The wizard who starts at 15 Intelligence rather than 16 or 17 flubs between seven to ten percent more spells than the 'normal' wizard, depending on how you frame it. Again - players pursue +1 magic items with a ferocity and zeal that completely belies the idea that one point of modifier makes absolutely no difference.
When that wizard goes up to 17 at level 4? A less punitive species/class combination is up to 19, or has the room to take a fun and flavorful feat instead of being forced to take a boring stat bump. Same at eighth level - when the half-orc wizard is hitting a +4, the less punitive counterpart is maxing his score if he likes. At no point is the half-orc not behind the curve until late tier 3 play, which almost no one ever sees.
This idea that having bonus points elsewhere makes up for being bad at one's primary job is just not true. Having bonus points elsewhere can be great for a given player's story, but no wizard in the history of wizardry has ever said "Man, I really wish I could prepare one less spell, miss with a much higher percentage of my spells, and lose out on a bunch of knowledge and possible loot I could get with my Intelligence-based skills just so I could get a +1 bonus to the Athletics checks I make maybe once every three sessions!"
Which, frankly, points to the real problem people are arguing over here. Many classes, especially caster classes, are ENORMOUSLY punitive towards any character that does not max out their casting modifier as quickly as humanly possible. You get fewer spells, your spells don't work as often, and most of the time your other class features are also weaker. A martial character with a 15 instead of a 17 for Strength is mostly just missing their attacks and failing to hit very hard, which sucks but doesn't necessarily compromise their class. An artificer with a 15 instead of a 17 not only gets fewer spells that don't work very well, they get fewer Magical Tinkerings, they get fewer Flashes of Genius, the Flashes of Genius they do get don't work very well...the entire class is so outrageously mega-dependent on having the absolute highest possible Intelligence score that it's actively painful to play with any species that doesn't provide at least a +1 bump to take it out of bottom-tier. That is crappy game design for a game that wants to be all about diversity and freedom of choice and expression.
Folks say that this is egregious munchkinism and Bad For Game. I argue that it's as much a reality of the game world as it is the real world. Even beyond the idea that taking pleasure in system mastery and having a strong, highly capable character is somehow Bad For Game, that same strong, highly capable character is evocative of a competent, well-trained hero in the game world. Maximizing one's character within the rules is the same as the character taking the time and effort to train themselves properly for adventure within the game world. Having that training sabotaged and rendered meaningless and ineffective due to in-game biology feels awful. Some players may enjoy that story, may want to play the half-orc who struggles to keep up or the halfling who wants to be a powerful knight but can't really pull it off, and they're absolutely welcome to it.
(Written in the second person for ease of language, not as a direct reference to Yurei themselves. I personally consider Yurei a friend after all.)
That is a weak sauce argument. Allow me to explain why:
For the sake of this conversation let us assume Standard Array, which means your two highest numbers are a 14 and a 15. If you chase a race with a +2 in your primary and a +1 in your secondary then at 1st level, you are looking at a 17 and a 15 respectively in your two main stats. It would take 2 ASIs to get you a 20 in your primary and a 16 in your secondary stat.
From an optimization standpoint that is stupid since a 17 is no better than a 16 and a 15 is no better than a 14. Clearly it makes more sense to swap the 14 and 15 so you can end up with a 16 in both main stats at 1st level, and it will still only take you 2 ASIs to hit that munch-coveted 20.
Okay, so from an optimization standpoint, we are only talking about a potential difference between the optimized 16 in your primary stat compared to a 15 in a non-optimized build. That’s only a one point difference.
One point lower does not make you “bad at your job” by a long shot. It just makes you ever so slightly suboptimal. The only way that looks “bad” is by comparison against a purely optimized build.
If everyone else at your table is chasing optimization and you don’t and that makes you feel that your character is “inadequate” by comparison then that’s either because:
You want to play for fun and they want to play for power, sounds like you need a new group.
Or...have some form of inferiority complex.
Either way, that sounds more like a personal problem than a D&D problem. Ne?
"I want to play a Halfling Barbarian but am too weak. This is just not fair. I want the "optional rules" that allow me a 17 starting Strength. Wow, I now have that Strength. Thanks WOTC. Hey, wait a minute, I can't wield a Great Sword as well as Medium class char. That is not fair. I have the same Strength. I demand that rule that demeans smaller stature creatures be removed from the game."
No way, no how, these rules will EVER be seen at my table.
There is a difference between weight and size. Something can weigh not a lot and be incredibly hard for one person to carry because the size of it makes it unwieldy. And as i stated, with rolling stats, something that has been in the game the whole time, you can already have a small race character with a starting 20 str (mountain dwarves get a +2 str). I don't remember anyone ever complaining that they don't get to wield great axes? Straight out of the book " A heavy weapon's size and bulk..." AKA - this restriction has NOTHING to do with a characters ability score. a 75" TV only weighs 40 lbs, but go ahead and try to lift one by yourself.
I like how you are assuming there will be some huge uproar that no one has ever had and that you are saying that a rule won't be allowed at your table before you even know what that rule is. None of us has any idea how this will actually function, we are all just guessing and to say you won't allow something before you even know how it works is naive .
