"Different species have different inherent attributes that have nothing to do with breeding or background. That's why a gorilla is stronger than a mouse, and will always be." ~Grunk999
Okay. I'm bloody sick of this, of the whole 'goliaths should always have at least thirty more points of Strength than halflings!' thing, and this idea that general species biology is the sole and only arbiter of what is and is not possible. That stance - "Biology is the only thing that matters and you can never break or exceed the limits of your biology" - is not okay IRL, and it shouldn't be okay in our fantasy funtime hobbies.
Yurei be pissed. Time for some Science.
There are, broadly, two uses for the 'Strength' ability score in Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition, outside of melee attacks. One could class them (again, broadly) as Main Force and Athleticism. Main Force is using physical power to alter one's environment. Move shit, break shit. Pushing, dragging, smashing, or preventing something else from doing the same. This is primarily a measure of absolute Strength. How many Newtons of force can one exert on their environment, and is that enough Newtons to accomplish the task? When it comes to Main Force, a gorilla is indeed overwhelmingly more capable than a mouse.
But then we get to Athleticism. Running, jumping, swimming, climbing, everything else lumped in under the Athletics skill. Endurance activities, physical actions in which the primary opposing force to the action is the creature's own body weight. In these activities? Small creatures who're trained in Athletics should be better than Medium creatures. A gnome, halfling, goblin, kobold, Tyberos kitsune, whatever else that's all of three feet tall and maxes out around forty pounds has a much higher muscle-to-weight ratio than a Medium creature; when working primarily to overcome their own mass, they have a definitive edge. Athleticism is a measurement of Strength per pound, and given the square-cube law of size increases, smaller creatures have a significant and undeniable edge over larger ones. A mouse is a significantly better climber and swimmer both than a gorilla.
Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition made the explicit, intentional decision to dispense with almost any mechanical difference between different sizes of creature. Different sizes primarily affect what a creature can and cannot Grapple, and what they can and cannot Mount. Some Strength saving throws or other forms of push/drag abilities in the Main Force vein of Strength place an upper limit on the size of creature the effect can influence, but beyond that there is no real difference between various Size profiles.
D&D does not differentiate between Main Force and Athleticism. Because D&D does not differentiate between MF and Athleticism, and because ti does not really differentiate properly between Small, Medium, Large, and so forth, it is impossible for the game to properly model characters with excellent Athleticism but low Main Force. A gnome that wants to be exceptionally agile, able to climb, swim, maneuver and parkour needs to have a high Strength score and proficiency with Athletics. Those things also means that gnome is good at Main Force applications of Strength even though the player may not want to be - they're a tumbler, second-storey man, and athlete, not a Muscle Man. If that gnome dumps Strength because they want to try and accurately model how poor they are at Main Force applications of Strength, it unfairly hinders their Athleticism. Because of this lack of differentiation between Main Force and Athleticism, Small characters cannot be forbidden from attaining high Strength scores. They have as much claim on Athletics excellence as the goliaths do.
Mental scores are even more ridiculous. Every species has its standout brilliants and its derpy duds. Anyone who thinks a master survivalist out in the woods (i.e. goliaths) has to be stupid just because they spend their time wrestling bears instead of reading books is just...wrong in more ways than I can conceivably list. Everyone can be exceptionally charismatic. Everyone can be exceptionally intelligent. Everyone can have a high Wisdom score, whatever that actually means. The idea that an entire sapient species is inherently dumber and less capable than another such species, that a given species is incapable of producing exceptional individuals, is enormously detrimental to everybody.
I would point out that racial ability modifiers only apply to starting ability scores anyway, anything that's actually related to inherent potential would affect maximum scores.
I would point out that racial ability modifiers only apply to starting ability scores anyway, anything that's actually related to inherent potential would affect maximum scores.
To be honest, I’m glad you said that. I have been thinking the same thing but figured I would be vilified for suggesting that Elves get a Max Dex or 22, Dwarves a Max Con of 22, or Orcs a Max Str of 22.
