In my opinion, different races or species or whatever you want to call them should celebrate having different stat bonuses and penalties. It makes sense for the different races/species to have different things.
Will my gnome sorcerer be as strong as a halfling fighter? No. Will that same halfling fighter be as strong (starting out) as a Goliath Barbarian? Also incredibly unlikely.
Having different races, with their unique strengths and weaknesses is what will help balance out a party of adventurers. D&D has always been a game about teamwork, working together to make up for other people's weaknesses and overcoming the odds.
If every race becomes the same, stats wise, then there is no real benefit to playing anything other than a human.
I also fundamentally disagree with the idea that having stats forces you to play a certain way or to play to a stereotype. If you are creative enough and have enough imagination then you can play your characters however you want regardless of their stats, give them personalities that make you go "wait, that guy I was discussing the market economics with is a BARBARIAN?"
You do realize that your conclusion 100% supports disassociating stats from race right?
Yes, they are supposed to be the exception, but they, IMO, should not necessarily be equal. The average (because that is what we are talking about, the average starting point for heros) 300 lb species should have some inherent strength advantage over a 40 lb race. I don't care how exceptional you are as a PC, you still start at level 1. Through EXTRA work (ya know, all those levels after lvl 1), you can grow to have the same strength or more than that 300 lb species, but it strains credulity to think that your "backstory" is enough to get your 40 lb race to a starting STR of 20. Additionally, it strains credulity to think that BOTH species could have the SAME backstory (both hit the gym at 5 AM, 8 days a week) yet the one that is nearly 8 times the weight is no stronger for it.
Extra work?!? How dare you?!? Why should everyone not be handed exactly what they want on a silver platter?!? Where’s your sense of entitlement?!?
Didn’t you know that having to work a little harder to be the best at something one is not naturally already good at is unfair? 🙄
This is an idiotic argument. “Extra work”. So you have a halfling with a starting 17 str (not rolling) who their entire life (100-200 years) until they became an adventurer worked out compared to a 30 year old Orc and somehow this is unacceptable. Give me a break.
Ah, but you forget....halflings are naturally weaker than half orcs, due to their smaller composure. While a half orc may have been born with 14 strength (decent base 12 + 2 from racial), realistically? A halfling's size means that he will probably be born with around 8 strength. A halfling that begins life with 17 strength should be exceedingly rare, to the point of impossibility. But some former posts pointed out: why should adventurers be confined to the 'normal' quotient of a given race? That is for you and your DM to figure out. If any player could choose to create his Orcish Wizard with a 20 in every stat (because for some reason, his backstory grants it....), then the game becomes idiotically broken.
For reference: does a person get to decide who he/she is born as? No, and while 5e rules are infinitely more flexible than the former given example, there is some extent to which restriction is intended. If the PHB states that even playing a Drow requires your DM's go ahead (for gameplay reasons), it is certainly true that Ability Scores are generally meant to abide by racial context.
Yes, they are supposed to be the exception, but they, IMO, should not necessarily be equal. The average (because that is what we are talking about, the average starting point for heros) 300 lb species should have some inherent strength advantage over a 40 lb race. I don't care how exceptional you are as a PC, you still start at level 1. Through EXTRA work (ya know, all those levels after lvl 1), you can grow to have the same strength or more than that 300 lb species, but it strains credulity to think that your "backstory" is enough to get your 40 lb race to a starting STR of 20. Additionally, it strains credulity to think that BOTH species could have the SAME backstory (both hit the gym at 5 AM, 8 days a week) yet the one that is nearly 8 times the weight is no stronger for it.
Extra work?!? How dare you?!? Why should everyone not be handed exactly what they want on a silver platter?!? Where’s your sense of entitlement?!?
Didn’t you know that having to work a little harder to be the best at something one is not naturally already good at is unfair? 🙄
This is an idiotic argument. “Extra work”. So you have a halfling with a starting 17 str (not rolling) who their entire life (100-200 years) until they became an adventurer worked out compared to a 30 year old Orc and somehow this is unacceptable. Give me a break.
If I was the DM, I would want a bloody good explanation why the halfling waited until their deathbed to start adventuring. They reach adulthood at 20, not at 100 to 200. AND if they waited until 100 to start adventuring, perhaps they were a painter or basket weaver for most of their life. Perhaps they were an invalid and a high enough level priest came along with the greater restoration needed to give them full mobility. But they have a much smaller frame, smaller muscles... why would you expect time to be the only factor limiting strength gain?