My experience with game systems that didn't have any actual mechanical enforcement of racial attributes is that people still mostly built to match what you'd expect, so I'd expect the same for D&D -- even if there were no racial adjustments, the average halfling would be weaker than the average half-orc, because players with the desire to play a mighty-thewed barbarian probably don't consider being a halfling as fitting their theme.
there should be differences in stats per species, but at the same time, players should be more open to play a gnome fighter with 15 STR instead of a half-orc fighter with 17 STR without thinking too much about efficiency.
The idea that someone who starts out at level 1 as a 15 STR fighter because of, not a penalty, but just no extra bonus to STR, would somehow "drag down the party" or be "incapable of overcoming challenges" meant for that character to face (i.e., fighter-style challenges like stabbing and tanking), but someone who started with a 16 or 17 would be perfectly suited to the fighter role, is ludicrous.
AT WORST, if a character's racial stat bonus doesn't synergize with the class, you don't get a bonus in the prime stat for the class. Worst case scenario under point buy or the standard array is a 15 in that prime stat. At level 4, you can make it a 17. At level 8, 19. And at level 12, 20. That means at worst, you will hit the maximum possible value for your prime stat at level 12. In the mean time you will have some nice bonuses somewhere else (the wizard with a high Cha who is the face of the party can actually work quite well with some supplemental spells -- oh wait, we're not allowed to take those supplemental spells, it will lower our wizard's AOE DPS in combat!).
I am sorry but the argument that losing a couple of points at level 1 that can be made up literally at level 4 (with the first +2) is somehow crippling to a character just cannot be given credibility. The +2 in a stat is just not that important to being able to play your class. And having stats in unusual places can make the character unique, interesting, and flavorful.
And again, if you want to be able to put a +2 wherever you want, and a +1 wherever you want, a subrace already exists to let you do that: Variant Human.You even get an extra Feat into the bargain, which you could theoretically use to mimic or duplicate one of the "racial feats" that someone would get for playing a non-human.
The wizard who starts at 15 Intelligence rather than 16 or 17 flubs between seven to ten percent more spells than the 'normal' wizard, depending on how you frame it. Again - players pursue +1 magic items with a ferocity and zeal that completely belies the idea that one point of modifier makes absolutely no difference.
When that wizard goes up to 17 at level 4? A less punitive species/class combination is up to 19, or has the room to take a fun and flavorful feat instead of being forced to take a boring stat bump. Same at eighth level - when the half-orc wizard is hitting a +4, the less punitive counterpart is maxing his score if he likes. At no point is the half-orc not behind the curve until late tier 3 play, which almost no one ever sees.
This idea that having bonus points elsewhere makes up for being bad at one's primary job is just not true. Having bonus points elsewhere can be great for a given player's story, but no wizard in the history of wizardry has ever said "Man, I really wish I could prepare one less spell, miss with a much higher percentage of my spells, and lose out on a bunch of knowledge and possible loot I could get with my Intelligence-based skills just so I could get a +1 bonus to the Athletics checks I make maybe once every three sessions!"
Which, frankly, points to the real problem people are arguing over here. Many classes, especially caster classes, are ENORMOUSLY punitive towards any character that does not max out their casting modifier as quickly as humanly possible. You get fewer spells, your spells don't work as often, and most of the time your other class features are also weaker. A martial character with a 15 instead of a 17 for Strength is mostly just missing their attacks and failing to hit very hard, which sucks but doesn't necessarily compromise their class. An artificer with a 15 instead of a 17 not only gets fewer spells that don't work very well, they get fewer Magical Tinkerings, they get fewer Flashes of Genius, the Flashes of Genius they do get don't work very well...the entire class is so outrageously mega-dependent on having the absolute highest possible Intelligence score that it's actively painful to play with any species that doesn't provide at least a +1 bump to take it out of bottom-tier. That is crappy game design for a game that wants to be all about diversity and freedom of choice and expression.
Folks say that this is egregious munchkinism and Bad For Game. I argue that it's as much a reality of the game world as it is the real world. Even beyond the idea that taking pleasure in system mastery and having a strong, highly capable character is somehow Bad For Game, that same strong, highly capable character is evocative of a competent, well-trained hero in the game world. Maximizing one's character within the rules is the same as the character taking the time and effort to train themselves properly for adventure within the game world. Having that training sabotaged and rendered meaningless and ineffective due to in-game biology feels awful. Some players may enjoy that story, may want to play the half-orc who struggles to keep up or the halfling who wants to be a powerful knight but can't really pull it off, and they're absolutely welcome to it.
But this idea I keep seeing, where "biology is biology - you can't fight it, you can't break it, and whatever you were born as is the only thing you can ever be" is ****ing horse shit. Say that to a transgender person in real life. Say that to a minority person in real life - "I'm sorry Eugene, but you're Asian. You'll always be Asian, you can't help but be Asian, and that means you need a job in computer sciences or I.T., not as an entertainer and performer."
And before everybody's all "IT'S NOT RACISM, IT'S REALITY! These are different species, not different races, they have definitive biological differences!"...
That's what racists say, too.
I know folks here aren't racist. Or at least, I pray folks here aren't, and for many of you I feel like I can make that judgment fairly and in good faith. But man, it's just super painful to hear so many people say "well, your character should just accept being stupid and bad at their job because their species is supposed to be stupid and bad at their job. If you wanted to be good at your job, you should've been born the right way to be good at that job instead, and to hell with whatever story you-the-player want to craft around this unusual individual with an unconventional origin."