I dont think 5e does what you list above. There are not only passive checks, that are effectively impacted by racial stats, but there are also racial profeciencies thst give bonuses to those ability checks. In other words, there are some races, by 5e design, where the worst pc of some races will be better at certain skills and abilities than the worst pc of another race. They start with different advantages beyond their attribute scores.
No. It’s important to us otherwise we wouldn’t be discussing it. Frankly all the other stuff you mentioned is horrifying and I hope never happens.
Horrifying?
Nah.
That sounds awesome.
Pick a species. That species sets the pool of traits you can select from. If you're a half-and-half, you get two pools, but some options in each pool can only be taken by straight examples of their species (e.g. Trance is available to elves but not to half-elves). Some traits in that pool are tagged as part of a subspecies - either you can only have one such tag amongst all the traits you buy, or buying traits from multiple subspecies (e.g. to represent a mixed-breed individual within a given species) gets more expensive than staying within a given subspecies.
Once you've selected your pool, you have ~ten points to spend, depending on species. Certain species, such as aarakocra, may end up with fewer because they have an inherent, powerful, and non-negotiable built-in advantage. Some species, such as humans, may end up with more because they get dick-all nada built in and have to build their everything from the start.
Up to three of those points can be spent on ability increases. Only two can go towards a single score. If you value other stuff more, you can spend fewer than three points and start with overall lower ability scores, if that's the story you'rte telling.
'Ribbon' abilities (Stonecunning, Fey Ancestry, languages, and the like) or other narrowly focused, rarely useful abilities cost a single point. More potent abilities such as resistances, saving throw boosts, or abilities that offer improved action economy like the goblins' Nimble Escape, cost more points.
Alternatively, spend five character points to gain a feat instead. Perhaps only three points if it's a feat that doesn't apply to combat, like Actor or Linguist or such. Do so once and only once.
No. It’s important to us otherwise we wouldn’t be discussing it. Frankly all the other stuff you mentioned is horrifying and I hope never happens.
Horrifying?
Nah.
That sounds awesome.
Pick a species. That species sets the pool of traits you can select from. If you're a half-and-half, you get two pools, but some options in each pool can only be taken by straight examples of their species (e.g. Trance is available to elves but not to half-elves). Some traits in that pool are tagged as part of a subspecies - either you can only have one such tag amongst all the traits you buy, or buying traits from multiple subspecies (e.g. to represent a mixed-breed individual within a given species) gets more expensive than staying within a given subspecies.
Once you've selected your pool, you have ~ten points to spend, depending on species. Certain species, such as aarakocra, may end up with fewer because they have an inherent, powerful, and non-negotiable built-in advantage. Some species, such as humans, may end up with more because they get dick-all nada built in and have to build their everything from the start.
Up to three of those points can be spent on ability increases. Only two can go towards a single score. If you value other stuff more, you can spend fewer than three points and start with overall lower ability scores, if that's the story you'rte telling.
'Ribbon' abilities (Stonecunning, Fey Ancestry, languages, and the like) or other narrowly focused, rarely useful abilities cost a single point. More potent abilities such as resistances, saving throw boosts, or abilities that offer improved action economy like the goblins' Nimble Escape, cost more points.
Alternatively, spend five character points to gain a feat instead. Perhaps only three points if it's a feat that doesn't apply to combat, like Actor or Linguist or such. Do so once and only once.
God, that would be fantastic...
Ok this is different than what’s been described before and I could get on board with, because it follows rules that make sense. It looks similar to the method used by the old Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles RPG. I still would prefer a table where there is consistency in how the species is built. Starting humans should not have dark vision and breath weapons.
On that note, I also like the homebrew rule of the DM on the Godsfall podcast: no half-elves or half-orcs because they are biologically incompatible when it comes to reproduction.
No. It’s important to us otherwise we wouldn’t be discussing it. Frankly all the other stuff you mentioned is horrifying and I hope never happens.