Because they want Lucky, Halfling Nimbleness, and Naturally Stealthy, but don’t want to “waste” having their +2 in Dex +1 in Cha. In short, munchkinism.
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.
I googled and didn't get nothing. What the heck is "Soup Pot Rules"?
In my opinion, different races or species or whatever you want to call them should celebrate having different stat bonuses and penalties. It makes sense for the different races/species to have different things.
Will my gnome sorcerer be as strong as a halfling fighter? No. Will that same halfling fighter be as strong (starting out) as a Goliath Barbarian? Also incredibly unlikely.
Having different races, with their unique strengths and weaknesses is what will help balance out a party of adventurers. D&D has always been a game about teamwork, working together to make up for other people's weaknesses and overcoming the odds.
If every race becomes the same, stats wise, then there is no real benefit to playing anything other than a human.
I also fundamentally disagree with the idea that having stats forces you to play a certain way or to play to a stereotype. If you are creative enough and have enough imagination then you can play your characters however you want regardless of their stats, give them personalities that make you go "wait, that guy I was discussing the market economics with is a BARBARIAN?"
You do realize that your conclusion 100% supports disassociating stats from race right?
Rhetorical questions left hanging like that are not very helpful. Care to elaborate on what you mean?
How does that require explanation? You literally described how stats shouldn’t force you to play a certain way and that you can use creativity and imagination to play the way you want. That sounds like an elevator pitch for letting people put stats wherever they want.
In my opinion, different races or species or whatever you want to call them should celebrate having different stat bonuses and penalties. It makes sense for the different races/species to have different things.
Will my gnome sorcerer be as strong as a halfling fighter? No. Will that same halfling fighter be as strong (starting out) as a Goliath Barbarian? Also incredibly unlikely.
Having different races, with their unique strengths and weaknesses is what will help balance out a party of adventurers. D&D has always been a game about teamwork, working together to make up for other people's weaknesses and overcoming the odds.
If every race becomes the same, stats wise, then there is no real benefit to playing anything other than a human.
I also fundamentally disagree with the idea that having stats forces you to play a certain way or to play to a stereotype. If you are creative enough and have enough imagination then you can play your characters however you want regardless of their stats, give them personalities that make you go "wait, that guy I was discussing the market economics with is a BARBARIAN?"
You do realize that your conclusion 100% supports disassociating stats from race right?
Rhetorical questions left hanging like that are not very helpful. Care to elaborate on what you mean?
How does that require explanation? You literally described how stats shouldn’t force you to play a certain way and that you can use creativity and imagination to play the way you want. That sounds like an elevator pitch for letting people put stats wherever they want.
I think you totally misread this.
He said, that 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.
I don't know what's coming in the source regarding origins, but if this stuff is accurate, it seems to me that WotC wants officially claim that it's okay to play with alternatives but not forcing people to play with alternatives. Existing sources I've seen have alternate/optional rules (though I've only seen 4 sources). For all I know (and I know little), this could be an expanded reminder that players don't have to limit themselves to the rules if they don't wanna. There's a lot of pushback against the notion, but I don't believe WotC ever meant 5e to be the end-all-beat-all rules as written for everyone no matter what the group wanted (but I could be wrong).
I don't know how this plays in to tournaments, but in my experience, tournaments can place limitations on what players and DMs are allowed for the individual tournaments.
Of course, we have to see this source to know for certain. So, this is just a wild guess. For all I know (and, again, I know so little), it might flat-out state that everyone must play by new rules. I'm not partial to that for myself, but that's me.
If it's optional (and I'm stilling leaning heavily toward that it will be if this is what's going to happen at all), I'd choose to play with the existing criteria for a specific kind of strategic challenge made by someone else instead of building my own. Doesn't mean DIY is any less strategic - just means I don't have to do the extra work since someone else created something they felt is a decent challenge, and I'm okay with that. While I like the exception in stories, I'm more comfortable with configurations that come in specific sets for gameplay. That doesn't mean it's the only way to play.
It has always been my understanding that groups could always allow players to customize their origin traits if the group agreed to it, but sometimes, it feels like people say that nobody's allowed to do that ever - not saying anyone here makes that claim, but I'm just stating that sometimes it feels that way. Again, it's possible that, if these things indeed come to pass, WotC is just presenting a reminder that it's okay to play your way. Dunno.