Question: do you find the Paralympics 'stupid'? Because that involves the hard work and motivation of disabled people, who have a disadvantage which makes them 'bad at their job'. And yet they persist, and the achievements are all the more special for it.
Also, cut the crap. It's not 'RACISM'. It is 'REALITY'. Ignoring genetics and adopting a 'Blank Slate' ideology (same as the communists, btw...) is idiotic. An orc will, 99.99/100 times, be born more physically powerful than a kobold. If said kobold wants to become a renowned athletics champion, then it has some serious work to do!
Question: do you find the Paralympics 'stupid'? Because that involves the hard work and motivation of disabled people, who have a disadvantage which makes them 'bad at their job'. And yet they persist, and the achievements are all the more special for it.
Also, cut the crap. It's not 'RACISM'. It is 'REALITY'. Ignoring genetics and adopting a 'Blank Slate' ideology (same as the communists, btw...) is idiotic. An orc will, 99.99/100 times, be born more physically powerful than a kobold. If said kobold wants to become a renowned athletics champion, then that kobold has some serious work to do!
End of discussion.
First i would like to say, that there is a whole subset of this community who is up in arms about something like the 'Combat Wheelchair' existing, so i dont think yurie is the one you should be trying to call ablest.
On that same note though. No people who participate in the Paralympic are not bad at their job, they have just been told by society that they are and then have to reprove their worth. This is the exact type of mindset these new rules are supposed to go against. Just stop, because your bigotry is showing.
I would, however, caution people against the overall stance I've seen in this thread of "If you're not a Lord of the Rings character, you have no place at my table."
You keep making that strawman claim. I don't see anyone arguing that a half-orc can't be a wizard. I have referenced my (AL-compliant) half-orc wizard in this thread more than once. No one is arguing that you must play a stereotype. Some of us arguing that, even in a fantasy setting, some basic rules of physics should apply; like sunshine is hot, gravity pulls things down, and creatures that are magnitudes larger than other creatures should inherently be a wee bit stronger.
Question: do you find the Paralympics 'stupid'? Because that involves the hard work and motivation of disabled people, who have a disadvantage which makes them 'bad at their job'. And yet they persist, and the achievements are all the more special for it.
Also, cut the crap. It's not 'RACISM'. It is 'REALITY'. Ignoring genetics and adopting a 'Blank Slate' ideology (same as the communists, btw...) is idiotic. An orc will, 99.99/100 times, be born more physically powerful than a kobold. If said kobold wants to become a renowned athletics champion, then that kobold has some serious work to do!
End of discussion.
First i would like to say, that there is a whole subset of this community who is up in arms about something like the 'Combat Wheelchair' existing, so i dont think yurie is the one you should be trying to call ablest.
On that same note though. No people who participate in the Paralympic are not bad at their job, they have just been told by society that they are and then have to reprove their worth. This is the exact type of mindset these new rules are supposed to go against. Just stop, because your bigotry is showing.
Hey, watch the name-calling. And be honest. Modern society supports disabled people and disabled rights 110%, which is why the Paralympics exists. Would there be a Paralympics under Nazism? No. Under Communism? Nope. Our modern day post-Christian ethics are the fairest in all of history, with more support for individualism than there ever has been before. Disabled rights are celebrated, not frowned upon or dismissed. The only mindset which is 'stupid' here is that biology is nonexistent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
I answered the "big things are stronger than small things" argument several pages ago.
Big things have more direct force available to them. They can lift, push, drag, and break things better. That is not the only purpose of the 'Strength' atttribute. Small things have more force per pound of body weight available to them. They can run, jump, swim, climb, and overcome their own body weight better. This Athleticism is rolled into the Athletics skill, which is Strength based.
Because D&D 5e does not differentiate between 'breaking things' Strength and 'Athletic' Strength, one is not permitted to say halflings, gnomes, and other Small creatures cannot have high Strength scores, as most here are positing. This unfairly robs such creatures of the chance to be exceptional and well-trained athletes, as the system requires them to have high Strength scores to fuel their Athletics with.
D&D 5e cannot properly model the difference between a small character that is exceptionally athletic and a large creature that has no athleticism or physical training, but instead relies on sheer bulk. Because it cannot do so, this idea people have that all Small things should have 8 or lower Strength and be forced to spend every single ASI they have from 1 to 20 on Strength only to end up as 'mildly above average' is disingenuous - it's perfectly possible for a halfling athlete to be exceptional within their field without necessarily being able to move a two-ton boulder, but D&D refuses to allow them.
Until the game allows for a mechanical difference between athleticism and power, the stupid argument that small things are 'weaker' than big ones and thus must inherently be completely awful at everything the game models using the Strength attribute needs to stay in the bin.
And, for my own "End of Discussion" moment, Morally Dubious Cattle (and those espousing similar views): this is a game we play for fun. The issues of racism, sexism, creedism, and many other "isms" Wizards is grappling with, of which this new ruleset is part of their attempts at a solution, are very real to many folks. I have minority friends who've had doors slammed in their faces because of racism and "bad genes". I, myself, am effectively transgender and trapped in a body I mostly detest by the whims of biology. I hate this body. If I could save up to buy a hundred thousand dollar casting of True Polymorph to get rid of it and get into one I actually want, I'd buy that spell before I bought a house. Or much of anything else, really.