Horrifying?
Nah.
That sounds awesome.
Pick a species. That species sets the pool of traits you can select from. If you're a half-and-half, you get two pools, but some options in each pool can only be taken by straight examples of their species (e.g. Trance is available to elves but not to half-elves). Some traits in that pool are tagged as part of a subspecies - either you can only have one such tag amongst all the traits you buy, or buying traits from multiple subspecies (e.g. to represent a mixed-breed individual within a given species) gets more expensive than staying within a given subspecies.
Once you've selected your pool, you have ~ten points to spend, depending on species. Certain species, such as aarakocra, may end up with fewer because they have an inherent, powerful, and non-negotiable built-in advantage. Some species, such as humans, may end up with more because they get dick-all nada built in and have to build their everything from the start.
Up to three of those points can be spent on ability increases. Only two can go towards a single score. If you value other stuff more, you can spend fewer than three points and start with overall lower ability scores, if that's the story you'rte telling.
'Ribbon' abilities (Stonecunning, Fey Ancestry, languages, and the like) or other narrowly focused, rarely useful abilities cost a single point. More potent abilities such as resistances, saving throw boosts, or abilities that offer improved action economy like the goblins' Nimble Escape, cost more points.
Alternatively, spend five character points to gain a feat instead. Perhaps only three points if it's a feat that doesn't apply to combat, like Actor or Linguist or such. Do so once and only once.
God, that would be fantastic...
No...just no. Species have always had, and always will have at my table, specific advantages and disadvantages over other species. I have been fiddling with a Stout Halfling Scout Rogue versus a Wood Elf Scout Rogue. The wood Elf is vastly superior for being that subclass. And that is just fine. As has been stated in this thread already, when you make everything malleable, there is zero reason to have different species anymore, which destroys the very fabric of the game. Oh, and BTW, I plan on playing the Halfling Scout Rogue, knowing full well it is not the superior starting species, because I WANT the challenge. Those that can't handle that challenge as a player are screaming "I want, I want, I want".
Well, too bad. As a DM these changes will never see the light of day at my table. Unfortunately, if I want to play that Halfling, I will have to accept another DM's rules, and they will likely include this watering down of the fabric of the game. My Halfling will have to take Squat Nimbleness, and then Expertise in Athletics, while some other player at the table will say "I want I want I want", and start with a a 16 STR Halfling.
Lastly, it is inevitable that like dinosaurs, DM's that hold the line will become extinct, as these changes make the game easier for weak players, and inevitably power-gamers will find the optimum builds, and the majority of players will build their chars with these "optional" rules, until the original rules are considered archaic and "fun limiting".
Humans with breath weapons? No. That's ridiculous, and is a bad science experiment. If one is going to play the results of a mad wizard playing "Will It Blend?", that needs to be homebrew.
But we're also tremendously sick of the other end, which is: "You're playing a half-orc? Cool. You're a barbarian, with the Outlander background. Your starting ability scores, using Standard Array, are 17, 13, 15, 8, 12, 10. You'll be taking Path of the Berserker when you hit third level, and your equipment consists of a greataxe, a few javelins, and a set of hide clothing made from the poorly-cured skins of the animals you've hunted. You're a wandering outcast, rejected by the orcish raider tribes who sired you and scorned by the human settlements those tribes raided. You're a gruff, bitter survivalist with a nigh-uncontrollable temper that shows itself any time someone pushes you. You hate everything soft, pretty, and civilized, but secretly yearn for just a touch of gentleness in your savage life."
"...what? You wanted to play a half-orc monk, with the Acolyte background and the Way of the Open Hand subclass, who strives to quiet his inner fury and attain balance and tranquility in rejection of his brutal heritage? No no no no no no no no, that's not...that's not how this game works, dudegal. half-orcs are all brooding, angry barbarians caught between two worlds who can barely keep themselves from flying into a murderous axe frenzy the minute something looks at them crossly. That is D&D the way God and Gary Gygax intended, and by God and Gary Gygax that is the D&D we're gonna heckin' play."
