscribe to the idea that a race's culture shapes a member's stats like with point buy or even standard array or rolling, you can get the idea of what bonuses a race might add from looking at its high and low stats. Consider the orc stat block again. One can see that orcs(at least the orcs in murderous tribes) prioritize their strength and constitution and leave the other stats mediocre or below average. Even if the exact bonuses from the orc PC race aren't there, the natural toughness and strength of orcs is obvious. Therefore, one could see that the bonuses for orcs would be in strength and constitution. What I'm saying is that without culture around them requiring them to advance specific ability scores, an average person would have all 8s plus their racial modifiers.
Again, I don't want to argue. All I am doing is showing how one could get the set bonuses from the average example of that race. I would honestly be fine if Tasha's rule became the norm, as long as examples like the orc are made for the other races. That way, I could know which bonuses to assign them.
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
I was totally wrong about this, if they aren't letting players buy or gain access to the old content, than this may create a privileged class of players who can share access to retired content.
Consider the orc stat block again. One can see that orcs(at least the orcs in murderous tribes) prioritize their strength and constitution and leave the other stats mediocre or below average. Even if the exact bonuses from the orc PC race aren't there, the natural toughness and strength of orcs is obvious. Therefore, one could see that the bonuses for orcs would be in strength and constitution.
So what you're saying is that even without set racial ASIs, there's an easy way to tell what "normal" is for an orc, so you can "play against type" if you want
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think what Zub is saying is that an average person from a race would have it's bonuses applied to the base point from point buy, like an elf would have a 10 dexterity, 9 in one thing based on sub race, and then all 8s. Then, for stat blocks like 'orc' or 'drow', those stats are what the society molds the average member of that race into, and that's what they choose for things like point buy and ability score improvements after level 1. Orcs on average should have like 10 strength if their culture didn't push them to be warriors. Racial ability score improvements are genetics, while point buy or standard array is culture and what you choose to do with yourself.
That... doesn't make sense though
[See response for missing portions of quote]
What?
Thank you for asking questions and making statements that can be addressed with references to the core rulebooks.
For one thing, an "average" score (in the sense that it's the baseline), across all peoples, is 10. Saying the "average" person of a race has 8's in four of the six stats (or, if you're a human, 9 in all six stats) simply doesn't work, mathematically or logically
That is inconsistent with the published descriptions of ability score averages. Page 173 of the PHB (Chapter 7, "Ability scores and modifiers") states "A score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average" (emphasis mine). Notice that says the normal human average. It does not say average humanoid. I'm saying the average person (without any particular training) of a race has 10s across the board with the static ASI added on top. For a human, that results in all 11s. For a variant human, that results in three 10s, and three 11s.
This is why I brought up the commoner stat block, which indicates it applies to "normal" folk of all humanoid races. An orc merchant has 10s across the board, just like a halfling fisher or a tiefling farmer
Notice how the commoner stat block does not have any of the racial traits that still exist in the new books either. A duergar commoner by the default commoner stat block would not have darkvision. The "Customizing NPCs" section of Appendix B in the Monster Manual gives suggestions on how to easily modify an NPC. The first suggestion about how to tweak a stat block is to give it racial traits. So things like darkvision and movement speed, right? Go to a book with the old rules (like the PHB) and see what the list of a creature's racial traits are. Unless said race/species has a trait that starts with "aa," "ab," or a special character, the first racial trait listed will be "Ability Score Increase."
If you want something more concrete than this, go to page 282 of the Dungeon Master's Guide ("NPC Stat Blocks" under "Creating a Monster" in Chapter 9). The table taking up most of that page ("NPC Features") specifies how you should adjust the stat block to fit the race. "If you want to take an NPC stat block and adapt it for a specific monster race, apply the ability modifiers and add the features listed in the NPC Features table. If the NPC’s AC, hit points, attack bonus, or damage changes, recalculate its challenge rating" (emphasis mine). The table has three columns: Race, Ability Modifiers, and Features.
The stat blocks are a general guideline intended to make the life of the DM easier. The modified statblocks sometimes take ability score increases into consideration, but other times they don't bother because why specify that a human merchant actually has 11 for each score rather than 10? Why specify a dwarf farmer actually has 12 constitution, resulting in the need to recalculate its health and potentially CR as well when it will probably never see combat? That's the reason they are often even just specified as "noncombatants" with some trait (e.g. darkvision) that is pertinent to the likely scenario. If you as the DM end up needing them to have ability scores appropriate for their race and profession (a farmer is incredibly unlikely to have the same strength and con as a shopkeeper, and a merchant is incredibly unlikely to have the same charisma, wisdom, and intelligence as a slave) then you can do that easily enough on the spot. Adding to a generic stat block is much easier than trying to reverse engineer a statblock to then add to.