Do not tell me that the fantasy magical game I play with my close friends as a cherished pastime and hobby must, itself, conform to the idea that a person's biology is all there can possibly be to them. I will not only disagree with you, I will think less of you for making the assertion and I will likely disregard anything else you have to say on the subject. Fair warning.
Thank you, and good day sirs.
EDIT:
As for the Paralympics thing? Heh. That is an argument for allowing someone to place their points and scores wherever they like, so far as I'm concerned. Paralympians are exceptional people; even through their disability they mated a natural aptitude for athleticism with a drive and work ethic one cannot help but deeply admire to become an exceptional individual despite their disability. No one has ever said to a Paralympian "you can't be an athlete, you don't have the right body for it", and when they were told exactly that before becoming Paralympians, they told that person to go suck an egg before putting them on a bar and bench pressing them. Because a Paralympian, by and large, is a peerless athlete.
If you're totally on board for the Combat Wheelchair - and you should be, don't tell me if you're not because I'll tell you why that makes you a bad person - then this entire stigma of "but you just CAN'T be good at something your species/body type normally isn't good at!" makes no sense whatsoever. Stop it.
Because D&D 5e does not differentiate between 'breaking things' Strength and 'Athletic' Strength, one is not permittedto say halflings, gnomes, and other Small creatures cannot have high Strength scores, as most here are positing.
Say at my table, I house rule that halflings, gnomes, and other small creatures cannot exceed a Strength score of 16. Exactly how am I not allowed to do that?
That is your right and prerogative as a DM [to choose to use these new "race agnostic" rules {Music Scout}]. People are flipping schittz because they think these rules will be mandatory. They are not. The entirety of this book is an optional add-on.
I understand these new rules to treat all "races" as equal are going to be optional. However, they could do this with a few sentences instead of a new book.
At the DMs option, players may choose any race they wish and assign abilities using the Variant Human rules for their character, regardless of what race the player wishes to choose for the character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Question: do you find the Paralympics 'stupid'? Because that involves the hard work and motivation of disabled people, who have a disadvantage which makes them 'bad at their job'. And yet they persist, and the achievements are all the more special for it.
Also, cut the crap. It's not 'RACISM'. It is 'REALITY'. Ignoring genetics and adopting a 'Blank Slate' ideology (same as the communists, btw...) is idiotic. An orc will, 99.99/100 times, be born more physically powerful than a kobold. If said kobold wants to become a renowned athletics champion, then that kobold has some serious work to do!
End of discussion.
First i would like to say, that there is a whole subset of this community who is up in arms about something like the 'Combat Wheelchair' existing, so i dont think yurie is the one you should be trying to call ablest.
On that same note though. No people who participate in the Paralympic are not bad at their job, they have just been told by society that they are and then have to reprove their worth. This is the exact type of mindset these new rules are supposed to go against. Just stop, because your bigotry is showing.
Hey, watch the name-calling. And be honest. Modern society supports disabled people and disabled rights 110%, which is why the Paralympics exists. Would there be a Paralympics under Nazism? No. Under Communism? Nope. Our modern day post-Christian ethics are the fairest in all of history, with more support for individualism than there ever has been before. Disabled rights are celebrated, not frowned upon or dismissed. The only mindset which is 'stupid' here is that biology is nonexistent.
Calling out bigotry is not name calling, just fyi. Also i dont see what magical fantasy land has to do with Nazism, Communism or these “Post Christian” ethics you speak of.
ecause D&D 5e does not differentiate between 'breaking things' Strength and 'Athletic' Strength, one is not permitted to say halflings, gnomes, and other Small creatures cannot have high Strength scores, as most here are positing.
Straw man argument.
I haven't seen people saying they are not permitted. What the majority here who argue against just hand-waving stat bonuses and untying them from races are saying, is that halflings and gnomes shouldn't get the same base starting-character bonus to the STR stat as something like a Goliath.
I mean imagine a case in which, using the Standard Array, in which the halfling's player puts his 15 into STR. With +0 racial bonus, that gives the halfling 15+0=15 STR. Now the Goliath gets +2 STR, but the player is making a Goliath Wizard so he puts his dump stat in there, which is the 8. The Goliath will have 8+2=10 STR. Right there, standard array, RAW, which I have not seen anyone disputing, we have Halfling with STR 15, Goliath with STR 10.
The difference is, that Halfling had to "work harder" to get that 15 STR, because he had to put his best stat into it. The Goliath, meanwhile, put his dump stat in there and even with a dump stat, his stat bonus is +0, instead of the -1 everyone else making it the dump stat would be. He's not going to use it in combat but by the encumbrance rules, he can carry a lot more than every other character can who used the STR stat as a dump.
Because D&D 5e does not differentiate between 'breaking things' Strength and 'Athletic' Strength, one is not permittedto say halflings, gnomes, and other Small creatures cannot have high Strength scores, as most here are positing.
Say at my table, I house rule that halflings, gnomes, and other small creatures cannot exceed a Strength score of 16. Exactly how am I not allowed to do that?
You can do so, certainly.
You are signalling to your players, at that point, that Small creatures in your game are not permitted to possess proficiency in the Athletics skill, nor are they permitted to be barbarians. They also cannot be the most common types of fighters, paladins, or blood hunters. And since we all know that weapons such as crossbows and longbows take significant physical strength to operate, you should put a minimum Strength score on those as well which is above the 16 mark you're imposing on Small creatures.
