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"?
Kinda like someone born without tastebuds or a sense of smell would have a harder time being a chef if they chose that profession.
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"?
Perhaps examine your concept of inferiority. Something less than perfectly optimal does not necessary mean inferior.
And I hope whatever changes are made are not with the goal of increasing the opportunity for min/maxing - or removing whatever trade-offs there are for those that do.
The goal of the changes has been openly stated by Wizards.
They want to increase flexibility for people who're playing unconventional characters, and they want to get away from the rather hamfisted approach to race/species/diversity the Wizards of today has inherited from the Wizards of twenty or thirty years ago when nobody was allowed to care about this stuff.
Are some people going to use that to munchkin? of course. Every new rule is munchkin bait. But as Pantagruel said, the overall idea is to remove, or at least lessen, species as a meta'munchkin requirement for people who're caught between wanting to play a cool, interesting and unconventional character concept and wanting to play an effective, powerful adventurer that can actually do their job.
“Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything includes a new way to customize your character’s origin. This rule allows you to take the ability score bonuses of your race and apply them however you like, based on the origin that you imagined for your character. The same rule also provides guidelines on changing certain other elements of your race. It’s all about digging into the fact that adventurers are exceptional. The race options as written in the Player’s Handbook are Western high-fantasy archetypes. If you want your character’s backstory to diverge from that archetype in significant ways, there are now some very simple rules to make those changes. Many players embrace these high fantasy archetypes. Yet for other players, having their character differ from the archetype is what draws them to that character. And we want to make sure that our rules make it just as possible to take that path as to follow the archetype.”
Pretty much what I expected, and I'll be interested to see what the full rules are, and how simple or complicated they are.
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 ...completely misread what I said, huh.
Sub par doesn't mean 'inferior'. It means you have a certain disadvantage which, in many cases, acts as a bonus to character personality rather than a detriment. Question: If you're born without an body part, does that make you 'inferior'? No, it gives you a disadvantage in certain areas of life. Does that mean you shouldn't be able to do what you love? Absolutely not. You just work harder. That in itself is an accomplishment.
Also, yes. Generally, orcs are on average less intelligent than many other races. The disadvantage is there, regardless of what your personal preferences may be. Make what you will of that. This doesn't mean that you may come across an exceptionally smart orc, in some cases. 'On average' means exactly that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
And when a player in a D&D campaign is asked to play an entire species, all at once, rather than a single specific Exceptional Rule-Breaker from that species, we can talk about ensuring the averages are respected.
PCs are heroes. They're outside the norm. Why should they be forced to conform strictly and inflexibly to their species norm when the very definition of "PC" within the world is 'Hero of Legend and Renown"?
“Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything includes a new way to customize your character’s origin. This rule allows you to take the ability score bonuses of your race and apply them however you like, based on the origin that you imagined for your character. The same rule also provides guidelines on changing certain other elements of your race. It’s all about digging into the fact that adventurers are exceptional. The race options as written in the Player’s Handbook are Western high-fantasy archetypes. If you want your character’s backstory to diverge from that archetype in significant ways, there are now some very simple rules to make those changes. Many players embrace these high fantasy archetypes. Yet for other players, having their character differ from the archetype is what draws them to that character. And we want to make sure that our rules make it just as possible to take that path as to follow the archetype.”
Pretty much what I expected, and I'll be interested to see what the full rules are, and how simple or complicated they are.
Sub par doesn't mean 'inferior'. It means you have a certain disadvantage which, in many cases, acts as a bonus to character personality rather than a detriment. Question: If you're born without an body part, does that make you 'inferior'?
I accurately rephrased what you said. As for your question, that depends on "inferior at what". Inferior about being a human being? Probably not. Inferior at being a gymnast? Probably yes (depending on what's missing).