Humans with breath weapons? No. That's ridiculous, and is a bad science experiment. If one is going to play the results of a mad wizard playing "Will It Blend?", that needs to be homebrew.
But we're also tremendously sick of the other end, which is: "You're playing a half-orc? Cool. You're a barbarian, with the Outlander background. Your starting ability scores, using Standard Array, are 17, 13, 15, 8, 12, 10. You'll be taking Path of the Berserker when you hit third level, and your equipment consists of a greataxe, a few javelins, and a set of hide clothing made from the poorly-cured skins of the animals you've hunted. You're a wandering outcast, rejected by the orcish raider tribes who sired you and scorned by the human settlements those tribes raided. You're a gruff, bitter survivalist with a nigh-uncontrollable temper that shows itself any time someone pushes you. You hate everything soft, pretty, and civilized, but secretly yearn for just a touch of gentleness in your savage life."
"...what? You wanted to play a half-orc monk, with the Acolyte background and the Way of the Open Hand subclass, who strives to quiet his inner fury and attain balance and tranquility in rejection of his brutal heritage? No no no no no no no no, that's not...that's not how this game works, dudegal. half-orcs are all brooding, angry barbarians caught between two worlds who can barely keep themselves from flying into a murderous axe frenzy the minute something looks at them crossly. That is D&D the way God and Gary Gygax intended, and by God and Gary Gygax that is the D&D we're gonna heckin' play."
Nobody is saying you have to play barbarian if you choose half-orc. You can play any class right now, with the rules the way they are. You can play any personality with the rules the way they are right now.
Actually, Half-Orcs a great for lots of builds. Paladin, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Monk, or Warlock are all great builds.
A Kensei Half-Orc is great. I usually don’t put my 15 where my +2 is going anyway, I put the 15 where my +1 is going and my 14 where my +2 is going so I can have two +3 modifiers. But if we’re rolling for stats and I get a 16+ then that can go into Dex and not feel like I’m missing anything, my low roll into Str and know I’m not gonna have any turd scores. It was a great character.
"...what? You wanted to play a half-orc monk, with the Acolyte background and the Way of the Open Hand subclass, who strives to quiet his inner fury and attain balance and tranquility in rejection of his brutal heritage? No no no no no no no no, that's not...that's not how this game works, dudegal.
Where do the rules say that? That reads like a strawman argument.
It has nothing to do with munchkinism. I've said it before, I'll say it again. All I want is to be able to play a character whose starting abilities MAKE SENSE for their story. If my half-orc monk grew up in a monastery in the mountains run by dwarves, living a life of asceticism and strict training, why in Kord's name does he know Orcish - a language he has never been exposed to in his life? Why does he have absolutely no aptitude whatsoever for Wisdom despite being a zen freaking monk his whole life, and why is he REQUIRED BY GYGAX LAW to have a Strength score above 15?
I actually quite like the idea of playing that particular monk, or something in that vein. I enjoy the idea of a character at war with their own nature, which is why I wouldn't replace all, or even most, of the half-orc's native abilities. Menacing is an excellent lever for a character to pull - when he lets his mask slip and shows the fury he's spent his entire life trying to cage he's terrifying, but every time he does it he ends up with disturbing dreams, nightmares, and general disquiet. He has to recenter himself, spend time meditating and reasserting control, to regain his inner balance. Same with Savage Attacks - every now and then his control cracks and he strikes with brutal force, dealing significantly more damage than he intended. It's why he's an Open Hand monk - the character doesn't trust himself with weapons and actively refuses to use anything but his bare fists, for fear of his control slipping at exactly the wrong moment.