You will also want to limit those creatures to a similar maximum 16 in Constitution, as their reduced mass - biologically speaking, of course - reduces their ability to withstand trauma or absorb and ignore the effects of harmful pollutants or toxins.
While you're at it, you should also limit any species without a strong cultural background of education and academia to a maximum Intelligence score of 16, as well as prohibiting them from possessing proficiency in any Intelligence-based skill save, possibly, Investigation. Species that raid to survive, or which have not progressed beyond basic hunter-gatherer modes of sustaining themselves, do not have time to build up the urbanized knowledge base everyone associates with Intelligence.
You may also want to consider restricting any species with the Powerful Build species trait to a maximum Dexterity of 16, and prohibit them from possessing proficiency in Stealth, Sleight of Hand, or Acrobatics. After all, a large, bulky body is hardly going to be as dexterous and nimble-fingered as a much smaller creature, nor is it going to be remotely as light on its feet. There is absolutely no possible way they could attempt to train away this disadvantage. Biology is biology, after all, and no amount of heroic effort can supplant biology.
Realistically, what you should likely do on top of imposing these rules is provide your players a list of the species allowed to be played in your games, which two or three classes each of those species is permitted to be, which two or three backgrounds those species are allowed to take, and which five or six skill proficiencies those species are allowed to possess. Because clearly you do not trust your players to come up with reasonable and compelling stories for why their given characters exist, and thus you should ensure all appropriate restrictions are in place before you even start.
Because D&D 5e does not differentiate between 'breaking things' Strength and 'Athletic' Strength, one is not permittedto say halflings, gnomes, and other Small creatures cannot have high Strength scores, as most here are positing.
Say at my table, I house rule that halflings, gnomes, and other small creatures cannot exceed a Strength score of 16. Exactly how am I not allowed to do that?
You can do so, certainly.
You are signalling to your players, at that point, that Small creatures in your game are not permitted to possess proficiency in the Athletics skill, nor are they permitted to be barbarians. They also cannot be the most common types of fighters, paladins, or blood hunters. And since we all know that weapons such as crossbows and longbows take significant physical strength to operate, you should put a minimum Strength score on those as well which is above the 16 mark you're imposing on Small creatures.
You will also want to limit those creatures to a similar maximum 16 in Constitution, as their reduced mass - biologically speaking, of course - reduces their ability to withstand trauma or absorb and ignore the effects of harmful pollutants or toxins.
While you're at it, you should also limit any species without a strong cultural background of education and academia to a maximum Intelligence score of 16, as well as prohibiting them from possessing proficiency in any Intelligence-based skill save, possibly, Investigation. Species that raid to survive, or which have not progressed beyond basic hunter-gatherer modes of sustaining themselves, do not have time to build up the urbanized knowledge base everyone associates with Intelligence.
You may also want to consider restricting any species with the Powerful Build species trait to a maximum Dexterity of 16, and prohibit them from possessing proficiency in Stealth, Sleight of Hand, or Acrobatics. After all, a large, bulky body is hardly going to be as dexterous and nimble-fingered as a much smaller creature, nor is it going to be remotely as light on its feet. There is absolutely no possible way they could attempt to train away this disadvantage. Biology is biology, after all, and no amount of heroic effort can supplant biology.
Realistically, what you should likely do on top of imposing these rules is provide your players a list of the species allowed to be played in your games, which two or three classes each of those species is permitted to be, which two or three backgrounds those species are allowed to take, and which five or six skill proficiencies those species are allowed to possess. Because clearly you do not trust your players to come up with reasonable and compelling stories for why their given characters exist, and thus you should ensure all appropriate restrictions are in place before you even start.
Ludicrous. First, a cap on stats does not prevent having a proficiency, not in related skills or even the stat itself. Having a cap does not prevent you from classes that use that stat as a primary source. This idea that classes can only be used or useful if you’ve maxed out the stat is ridiculous.
"I want to play a Halfling Barbarian but am too weak. This is just not fair. I want the "optional rules" that allow me a 17 starting Strength. Wow, I now have that Strength. Thanks WOTC. Hey, wait a minute, I can't wield a Great Sword as well as Medium class char. That is not fair. I have the same Strength. I demand that rule that demeans smaller stature creatures be removed from the game."
No way, no how, these rules will EVER be seen at my table.
There is a difference between weight and size. Something can weigh not a lot and be incredibly hard for one person to carry because the size of it makes it unwieldy. And as i stated, with rolling stats, something that has been in the game the whole time, you can already have a small race character with a starting 20 str (mountain dwarves get a +2 str). I don't remember anyone ever complaining that they don't get to wield great axes? Straight out of the book " A heavy weapon's size and bulk..." AKA - this restriction has NOTHING to do with a characters ability score. a 75" TV only weighs 40 lbs, but go ahead and try to lift one by yourself.
I like how you are assuming there will be some huge uproar that no one has ever had and that you are saying that a rule won't be allowed at your table before you even know what that rule is. None of us has any idea how this will actually function, we are all just guessing and to say you won't allow something before you even know how it works is naive .
I have no idea what game you are playing, but Dwarves ARE MEDIUM, not small. (page 20, PHB) So you entire argument is based on something utterly wrong. And as for my naivete, I have been around long enough to see what happens with "optional" rules, and how they become the only rules. So yeah, I will hold the line against this silliness as long as I can.