For another, why are you even using point buy as the standard? It's a specific method for players to generate stats for their PC. It's got no relevance at all to the vast majority of the population of a D&D world
It doesn't specifically need to be point-buy. Any of the stat generation methods have the same idea. You are a heroic figure. You are an exceptional member of your species. You still have the traits of your species, but you are more capable than the average individual from day one of the adventure. Point-buy is a good illustration of this as it is less random; as a hero, you have a number of "points" you can spend towards being the kind of hero you want to be. But you are still part of your species. You just learn things more quickly, so by the time you're an adult, you've become much better at the things you've worked on than the average member of your species would be, and by the end of your adventure, you're likely to have broken through the limit of normal people (18 according to page 173 of the PHB).
That isn't to say that the general populace is stuck at 10+ASI in everything. Normal people can train too. That's why you have the other default stat blocks. The members of species you would meet in combat would be such individuals. When a species' ASI would make it easier for them to excel at some specific combat profession, that tends to be where their culture and default combatant stat blocks trend towards, so the average orc combatant has high strength and constitution while the average kenku or kobold combatant is dextrous.
Again, this is why I wanted LoZ to define what they meant by "average orc". Average PC orc? Average PC+NPC orc? Average of all adults orcs in an average campaign world?
I meant "the average orc of the average/common campaign setting." Most settings seem to be similar to the Forgotten Realms, which I believe was the official setting for D&D at some point, so that's a good place to start. You can adjust it from there based on your setting, and there are suggested guidelines for doing so in the books.
I meant "the average orc of the average/common campaign setting." Most settings seem to be similar to the Forgotten Realms, which I believe was the official setting for D&D at some point, so that's a good place to start.
If that's your definition of "average orc", then the average orc has a STR of 16, not 10 -- which is what you originally stated
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I meant "the average orc of the average/common campaign setting." Most settings seem to be similar to the Forgotten Realms, which I believe was the official setting for D&D at some point, so that's a good place to start.
If that's your definition of "average orc", then the average orc has a STR of 16, not 10 -- which is what you originally stated
Thank you for skipping to the end of my comment. It really helps move the conversation along.
That's the average orc combatant. That is not what an orc would be without training to go out on hunts where you would encounter them. I address that in the last sentence of the previous section.
An orc commoner (let's say merchant), rules as written using the rules for modifying an NPC statblock presented in the DMG (p.282) would have 12 strength, 8 intelligence, 60ft darkvision, the ability to speak Orc and Common, and have the Aggressive trait.
An orc commoner, rules as written using the rules for modifying an NPC statblock presented in the MM (p. 342) and the legacy orc race would have 12 strength, 11 constitution, 60ft darkvision, the ability to speak Orc and Common, and have the Aggressive trait, the Primal Intuition trait (proficiency in two skills of your choice) and the Powerful Build trait.
An orc commoner, rules as written using the rules for modifying an NPC statblock presented in the MM (p. 342) and the new orc race would have +2 to one score and +1 to another score or +1 to three scores resulting in that statistical average of 10-11 I mentioned 10 in every ability score, the ability to speak any one language--usually common--(language and ability scores are no longer part of the racial traits), as well as 60ft darkvision, the Adrenaline Rush trait, the Powerful Build trait, and the Relentless Endurance trait. Your typical orc without any particular training would have 10s across the board using the new race rules.
Yeah, what?
Define "average orc" and maybe other people will be able to figure out what you're trying to say
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It's like this:
Sure, we can totally choose to add set bonuses for the races, that's still allowed as the DM and the player. However, making it the rule going forward that no race has set bonuses(that you can optionally allow to replace any bonus with Tasha's) takes away from the feeling of every race being different. If you can have the same bonuses as a halfling as an orc or goliath, it just feels very 'samey' and not as much sets them apart. So for the new races coming out, as well as the replacements for old races in MotM, the set bonuses don't exist any more. Don't get me wrong, most of us are still fine with the optional Tasha's rule, but we like it to be a case by case basis for allowing it, instead of having to tell players that it isn't allowed for a specific campaign, or trying to impose penalties on ourselves manually as players. I know that it might not be a big deal to other people, and honestly it's not a huge deal to me, it's just a bit annoying, but a large portion of the people I've seen discussing it just like it. It's not really hurting other people, and in some cases it's really hard to explain why we like it, as in the case of alignment. But because we like it, and it's being taken away, we're a bit irritated.
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
I'll be honest here I have no idea what either of you are saying.