But unless I have an 80+ point array I can't heckin' do it because Monk Problems. Even then, a life of asceticism and strict discipline does not make for a bulking, roided-up bodybuilder form; I wouldn't want a Strength score much above 12 for that character, as I envision him as a more lithe, almost scrawny example of his kind. But naaaaaaaaaah. I have to figure out why this mountain ascetic raised by near-silent monks who've never shared a species with him is a completely average, ordinary, and expected example of half-orcness in every conceivable way, conforming neatly and absolutely to each and every single expected trope for his species rather than to the story I wrote behind him.
Now I know that there are complaints about certain races (like orcs) having unfair penalties to things like intelligence and on that I agree, because not all of the races do.
I don't particularly agree with this point of your argument. If a race (such as the aforementioned Orc, or Kobold) is sub par compared to other races, it doesn't matter that much. Realistically, not all races should be as optimal as others. And power shouldn't get in the way of one's character idea...you want to play an orc Wizard? Make one, and live with the penalties. It will be awesome, if less powerful than average.
It has nothing to do with munchkinism. I've said it before, I'll say it again. All I want is to be able to play a character whose starting abilities MAKE SENSE for their story. If my half-orc monk grew up in a monastery in the mountains run by dwarves, living a life of asceticism and strict training, why in Kord's name does he know Orcish - a language he has never been exposed to in his life? Why does he have absolutely no aptitude whatsoever for Wisdom despite being a zen freaking monk his whole life, and why is he REQUIRED BY GYGAX LAW to have a Strength score above 15?
So then put a different roll in strength. There is no racial minimum. Put a higher roll in wisdom. There, done. Storyline met. As for language, write dwarvish instead of orcish on your character sheet if your DM allows it. In DDB you can always add it to your sheet and just ignore the orc part. I don’t really care about the language, that was never part of my argument and frankly languages are dumb because they hardly ever matter, since almost everybody speaks Common. If that’s not true in whatever setting you are in, you’re already playing home brew anyway.
and why is he REQUIRED BY GYGAX LAW to have a Strength score above 15?
“He” isn’t. He’s only required by Gygaxian law to have a Strength score above 10 if using Standard array or point buy, and required to have a Strength score above 5 if rolling stats.
Because the weakest Half-Orc is still as strong as an average human.
I don't particularly agree with this point of your argument. If a race (such as the aforementioned Orc, or Kobold) is sub par compared to other races, it doesn't matter that much. Realistically, not all races should be as optimal as others. And power shouldn't get in the way of one's character idea...you want to play an orc Wizard? Make one, and live with the penalties. It will be awesome, if less powerful than average.
So you're of the opinion that we should just pay an effectiveness tax for having a different concept? "You want to play something different, just live with being inferior"?
you want to play an orc Wizard? Make one, and live with the penalties. It will be awesome, if less powerful than average.
Yep. The very first encounter I had with my half-orc wizard he got hit by crit. Would have dropped him unconscious but Relentless Endurance saved the day. Having a 12 DC instead of a 13 didn't really matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Different species have different inherent attributes that have nothing to do with breeding or background. That's why a gorilla is stronger than a mouse, and will always be."
~Grunk999
Okay. I'm bloody sick of this, of the whole 'goliaths should always have at least thirty more points of Strength than halflings!' thing, and this idea that general species biology is the sole and only arbiter of what is and is not possible. That stance - "Biology is the only thing that matters and you can never break or exceed the limits of your biology" - is not okay IRL, and it shouldn't be okay in our fantasy funtime hobbies.
Yurei be pissed. Time for some Science.
There are, broadly, two uses for the 'Strength' ability score in Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition, outside of melee attacks. One could class them (again, broadly) as Main Force and Athleticism. Main Force is using physical power to alter one's environment. Move shit, break shit. Pushing, dragging, smashing, or preventing something else from doing the same. This is primarily a measure of absolute Strength. How many Newtons of force can one exert on their environment, and is that enough Newtons to accomplish the task? When it comes to Main Force, a gorilla is indeed overwhelmingly more capable than a mouse.