Because D&D 5e does not differentiate between 'breaking things' Strength and 'Athletic' Strength, one is not permittedto say halflings, gnomes, and other Small creatures cannot have high Strength scores, as most here are positing.
Say at my table, I house rule that halflings, gnomes, and other small creatures cannot exceed a Strength score of 16. Exactly how am I not allowed to do that?
I don't think anyone said you can't. At your table you can do anything you want. There are tables that for years have let players put the bonuses to stats anywhere they want. Your table, your rules, just know that your rules may mean that some people don't want to play at your table, and that's fine too.
What optional rules have become the only rules from past editions?
Specifically, do you mean players and DMs effectively only play one rule variant, or has TSR / WoTC turned a variant rule into a hard rule at some point in the past?
Because D&D 5e does not differentiate between 'breaking things' Strength and 'Athletic' Strength, one is not permittedto say halflings, gnomes, and other Small creatures cannot have high Strength scores, as most here are positing.
Say at my table, I house rule that halflings, gnomes, and other small creatures cannot exceed a Strength score of 16. Exactly how am I not allowed to do that?
You can do so, certainly.
You are signalling to your players, at that point, that Small creatures in your game are not permitted to possess proficiency in the Athletics skill, nor are they permitted to be barbarians. They also cannot be the most common types of fighters, paladins, or blood hunters. And since we all know that weapons such as crossbows and longbows take significant physical strength to operate, you should put a minimum Strength score on those as well which is above the 16 mark you're imposing on Small creatures.
You will also want to limit those creatures to a similar maximum 16 in Constitution, as their reduced mass - biologically speaking, of course - reduces their ability to withstand trauma or absorb and ignore the effects of harmful pollutants or toxins.
While you're at it, you should also limit any species without a strong cultural background of education and academia to a maximum Intelligence score of 16, as well as prohibiting them from possessing proficiency in any Intelligence-based skill save, possibly, Investigation. Species that raid to survive, or which have not progressed beyond basic hunter-gatherer modes of sustaining themselves, do not have time to build up the urbanized knowledge base everyone associates with Intelligence.
You may also want to consider restricting any species with the Powerful Build species trait to a maximum Dexterity of 16, and prohibit them from possessing proficiency in Stealth, Sleight of Hand, or Acrobatics. After all, a large, bulky body is hardly going to be as dexterous and nimble-fingered as a much smaller creature, nor is it going to be remotely as light on its feet. There is absolutely no possible way they could attempt to train away this disadvantage. Biology is biology, after all, and no amount of heroic effort can supplant biology.
Realistically, what you should likely do on top of imposing these rules is provide your players a list of the species allowed to be played in your games, which two or three classes each of those species is permitted to be, which two or three backgrounds those species are allowed to take, and which five or six skill proficiencies those species are allowed to possess. Because clearly you do not trust your players to come up with reasonable and compelling stories for why their given characters exist, and thus you should ensure all appropriate restrictions are in place before you even start.
Ludicrous. First, a cap on stats does not prevent having a proficiency, not in related skills or even the stat itself. Having a cap does not prevent you from classes that use that stat as a primary source. This idea that classes can only be used or useful if you’ve maxed out the stat is ridiculous.
Precisely. I have built a Halfling Rogue Scout that takes Squat Nimbleness at 4th level, bumps his Dex to 18, BUT takes Athletics as the Skill with that Feat, then takes Expertise in Athletics at 6th level. That char then has a Str of 8, but a Prof of + 5 in Athletics, and a + 7 in Acrobatics, at 6th level. That char not only can dance on a tightrope, but make the Athletics checks when climbing a wall, or whatever.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How about make believe land has whatever you want
(Written in the second person for ease of language, not as a direct reference to Yurei themselves. I personally consider Yurei a friend after all.)
That is a weak sauce argument. Allow me to explain why:
For the sake of this conversation let us assume Standard Array, which means your two highest numbers are a 14 and a 15. If you chase a race with a +2 in your primary and a +1 in your secondary then at 1st level, you are looking at a 17 and a 15 respectively in your two main stats. It would take 2 ASIs to get you a 20 in your primary and a 16 in your secondary stat.
From an optimization standpoint that is stupid since a 17 is no better than a 16 and a 15 is no better than a 14. Clearly it makes more sense to swap the 14 and 15 so you can end up with a 16 in both main stats at 1st level, and it will still only take you 2 ASIs to hit that munch-coveted 20.
Okay, so from an optimization standpoint, we are only talking about a potential difference between the optimized 16 in your primary stat compared to a 15 in a non-optimized build. That’s only a one point difference.
One point lower does not make you “bad at your job” by a long shot. It just makes you ever so slightly suboptimal. The only way that looks “bad” is by comparison against a purely optimized build.
If everyone else at your table is chasing optimization and you don’t and that makes you feel that your character is “inadequate” by comparison then that’s either because:
Either way, that sounds more like a personal problem than a D&D problem. Ne?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There is a difference between weight and size. Something can weigh not a lot and be incredibly hard for one person to carry because the size of it makes it unwieldy. And as i stated, with rolling stats, something that has been in the game the whole time, you can already have a small race character with a starting 20 str (mountain dwarves get a +2 str). I don't remember anyone ever complaining that they don't get to wield great axes? Straight out of the book " A heavy weapon's size and bulk..." AKA - this restriction has NOTHING to do with a characters ability score. a 75" TV only weighs 40 lbs, but go ahead and try to lift one by yourself.