Not that it would have any influence on what WotC will do, but I just want to say that I am both supportive of having optional rules for greater stat flexibility to races while ALSO enforcing thematically appropriate stat minimums for certain abilities. A Goliath who wants a bonus to INT is fine in at my table, as long as the player doesn't expect to keep Powerful Build while starting with negative modifier to Strength. Same with Halfling Nimbleness, Tabaxi's Feline Agility or any ability that would logically be related to a stat. No negative modifiers to the related stat if the player wants to keep the physiology-based ancestral feature.
That's a reasonable middle ground for a lot of DMs, Song. May even be enforced by the Soup Pot rules. Who knows. Could even be a story hook - the character is injured, crippled, or cursed in some way and trying to restore themselves to regain their lost abilities.
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"?
The thing is, this isn't an MMORPG. So there is no real reason to worry over "effectiveness." If you are playing around the table (or these days, on Zoom or Discord or the equivalent) with friends, nobody at the table should really care if you are not some sort of uber-optimized power-build. That kind of thing is potentially necessary while playing MMOs because either (1) the content is scaled so hard that anyone with even a slightly non-optimal build will die/wipe, or (2) build snobs who think they know how to build a character better than you do, will kick you from their team if you don't have the consensus forum-approved flavor-of-the-month (FOTM) build. So in an MMORPG, I could see it, and this is likely why few if any MMOs of today (or even the recent past) have things like racial penalties/bonuses -- because then the build snobs and FOTM-junkies will kick/boot/insult/PK anyone who doesn't have their approved build.
But this is not an MMORPG. You don't play it with thousands of nameless other people who don't know or like you and would just as soon PK you and loot your corpse as add you to their team. This is a table-top game with your friends. And as friends, they should not care if you want to play a non-optimized or even decidedly sub-par build.
Furthermore, highly optimized/perfect builds might be fun to design, but they are extremely unrealistic to play. And they are ultimately self-defeating, because if the whole party plays optimized builds, odds are the DM is just going to buff the encounters to compensate and you end up back at square 1.
So one may as well build for concept, not worry about optimization, and let the DM worry about keeping the challenge level right.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
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"?
The thing is, this isn't an MMORPG. So there is no real reason to worry over "effectiveness."
"Can I beat this challenge" and "am I useful compared to the other PCs" are not concepts that are limited to MMOs.
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"?
The thing is, this isn't an MMORPG. So there is no real reason to worry over "effectiveness."
"Can I beat this challenge" and "am I useful compared to the other PCs" are not concepts that are limited to MMOs.
No, but you can beat challenges and be useful compared to other PCs without optimizing.
So you are of the opinion that dolphins and whales are not only, on average, equally intelligent to humans but to each other as well? Or for that matter to dogs and cats? That the smartest dog is as smart as the smartest human?
Well dolphins are actually one of the most intelligent animals in the animal kingdom, and are certainly smarter that a lot of human.
At the same time, these animals are incapable of speech and it cannot be proved have sentience. Therefore this is a false equivalent to - even the fantastical idea - of a human-esque race next to another. A very terrible argument
So you are of the opinion that dolphins and whales are not only, on average, equally intelligent to humans but to each other as well? Or for that matter to dogs and cats? That the smartest dog is as smart as the smartest human?
Well dolphins are actually one of the most intelligent animals in the animal kingdom, and are certainly smarter that a lot of human.
At the same time, these animals are incapable of speech and it cannot be proved have sentience. Therefore this is a false equivalent to - even the fantastical idea - of a human-esque race next to another. A very terrible argument
Actually, every Dolphin has a Proper Name and a Family Name derived from its mother.
Every dolphin always makes the same sounds at first whenever they meet a new dolphin, and every dolphin uses their own distinctive set of sounds, but all related dolphins make similar sounds.
It’s the equivalent of introducing themselves by name whenever they meet someone new.
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.
First of all, rolling for your stats inn the inferior way to play. Plebeian
Secondly, the argument is not that an interesting concept cant be done at all, the argument is that it takes additional effort in places that it doesn't make sense. For example, a body building wood elf who has +1 to dex and nothing additional to strength makes absolutely no sense for the exact reason you are trying to say it does make sense.