But then we get to Athleticism. Running, jumping, swimming, climbing, everything else lumped in under the Athletics skill. Endurance activities, physical actions in which the primary opposing force to the action is the creature's own body weight. In these activities? Small creatures who're trained in Athletics should be better than Medium creatures. A gnome, halfling, goblin, kobold, Tyberos kitsune, whatever else that's all of three feet tall and maxes out around forty pounds has a much higher muscle-to-weight ratio than a Medium creature; when working primarily to overcome their own mass, they have a definitive edge. Athleticism is a measurement of Strength per pound, and given the square-cube law of size increases, smaller creatures have a significant and undeniable edge over larger ones. A mouse is a significantly better climber and swimmer both than a gorilla.
Dungeons & Dragons Fifth Edition made the explicit, intentional decision to dispense with almost any mechanical difference between different sizes of creature. Different sizes primarily affect what a creature can and cannot Grapple, and what they can and cannot Mount. Some Strength saving throws or other forms of push/drag abilities in the Main Force vein of Strength place an upper limit on the size of creature the effect can influence, but beyond that there is no real difference between various Size profiles.
D&D does not differentiate between Main Force and Athleticism. Because D&D does not differentiate between MF and Athleticism, and because ti does not really differentiate properly between Small, Medium, Large, and so forth, it is impossible for the game to properly model characters with excellent Athleticism but low Main Force. A gnome that wants to be exceptionally agile, able to climb, swim, maneuver and parkour needs to have a high Strength score and proficiency with Athletics. Those things also means that gnome is good at Main Force applications of Strength even though the player may not want to be - they're a tumbler, second-storey man, and athlete, not a Muscle Man. If that gnome dumps Strength because they want to try and accurately model how poor they are at Main Force applications of Strength, it unfairly hinders their Athleticism. Because of this lack of differentiation between Main Force and Athleticism, Small characters cannot be forbidden from attaining high Strength scores. They have as much claim on Athletics excellence as the goliaths do.
Mental scores are even more ridiculous. Every species has its standout brilliants and its derpy duds. Anyone who thinks a master survivalist out in the woods (i.e. goliaths) has to be stupid just because they spend their time wrestling bears instead of reading books is just...wrong in more ways than I can conceivably list. Everyone can be exceptionally charismatic. Everyone can be exceptionally intelligent. Everyone can have a high Wisdom score, whatever that actually means. The idea that an entire sapient species is inherently dumber and less capable than another such species, that a given species is incapable of producing exceptional individuals, is enormously detrimental to everybody.
So heckin' STOP IT.
Please do not contact or message me.
Well, to be fair I had a dog that was smarter than at least some humans I’ve met.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Time for some Science. Hmm Science in a fantasy game where Dragons fly. A little bit of bat droppings make an explosion bigger than a grenade.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
I would point out that racial ability modifiers only apply to starting ability scores anyway, anything that's actually related to inherent potential would affect maximum scores.
To be honest, I’m glad you said that. I have been thinking the same thing but figured I would be vilified for suggesting that Elves get a Max Dex or 22, Dwarves a Max Con of 22, or Orcs a Max Str of 22.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I dont think 5e does what you list above. There are not only passive checks, that are effectively impacted by racial stats, but there are also racial profeciencies thst give bonuses to those ability checks. In other words, there are some races, by 5e design, where the worst pc of some races will be better at certain skills and abilities than the worst pc of another race. They start with different advantages beyond their attribute scores.
Horrifying?
Nah.
That sounds awesome.
Pick a species. That species sets the pool of traits you can select from. If you're a half-and-half, you get two pools, but some options in each pool can only be taken by straight examples of their species (e.g. Trance is available to elves but not to half-elves). Some traits in that pool are tagged as part of a subspecies - either you can only have one such tag amongst all the traits you buy, or buying traits from multiple subspecies (e.g. to represent a mixed-breed individual within a given species) gets more expensive than staying within a given subspecies.