I like how you are assuming there will be some huge uproar that no one has ever had and that you are saying that a rule won't be allowed at your table before you even know what that rule is. None of us has any idea how this will actually function, we are all just guessing and to say you won't allow something before you even know how it works is naive .
My experience with game systems that didn't have any actual mechanical enforcement of racial attributes is that people still mostly built to match what you'd expect, so I'd expect the same for D&D -- even if there were no racial adjustments, the average halfling would be weaker than the average half-orc, because players with the desire to play a mighty-thewed barbarian probably don't consider being a halfling as fitting their theme.
Question: do you find the Paralympics 'stupid'? Because that involves the hard work and motivation of disabled people, who have a disadvantage which makes them 'bad at their job'. And yet they persist, and the achievements are all the more special for it.
Also, cut the crap. It's not 'RACISM'. It is 'REALITY'. Ignoring genetics and adopting a 'Blank Slate' ideology (same as the communists, btw...) is idiotic. An orc will, 99.99/100 times, be born more physically powerful than a kobold. If said kobold wants to become a renowned athletics champion, then it has some serious work to do!
End of discussion.
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
But now the players who do desire to use a halfling, dont lag behind the rest. Its a win-win!
First i would like to say, that there is a whole subset of this community who is up in arms about something like the 'Combat Wheelchair' existing, so i dont think yurie is the one you should be trying to call ablest.
On that same note though. No people who participate in the Paralympic are not bad at their job, they have just been told by society that they are and then have to reprove their worth. This is the exact type of mindset these new rules are supposed to go against. Just stop, because your bigotry is showing.
You keep making that strawman claim. I don't see anyone arguing that a half-orc can't be a wizard. I have referenced my (AL-compliant) half-orc wizard in this thread more than once. No one is arguing that you must play a stereotype. Some of us arguing that, even in a fantasy setting, some basic rules of physics should apply; like sunshine is hot, gravity pulls things down, and creatures that are magnitudes larger than other creatures should inherently be a wee bit stronger.
Hey, watch the name-calling. And be honest. Modern society supports disabled people and disabled rights 110%, which is why the Paralympics exists. Would there be a Paralympics under Nazism? No. Under Communism? Nope. Our modern day post-Christian ethics are the fairest in all of history, with more support for individualism than there ever has been before. Disabled rights are celebrated, not frowned upon or dismissed. The only mindset which is 'stupid' here is that biology is nonexistent.
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
I answered the "big things are stronger than small things" argument several pages ago.
Big things have more direct force available to them. They can lift, push, drag, and break things better. That is not the only purpose of the 'Strength' atttribute.
Small things have more force per pound of body weight available to them. They can run, jump, swim, climb, and overcome their own body weight better. This Athleticism is rolled into the Athletics skill, which is Strength based.
Because D&D 5e does not differentiate between 'breaking things' Strength and 'Athletic' Strength, one is not permitted to say halflings, gnomes, and other Small creatures cannot have high Strength scores, as most here are positing. This unfairly robs such creatures of the chance to be exceptional and well-trained athletes, as the system requires them to have high Strength scores to fuel their Athletics with.
D&D 5e cannot properly model the difference between a small character that is exceptionally athletic and a large creature that has no athleticism or physical training, but instead relies on sheer bulk. Because it cannot do so, this idea people have that all Small things should have 8 or lower Strength and be forced to spend every single ASI they have from 1 to 20 on Strength only to end up as 'mildly above average' is disingenuous - it's perfectly possible for a halfling athlete to be exceptional within their field without necessarily being able to move a two-ton boulder, but D&D refuses to allow them.
Until the game allows for a mechanical difference between athleticism and power, the stupid argument that small things are 'weaker' than big ones and thus must inherently be completely awful at everything the game models using the Strength attribute needs to stay in the bin.
And, for my own "End of Discussion" moment, Morally Dubious Cattle (and those espousing similar views): this is a game we play for fun. The issues of racism, sexism, creedism, and many other "isms" Wizards is grappling with, of which this new ruleset is part of their attempts at a solution, are very real to many folks. I have minority friends who've had doors slammed in their faces because of racism and "bad genes". I, myself, am effectively transgender and trapped in a body I mostly detest by the whims of biology. I hate this body. If I could save up to buy a hundred thousand dollar casting of True Polymorph to get rid of it and get into one I actually want, I'd buy that spell before I bought a house. Or much of anything else, really.
Do not tell me that the fantasy magical game I play with my close friends as a cherished pastime and hobby must, itself, conform to the idea that a person's biology is all there can possibly be to them. I will not only disagree with you, I will think less of you for making the assertion and I will likely disregard anything else you have to say on the subject. Fair warning.
Thank you, and good day sirs.
EDIT:
As for the Paralympics thing? Heh. That is an argument for allowing someone to place their points and scores wherever they like, so far as I'm concerned. Paralympians are exceptional people; even through their disability they mated a natural aptitude for athleticism with a drive and work ethic one cannot help but deeply admire to become an exceptional individual despite their disability. No one has ever said to a Paralympian "you can't be an athlete, you don't have the right body for it", and when they were told exactly that before becoming Paralympians, they told that person to go suck an egg before putting them on a bar and bench pressing them. Because a Paralympian, by and large, is a peerless athlete.