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
LegendofZub claims that changing the way initial PC stats are derived changes "the physical norms" of the race/species/whatever in question
I think that's kind of ridiculous
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Ahhh. I think what Zub is saying is that an average person from a race would have it's bonuses applied to the base point from point buy, like an elf would have a 10 dexterity, 9 in one thing based on sub race, and then all 8s. Then, for stat blocks like 'orc' or 'drow', those stats are what the society molds the average member of that race into, and that's what they choose for things like point buy and ability score improvements after level 1. Orcs on average should have like 10 strength if their culture didn't push them to be warriors. Racial ability score improvements are genetics, while point buy or standard array is culture and what you choose to do with yourself.
At least I think that's what Zub is saying. I could be totally off. Hopefully this can help you guys understand each other. I'll delete it if it causes more arguments.
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
Took me 'bout ten minutes to compile that, and most of that was cross-referencing to DDB to ensure I was getting the PHB-specific subspecies right. If I were doing an Old School-style game with PHB-only species, fixed ASIs, and restricted alignment? That chart would be in my campaign pitch to my players and/or covered in pre-campaign prep, and players would know ahead of time that this would be a requirement. If they don't sign on? Then either that game doesn't get played, or I have to figure out how to entice my players to sign on. Or, just maybe, I need to unclench a little and relax?
Please do not contact or message me.
Who are you trying to convince and what of? I genuinely don't understand this. Not trying to be argumentative, I just am very confused.
In my attempt to reply to this:
I doubt that many DMs who don't like Tasha's rule being the requirement actually do this, and doubt that any at all would be against players using a race that doesn't automatically fit a certain class. Also I don't know where you got required alignment from, because that was never part of this discussion. For the record, I don't require players to even use alignment, or choose a particular one depending on their race, and I allow players to change their characters' alignment at any time as long as it makes sense.
Could you please explain what you meant by that post?
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
I'm sure I will surprise most of the people who have been against me by saying I completely agree with almost everything you have said. The one thing I disagree with is the implication that having defaults affects the flexibility of your setting in any way.
D&D have always been "specific bears general. In general, orcs are strong and resilient. "In my setting, orcs are intelligent and dextrous" overwrites that. Yes, you could say "in my setting, you need to abide by these racial ability score improvements," but because the default in recent books and seemingly in all future books (including those that effectively overwrite the existing of old books like this does to MToF and VGtM), now the DM needs to look like the bad guy taking away the agency of players in order to make playing against type an option. I would much rather have the option as a DM to look like the good guy and give the players the option to override the defaults.
Mechanically, the two options are identical, and I completely understand why people think that giving people the flexibility of choosing their own ASI up front gives players more agency. But it has always been the case that you have been able to make those changes. I have
wastedspent a great deal of time reading the responses on these threads over the past few days. From what I've seen, the vast majority of people arguing against this rule would have happily obliged a player who wanted to give their character a different ASI, especially if a reason was given. Even before the optional rule from Tasha's was published. Sure, there are DMs who would say no, but they're the ones running the game. That's their right as a DM. It's been said many times already, but in order to play against type, there needs to be a type to play against.Here is an example that may shed some light for those who still can't see where we're coming from. You have a group in which everyone is playing an orc, and everyone but one player uses non-standard ASIs with that one player with the non-standard ASIs doing so to play against type. There are two wizards in the group, one of which is the one playing against type. Let's look at two ways to get there. In the current case, that one person wanting to play against type chose to be at a disadvantage while everyone else just was better at what they do because the rules said they could be. Now you have a character (orc wizard) who devoted his life to breaking the apparent norm of his culture to become a wizard in the same party as another orc wizard who grew up on the streets picking pockets to get by is just straight up a better wizard for no reason other than the character's player wanted him to be a better wizard. Now let's look at how you could get the same party and the same characters using the old approach. One of the characters was blessed by a god. One of the characters was involved in a magic-related accident that caused major changes in said character's body. One character (the better wizard) was transported from another world where orcs are intelligent, but arrived alone and with nothing in this unknown world and thus had to grow up on the streets picking pockets to survive. The character playing against type grew up in this world and is working to overcome the challenges presented by this world. In the first scenario, the motivation of the character seems like a sham. If you can't see why some people would find the character more fun to play in the second scenario, I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion.
The only good argument I've seen for shifting Tasha's optional rule to be the default rule is one that I came up with trying to figure out how people could argue that it's better this way. That argument is that now you can pick your ASI in adventure league. Yes. That is a legitimate benefit. But why does it need to be done this way? Why not just explicitly state that players have the option to choose their own ASI in adventure league, at least if they provide a reason their character would be different, perhaps offering some examples that the players could use to achieve such a change.