Once you've selected your pool, you have ~ten points to spend, depending on species. Certain species, such as aarakocra, may end up with fewer because they have an inherent, powerful, and non-negotiable built-in advantage. Some species, such as humans, may end up with more because they get dick-all nada built in and have to build their everything from the start.
Up to three of those points can be spent on ability increases. Only two can go towards a single score. If you value other stuff more, you can spend fewer than three points and start with overall lower ability scores, if that's the story you'rte telling.
'Ribbon' abilities (Stonecunning, Fey Ancestry, languages, and the like) or other narrowly focused, rarely useful abilities cost a single point. More potent abilities such as resistances, saving throw boosts, or abilities that offer improved action economy like the goblins' Nimble Escape, cost more points.
Alternatively, spend five character points to gain a feat instead. Perhaps only three points if it's a feat that doesn't apply to combat, like Actor or Linguist or such. Do so once and only once.
God, that would be fantastic...
Please do not contact or message me.
Ok this is different than what’s been described before and I could get on board with, because it follows rules that make sense. It looks similar to the method used by the old Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles RPG. I still would prefer a table where there is consistency in how the species is built. Starting humans should not have dark vision and breath weapons.
On that note, I also like the homebrew rule of the DM on the Godsfall podcast: no half-elves or half-orcs because they are biologically incompatible when it comes to reproduction.
No...just no. Species have always had, and always will have at my table, specific advantages and disadvantages over other species. I have been fiddling with a Stout Halfling Scout Rogue versus a Wood Elf Scout Rogue. The wood Elf is vastly superior for being that subclass. And that is just fine. As has been stated in this thread already, when you make everything malleable, there is zero reason to have different species anymore, which destroys the very fabric of the game. Oh, and BTW, I plan on playing the Halfling Scout Rogue, knowing full well it is not the superior starting species, because I WANT the challenge. Those that can't handle that challenge as a player are screaming "I want, I want, I want".
Well, too bad. As a DM these changes will never see the light of day at my table. Unfortunately, if I want to play that Halfling, I will have to accept another DM's rules, and they will likely include this watering down of the fabric of the game. My Halfling will have to take Squat Nimbleness, and then Expertise in Athletics, while some other player at the table will say "I want I want I want", and start with a a 16 STR Halfling.
Lastly, it is inevitable that like dinosaurs, DM's that hold the line will become extinct, as these changes make the game easier for weak players, and inevitably power-gamers will find the optimum builds, and the majority of players will build their chars with these "optional" rules, until the original rules are considered archaic and "fun limiting".
Humans with breath weapons? No. That's ridiculous, and is a bad science experiment. If one is going to play the results of a mad wizard playing "Will It Blend?", that needs to be homebrew.
But we're also tremendously sick of the other end, which is:
"You're playing a half-orc? Cool. You're a barbarian, with the Outlander background. Your starting ability scores, using Standard Array, are 17, 13, 15, 8, 12, 10. You'll be taking Path of the Berserker when you hit third level, and your equipment consists of a greataxe, a few javelins, and a set of hide clothing made from the poorly-cured skins of the animals you've hunted. You're a wandering outcast, rejected by the orcish raider tribes who sired you and scorned by the human settlements those tribes raided. You're a gruff, bitter survivalist with a nigh-uncontrollable temper that shows itself any time someone pushes you. You hate everything soft, pretty, and civilized, but secretly yearn for just a touch of gentleness in your savage life."
"...what? You wanted to play a half-orc monk, with the Acolyte background and the Way of the Open Hand subclass, who strives to quiet his inner fury and attain balance and tranquility in rejection of his brutal heritage? No no no no no no no no, that's not...that's not how this game works, dudegal. half-orcs are all brooding, angry barbarians caught between two worlds who can barely keep themselves from flying into a murderous axe frenzy the minute something looks at them crossly. That is D&D the way God and Gary Gygax intended, and by God and Gary Gygax that is the D&D we're gonna heckin' play."
Please do not contact or message me.