And the mechanical backup for things like languages in DDB is a necessity, cause there are certainly people like myself who care about it.
So you are of the opinion that dolphins and whales are not only, on average, equally intelligent to humans but to each other as well? Or for that matter to dogs and cats? That the smartest dog is as smart as the smartest human?
Well dolphins are actually one of the most intelligent animals in the animal kingdom, and are certainly smarter that a lot of human.
At the same time, these animals are incapable of speech and it cannot be proved have sentience. Therefore this is a false equivalent to - even the fantastical idea - of a human-esque race next to another. A very terrible argument
Actually, every Dolphin has a Proper Name and a Family Name derived from its mother.
Every dolphin always makes the same sounds at first whenever they meet a new dolphin, and every dolphin uses their own distinctive set of sounds, but all related dolphins make similar sounds.
It’s the equivalent of introducing themselves by name whenever they meet someone new.
Dolphins are sentient.
*cough* not helping *cough*
Mostly cause im sure there are some people in this thread who would completely ignore these proven facts because they refuse to admit humans arent superior in every way.
Kinda like someone born without tastebuds or a sense of smell would have a harder time being a chef if they chose that profession.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Perhaps examine your concept of inferiority. Something less than perfectly optimal does not necessary mean inferior.
And I hope whatever changes are made are not with the goal of increasing the opportunity for min/maxing - or removing whatever trade-offs there are for those that do.
The goal of the changes has been openly stated by Wizards.
They want to increase flexibility for people who're playing unconventional characters, and they want to get away from the rather hamfisted approach to race/species/diversity the Wizards of today has inherited from the Wizards of twenty or thirty years ago when nobody was allowed to care about this stuff.
Are some people going to use that to munchkin? of course. Every new rule is munchkin bait. But as Pantagruel said, the overall idea is to remove, or at least lessen, species as a meta'munchkin requirement for people who're caught between wanting to play a cool, interesting and unconventional character concept and wanting to play an effective, powerful adventurer that can actually do their job.
Please do not contact or message me.
Actually, that's exactly what inferior means -- it's not as good as another option.
A brief description of what the rules will entail according to Dragon+:
“Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything includes a new way to customize your character’s origin. This rule allows you to take the ability score bonuses of your race and apply them however you like, based on the origin that you imagined for your character. The same rule also provides guidelines on changing certain other elements of your race. It’s all about digging into the fact that adventurers are exceptional. The race options as written in the Player’s Handbook are Western high-fantasy archetypes. If you want your character’s backstory to diverge from that archetype in significant ways, there are now some very simple rules to make those changes. Many players embrace these high fantasy archetypes. Yet for other players, having their character differ from the archetype is what draws them to that character. And we want to make sure that our rules make it just as possible to take that path as to follow the archetype.”
Pretty much what I expected, and I'll be interested to see what the full rules are, and how simple or complicated they are.
So the ability to move attribute points around and the most basic possible DM advice on switching other stuff around.
Disappointing. Not really unexpected, but still a little disappointing. Oh well.
Please do not contact or message me.
You ...completely misread what I said, huh.
Sub par doesn't mean 'inferior'. It means you have a certain disadvantage which, in many cases, acts as a bonus to character personality rather than a detriment. Question: If you're born without an body part, does that make you 'inferior'? No, it gives you a disadvantage in certain areas of life. Does that mean you shouldn't be able to do what you love? Absolutely not. You just work harder. That in itself is an accomplishment.
Also, yes. Generally, orcs are on average less intelligent than many other races. The disadvantage is there, regardless of what your personal preferences may be. Make what you will of that. This doesn't mean that you may come across an exceptionally smart orc, in some cases. 'On average' means exactly that.
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
And when a player in a D&D campaign is asked to play an entire species, all at once, rather than a single specific Exceptional Rule-Breaker from that species, we can talk about ensuring the averages are respected.
PCs are heroes. They're outside the norm. Why should they be forced to conform strictly and inflexibly to their species norm when the very definition of "PC" within the world is 'Hero of Legend and Renown"?