You are correct. Thank you for rephrasing in such a way that might help the others understand.
A very common argument against TC-style floating points is that it's a great deal of work and effort for a DM to compile a list of fixed modifiers for their specific game/world, and that it's impossible to convince players to adhere to such a list.
For the PHB species, at least - and we have evidence that many of the folks who consider TCoE to be an 'abomination' also consider any species not in the PHB to be Banned Forever - it's the work of maybe ten minutes to compile a list of fixed modifiers players must adhere to. Alignment, the other bugbear everybody claims to hate 'losing', is equally easy to bolt onto said list. It's not at all hard, it's not any significant effort, and it doesn't take much time.
If players are fighting hard against it? Well, that's a different discussion. But the idea I keep seeing alluded to that Old School bioessential 'this species is good at [X] and moose piss at everything else' rules are a huge hassle to implement is just...odd. On DDB especially, you can see your player's sheets and double-check their numbers if you want. And if you categorically cannot trust your players to follow the chargen rules you set up, again - that is an entirely different problem and conversation, ne?
Please do not contact or message me.
That... doesn't make sense though
For one thing, an "average" score (in the sense that it's the baseline), across all peoples, is 10. Saying the "average" person of a race has 8's in four of the six stats (or, if you're a human, 9 in all six stats) simply doesn't work, mathematically or logically
This is why I brought up the commoner stat block, which indicates it applies to "normal" folk of all humanoid races. An orc merchant has 10s across the board, just like a halfling fisher or a tiefling farmer
For another, why are you even using point buy as the standard? It's a specific method for players to generate stats for their PC. It's got no relevance at all to the vast majority of the population of a D&D world
Again, this is why I wanted LoZ to define what they meant by "average orc". Average PC orc? Average PC+NPC orc? Average of all adults orcs in an average campaign world? What?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Maybe I'm reading a different set of comments, but I have seen very few if any comments like the ones you describe.
Could those comments have existed in the dark times of yore you keep mentioning when Tasha's came out? Sure, but that is not what is being debated now.
Is it a great deal of work? No. But it adds work for some DMs and grants no real benefit. The rules exist to make a DMs life easier.
Now I'm going to need you to define "better wizard", because in my experience, having a higher INT score at level 1 is not at all what makes someone a "better wizard"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Well that's the reason people have for not wanting to play "unusual combinations." And I would tend to agree that someone with higher attack and DC modifiers are "better." However, I also agree that you are correct in saying that it doesn't really matter at level 1, and the playing field will be levelled quickly. That's the beauty of it, and that's the reason it was nice the way it was. You could catch up despite your disadvantaged start. Or you could skip over that disadvantaged start if your DM was okay with it.
Now I am working on a response to your other comment about numbers. Because I'm a physicist/engineer, and I like numbers.
Maybe that's because an orc has a 10 naturally, so as a commoner, orcs don't use their "Point buy" in strength, and just use it to even out the other stats. Same with other races. Elves get a 10 in dexterity naturally, and have no need for a higher one, and so use points in the other ability scores. Commoners also don't have any racial abilities, but that can be attributed to racial abilities being PC only stuff.
I used point buy because it was the closest thing that would work for getting specific stats for monster stat blocks. Even if you don't subscribe to the idea that a race's culture shapes a member's stats like with point buy or even standard array or rolling, you can get the idea of what bonuses a race might add from looking at its high and low stats. Consider the orc stat block again. One can see that orcs(at least the orcs in murderous tribes) prioritize their strength and constitution and leave the other stats mediocre or below average. Even if the exact bonuses from the orc PC race aren't there, the natural toughness and strength of orcs is obvious. Therefore, one could see that the bonuses for orcs would be in strength and constitution. What I'm saying is that without culture around them requiring them to advance specific ability scores, an average person would have all 8s plus their racial modifiers.
Again, I don't want to argue. All I am doing is showing how one could get the set bonuses from the average example of that race. I would honestly be fine if Tasha's rule became the norm, as long as examples like the orc are made for the other races. That way, I could know which bonuses to assign them.
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
I was totally wrong about this, if they aren't letting players buy or gain access to the old content, than this may create a privileged class of players who can share access to retired content.
So what you're saying is that even without set racial ASIs, there's an easy way to tell what "normal" is for an orc, so you can "play against type" if you want
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Thank you for asking questions and making statements that can be addressed with references to the core rulebooks.
That is inconsistent with the published descriptions of ability score averages. Page 173 of the PHB (Chapter 7, "Ability scores and modifiers") states "A score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average" (emphasis mine). Notice that says the normal human average. It does not say average humanoid. I'm saying the average person (without any particular training) of a race has 10s across the board with the static ASI added on top. For a human, that results in all 11s. For a variant human, that results in three 10s, and three 11s.