Nobody is saying you have to play barbarian if you choose half-orc. You can play any class right now, with the rules the way they are. You can play any personality with the rules the way they are right now.
No, the desire is to be able to remove race as an optimization decision entirely.
Actually, Half-Orcs a great for lots of builds. Paladin, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Monk, or Warlock are all great builds.
A Kensei Half-Orc is great. I usually don’t put my 15 where my +2 is going anyway, I put the 15 where my +1 is going and my 14 where my +2 is going so I can have two +3 modifiers. But if we’re rolling for stats and I get a 16+ then that can go into Dex and not feel like I’m missing anything, my low roll into Str and know I’m not gonna have any turd scores. It was a great character.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Where do the rules say that? That reads like a strawman argument.
It has nothing to do with munchkinism. I've said it before, I'll say it again. All I want is to be able to play a character whose starting abilities MAKE SENSE for their story. If my half-orc monk grew up in a monastery in the mountains run by dwarves, living a life of asceticism and strict training, why in Kord's name does he know Orcish - a language he has never been exposed to in his life? Why does he have absolutely no aptitude whatsoever for Wisdom despite being a zen freaking monk his whole life, and why is he REQUIRED BY GYGAX LAW to have a Strength score above 15?
I actually quite like the idea of playing that particular monk, or something in that vein. I enjoy the idea of a character at war with their own nature, which is why I wouldn't replace all, or even most, of the half-orc's native abilities. Menacing is an excellent lever for a character to pull - when he lets his mask slip and shows the fury he's spent his entire life trying to cage he's terrifying, but every time he does it he ends up with disturbing dreams, nightmares, and general disquiet. He has to recenter himself, spend time meditating and reasserting control, to regain his inner balance. Same with Savage Attacks - every now and then his control cracks and he strikes with brutal force, dealing significantly more damage than he intended. It's why he's an Open Hand monk - the character doesn't trust himself with weapons and actively refuses to use anything but his bare fists, for fear of his control slipping at exactly the wrong moment.
But unless I have an 80+ point array I can't heckin' do it because Monk Problems. Even then, a life of asceticism and strict discipline does not make for a bulking, roided-up bodybuilder form; I wouldn't want a Strength score much above 12 for that character, as I envision him as a more lithe, almost scrawny example of his kind. But naaaaaaaaaah. I have to figure out why this mountain ascetic raised by near-silent monks who've never shared a species with him is a completely average, ordinary, and expected example of half-orcness in every conceivable way, conforming neatly and absolutely to each and every single expected trope for his species rather than to the story I wrote behind him.
It.
Sucks.
Please do not contact or message me.
I don't particularly agree with this point of your argument. If a race (such as the aforementioned Orc, or Kobold) is sub par compared to other races, it doesn't matter that much. Realistically, not all races should be as optimal as others. And power shouldn't get in the way of one's character idea...you want to play an orc Wizard? Make one, and live with the penalties. It will be awesome, if less powerful than average.
So then put a different roll in strength. There is no racial minimum. Put a higher roll in wisdom. There, done. Storyline met. As for language, write dwarvish instead of orcish on your character sheet if your DM allows it. In DDB you can always add it to your sheet and just ignore the orc part. I don’t really care about the language, that was never part of my argument and frankly languages are dumb because they hardly ever matter, since almost everybody speaks Common. If that’s not true in whatever setting you are in, you’re already playing home brew anyway.
“He” isn’t. He’s only required by Gygaxian law to have a Strength score above 10 if using Standard array or point buy, and required to have a Strength score above 5 if rolling stats.
Because the weakest Half-Orc is still as strong as an average human.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So you're of the opinion that we should just pay an effectiveness tax for having a different concept? "You want to play something different, just live with being inferior"?
Yep. The very first encounter I had with my half-orc wizard he got hit by crit. Would have dropped him unconscious but Relentless Endurance saved the day. Having a 12 DC instead of a 13 didn't really matter.