Please do not contact or message me.
Thank you.
I accurately rephrased what you said. As for your question, that depends on "inferior at what". Inferior about being a human being? Probably not. Inferior at being a gymnast? Probably yes (depending on what's missing).
Actually disadvantages are no more (except for Kobolds* for some reason). There are only advantages as it pertains to attribute scores in 5e.
*Some other less common race might have a negative for which I am unaware.
Not that it would have any influence on what WotC will do, but I just want to say that I am both supportive of having optional rules for greater stat flexibility to races while ALSO enforcing thematically appropriate stat minimums for certain abilities. A Goliath who wants a bonus to INT is fine in at my table, as long as the player doesn't expect to keep Powerful Build while starting with negative modifier to Strength. Same with Halfling Nimbleness, Tabaxi's Feline Agility or any ability that would logically be related to a stat. No negative modifiers to the related stat if the player wants to keep the physiology-based ancestral feature.
That's a reasonable middle ground for a lot of DMs, Song. May even be enforced by the Soup Pot rules. Who knows. Could even be a story hook - the character is injured, crippled, or cursed in some way and trying to restore themselves to regain their lost abilities.
Please do not contact or message me.
The thing is, this isn't an MMORPG. So there is no real reason to worry over "effectiveness." If you are playing around the table (or these days, on Zoom or Discord or the equivalent) with friends, nobody at the table should really care if you are not some sort of uber-optimized power-build. That kind of thing is potentially necessary while playing MMOs because either (1) the content is scaled so hard that anyone with even a slightly non-optimal build will die/wipe, or (2) build snobs who think they know how to build a character better than you do, will kick you from their team if you don't have the consensus forum-approved flavor-of-the-month (FOTM) build. So in an MMORPG, I could see it, and this is likely why few if any MMOs of today (or even the recent past) have things like racial penalties/bonuses -- because then the build snobs and FOTM-junkies will kick/boot/insult/PK anyone who doesn't have their approved build.
But this is not an MMORPG. You don't play it with thousands of nameless other people who don't know or like you and would just as soon PK you and loot your corpse as add you to their team. This is a table-top game with your friends. And as friends, they should not care if you want to play a non-optimized or even decidedly sub-par build.
Furthermore, highly optimized/perfect builds might be fun to design, but they are extremely unrealistic to play. And they are ultimately self-defeating, because if the whole party plays optimized builds, odds are the DM is just going to buff the encounters to compensate and you end up back at square 1.
So one may as well build for concept, not worry about optimization, and let the DM worry about keeping the challenge level right.
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.
"Can I beat this challenge" and "am I useful compared to the other PCs" are not concepts that are limited to MMOs.
No, but you can beat challenges and be useful compared to other PCs without optimizing.
Well dolphins are actually one of the most intelligent animals in the animal kingdom, and are certainly smarter that a lot of human.
At the same time, these animals are incapable of speech and it cannot be proved have sentience. Therefore this is a false equivalent to - even the fantastical idea - of a human-esque race next to another. A very terrible argument
Actually, every Dolphin has a Proper Name and a Family Name derived from its mother.
Every dolphin always makes the same sounds at first whenever they meet a new dolphin, and every dolphin uses their own distinctive set of sounds, but all related dolphins make similar sounds.
It’s the equivalent of introducing themselves by name whenever they meet someone new.
Dolphins are sentient.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
First of all, rolling for your stats inn the inferior way to play. Plebeian
Secondly, the argument is not that an interesting concept cant be done at all, the argument is that it takes additional effort in places that it doesn't make sense. For example, a body building wood elf who has +1 to dex and nothing additional to strength makes absolutely no sense for the exact reason you are trying to say it does make sense.
And the mechanical backup for things like languages in DDB is a necessity, cause there are certainly people like myself who care about it.
*cough* not helping *cough*
Mostly cause im sure there are some people in this thread who would completely ignore these proven facts because they refuse to admit humans arent superior in every way.