Notice how the commoner stat block does not have any of the racial traits that still exist in the new books either. A duergar commoner by the default commoner stat block would not have darkvision. The "Customizing NPCs" section of Appendix B in the Monster Manual gives suggestions on how to easily modify an NPC. The first suggestion about how to tweak a stat block is to give it racial traits. So things like darkvision and movement speed, right? Go to a book with the old rules (like the PHB) and see what the list of a creature's racial traits are. Unless said race/species has a trait that starts with "aa," "ab," or a special character, the first racial trait listed will be "Ability Score Increase."
If you want something more concrete than this, go to page 282 of the Dungeon Master's Guide ("NPC Stat Blocks" under "Creating a Monster" in Chapter 9). The table taking up most of that page ("NPC Features") specifies how you should adjust the stat block to fit the race. "If you want to take an NPC stat block and adapt it for a specific monster race, apply the ability modifiers and add the features listed in the NPC Features table. If the NPC’s AC, hit points, attack bonus, or damage changes, recalculate its challenge rating" (emphasis mine). The table has three columns: Race, Ability Modifiers, and Features.
The stat blocks are a general guideline intended to make the life of the DM easier. The modified statblocks sometimes take ability score increases into consideration, but other times they don't bother because why specify that a human merchant actually has 11 for each score rather than 10? Why specify a dwarf farmer actually has 12 constitution, resulting in the need to recalculate its health and potentially CR as well when it will probably never see combat? That's the reason they are often even just specified as "noncombatants" with some trait (e.g. darkvision) that is pertinent to the likely scenario. If you as the DM end up needing them to have ability scores appropriate for their race and profession (a farmer is incredibly unlikely to have the same strength and con as a shopkeeper, and a merchant is incredibly unlikely to have the same charisma, wisdom, and intelligence as a slave) then you can do that easily enough on the spot. Adding to a generic stat block is much easier than trying to reverse engineer a statblock to then add to.
It doesn't specifically need to be point-buy. Any of the stat generation methods have the same idea. You are a heroic figure. You are an exceptional member of your species. You still have the traits of your species, but you are more capable than the average individual from day one of the adventure. Point-buy is a good illustration of this as it is less random; as a hero, you have a number of "points" you can spend towards being the kind of hero you want to be. But you are still part of your species. You just learn things more quickly, so by the time you're an adult, you've become much better at the things you've worked on than the average member of your species would be, and by the end of your adventure, you're likely to have broken through the limit of normal people (18 according to page 173 of the PHB).
That isn't to say that the general populace is stuck at 10+ASI in everything. Normal people can train too. That's why you have the other default stat blocks. The members of species you would meet in combat would be such individuals. When a species' ASI would make it easier for them to excel at some specific combat profession, that tends to be where their culture and default combatant stat blocks trend towards, so the average orc combatant has high strength and constitution while the average kenku or kobold combatant is dextrous.
I meant "the average orc of the average/common campaign setting." Most settings seem to be similar to the Forgotten Realms, which I believe was the official setting for D&D at some point, so that's a good place to start. You can adjust it from there based on your setting, and there are suggested guidelines for doing so in the books.
If that's your definition of "average orc", then the average orc has a STR of 16, not 10 -- which is what you originally stated
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Thank you for skipping to the end of my comment. It really helps move the conversation along.
That's the average orc combatant. That is not what an orc would be without training to go out on hunts where you would encounter them. I address that in the last sentence of the previous section.
An orc commoner (let's say merchant), rules as written using the rules for modifying an NPC statblock presented in the DMG (p.282) would have 12 strength, 8 intelligence, 60ft darkvision, the ability to speak Orc and Common, and have the Aggressive trait.
An orc commoner, rules as written using the rules for modifying an NPC statblock presented in the MM (p. 342) and the legacy orc race would have 12 strength, 11 constitution, 60ft darkvision, the ability to speak Orc and Common, and have the Aggressive trait, the Primal Intuition trait (proficiency in two skills of your choice) and the Powerful Build trait.
An orc commoner, rules as written using the rules for modifying an NPC statblock presented in the MM (p. 342) and the new orc race would have
+2 to one score and +1 to another score or +1 to three scores resulting in that statistical average of 10-11 I mentioned10 in every ability score, the ability to speak any one language--usually common--(language and ability scores are no longer part of the racial traits), as well as 60ft darkvision, the Adrenaline Rush trait, the Powerful Build trait, and the Relentless Endurance trait. Your typical orc without any particular training would have 10s across the board using the new race rules.