If you're totally on board for the Combat Wheelchair - and you should be, don't tell me if you're not because I'll tell you why that makes you a bad person - then this entire stigma of "but you just CAN'T be good at something your species/body type normally isn't good at!" makes no sense whatsoever. Stop it.
Please do not contact or message me.
Say at my table, I house rule that halflings, gnomes, and other small creatures cannot exceed a Strength score of 16. Exactly how am I not allowed to do that?
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
I understand these new rules to treat all "races" as equal are going to be optional. However, they could do this with a few sentences instead of a new book.
At the DMs option, players may choose any race they wish and assign abilities using the Variant Human rules for their character, regardless of what race the player wishes to choose for the character.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
Calling out bigotry is not name calling, just fyi.
Also i dont see what magical fantasy land has to do with Nazism, Communism or these “Post Christian” ethics you speak of.
Straw man argument.
I haven't seen people saying they are not permitted. What the majority here who argue against just hand-waving stat bonuses and untying them from races are saying, is that halflings and gnomes shouldn't get the same base starting-character bonus to the STR stat as something like a Goliath.
I mean imagine a case in which, using the Standard Array, in which the halfling's player puts his 15 into STR. With +0 racial bonus, that gives the halfling 15+0=15 STR. Now the Goliath gets +2 STR, but the player is making a Goliath Wizard so he puts his dump stat in there, which is the 8. The Goliath will have 8+2=10 STR. Right there, standard array, RAW, which I have not seen anyone disputing, we have Halfling with STR 15, Goliath with STR 10.
The difference is, that Halfling had to "work harder" to get that 15 STR, because he had to put his best stat into it. The Goliath, meanwhile, put his dump stat in there and even with a dump stat, his stat bonus is +0, instead of the -1 everyone else making it the dump stat would be. He's not going to use it in combat but by the encumbrance rules, he can carry a lot more than every other character can who used the STR stat as a dump.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
You can do so, certainly.
You are signalling to your players, at that point, that Small creatures in your game are not permitted to possess proficiency in the Athletics skill, nor are they permitted to be barbarians. They also cannot be the most common types of fighters, paladins, or blood hunters. And since we all know that weapons such as crossbows and longbows take significant physical strength to operate, you should put a minimum Strength score on those as well which is above the 16 mark you're imposing on Small creatures.
You will also want to limit those creatures to a similar maximum 16 in Constitution, as their reduced mass - biologically speaking, of course - reduces their ability to withstand trauma or absorb and ignore the effects of harmful pollutants or toxins.
While you're at it, you should also limit any species without a strong cultural background of education and academia to a maximum Intelligence score of 16, as well as prohibiting them from possessing proficiency in any Intelligence-based skill save, possibly, Investigation. Species that raid to survive, or which have not progressed beyond basic hunter-gatherer modes of sustaining themselves, do not have time to build up the urbanized knowledge base everyone associates with Intelligence.
You may also want to consider restricting any species with the Powerful Build species trait to a maximum Dexterity of 16, and prohibit them from possessing proficiency in Stealth, Sleight of Hand, or Acrobatics. After all, a large, bulky body is hardly going to be as dexterous and nimble-fingered as a much smaller creature, nor is it going to be remotely as light on its feet. There is absolutely no possible way they could attempt to train away this disadvantage. Biology is biology, after all, and no amount of heroic effort can supplant biology.
Realistically, what you should likely do on top of imposing these rules is provide your players a list of the species allowed to be played in your games, which two or three classes each of those species is permitted to be, which two or three backgrounds those species are allowed to take, and which five or six skill proficiencies those species are allowed to possess. Because clearly you do not trust your players to come up with reasonable and compelling stories for why their given characters exist, and thus you should ensure all appropriate restrictions are in place before you even start.
Please do not contact or message me.
Ludicrous. First, a cap on stats does not prevent having a proficiency, not in related skills or even the stat itself. Having a cap does not prevent you from classes that use that stat as a primary source. This idea that classes can only be used or useful if you’ve maxed out the stat is ridiculous.
I have no idea what game you are playing, but Dwarves ARE MEDIUM, not small. (page 20, PHB) So you entire argument is based on something utterly wrong. And as for my naivete, I have been around long enough to see what happens with "optional" rules, and how they become the only rules. So yeah, I will hold the line against this silliness as long as I can.
I don't think anyone said you can't. At your table you can do anything you want. There are tables that for years have let players put the bonuses to stats anywhere they want. Your table, your rules, just know that your rules may mean that some people don't want to play at your table, and that's fine too.
What optional rules have become the only rules from past editions?
Specifically, do you mean players and DMs effectively only play one rule variant, or has TSR / WoTC turned a variant rule into a hard rule at some point in the past?
Precisely. I have built a Halfling Rogue Scout that takes Squat Nimbleness at 4th level, bumps his Dex to 18, BUT takes Athletics as the Skill with that Feat, then takes Expertise in Athletics at 6th level. That char then has a Str of 8, but a Prof of + 5 in Athletics, and a + 7 in Acrobatics, at 6th level. That char not only can dance on a tightrope, but make the Athletics checks when climbing a wall, or whatever.