I'd need to see the new source to have a better idea what's going to happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Yes, they are supposed to be the exception, but they, IMO, should not necessarily be equal. The average (because that is what we are talking about, the average starting point for heros) 300 lb species should have some inherent strength advantage over a 40 lb race. I don't care how exceptional you are as a PC, you still start at level 1. Through EXTRA work (ya know, all those levels after lvl 1), you can grow to have the same strength or more than that 300 lb species, but it strains credulity to think that your "backstory" is enough to get your 40 lb race to a starting STR of 20. Additionally, it strains credulity to think that BOTH species could have the SAME backstory (both hit the gym at 5 AM, 8 days a week) yet the one that is nearly 8 times the weight is no stronger for it.
Extra work?!? How dare you?!? Why should everyone not be handed exactly what they want on a silver platter?!? Where’s your sense of entitlement?!?
Didn’t you know that having to work a little harder to be the best at something one is not naturally already good at is unfair? 🙄
This is an idiotic argument. “Extra work”. So you have a halfling with a starting 17 str (not rolling) who their entire life (100-200 years) until they became an adventurer worked out compared to a 30 year old Orc and somehow this is unacceptable. Give me a break.
If I was the DM, I would want a bloody good explanation why the halfling waited until their deathbed to start adventuring. They reach adulthood at 20, not at 100 to 200. AND if they waited until 100 to start adventuring, perhaps they were a painter or basket weaver for most of their life. Perhaps they were an invalid and a high enough level priest came along with the greater restoration needed to give them full mobility. But they have a much smaller frame, smaller muscles... why would you expect time to be the only factor limiting strength gain?
Because they want Lucky, Halfling Nimbleness, and Naturally Stealthy, but don’t want to “waste” having their +2 in Dex +1 in Cha. In short, munchkinism.
Yeah, it must be "munchkinism” that a person wants to play a Tabaxi but isn’t using CHA and could be better served by sliding that point to something else. Let’s all be honest, 5e is pretty well balanced and having a lower than optimal stat isn’t game breaking and in the same breath saying you can play an Orc Wizard who has a +2 INT isn’t going to destroy the game either. It will be an option to let people build characters with a smidge more optimization.
If you don’t like it, don’t use it. Will power gamers take advantage and find ways to build super powerful options, sure, but they already do that and the percentage of them vs the percentage of people who just want a little bump is a heck of a lot.
i promise their are way more people that will simply use this as a way to play a race they’ve always wanted to play, but never did because it clashes with the classes they like than the number of people who will let out a maniacal laugh as they craft the most broken player ever!
Yes, they are supposed to be the exception, but they, IMO, should not necessarily be equal. The average (because that is what we are talking about, the average starting point for heros) 300 lb species should have some inherent strength advantage over a 40 lb race. I don't care how exceptional you are as a PC, you still start at level 1. Through EXTRA work (ya know, all those levels after lvl 1), you can grow to have the same strength or more than that 300 lb species, but it strains credulity to think that your "backstory" is enough to get your 40 lb race to a starting STR of 20. Additionally, it strains credulity to think that BOTH species could have the SAME backstory (both hit the gym at 5 AM, 8 days a week) yet the one that is nearly 8 times the weight is no stronger for it.
Extra work?!? How dare you?!? Why should everyone not be handed exactly what they want on a silver platter?!? Where’s your sense of entitlement?!?
Didn’t you know that having to work a little harder to be the best at something one is not naturally already good at is unfair? 🙄
This is an idiotic argument. “Extra work”. So you have a halfling with a starting 17 str (not rolling) who their entire life (100-200 years) until they became an adventurer worked out compared to a 30 year old Orc and somehow this is unacceptable. Give me a break.
If I was the DM, I would want a bloody good explanation why the halfling waited until their deathbed to start adventuring. They reach adulthood at 20, not at 100 to 200. AND if they waited until 100 to start adventuring, perhaps they were a painter or basket weaver for most of their life. Perhaps they were an invalid and a high enough level priest came along with the greater restoration needed to give them full mobility. But they have a much smaller frame, smaller muscles... why would you expect time to be the only factor limiting strength gain?
I never said that time is the only factor that matters, I was simply providing a possible explanation of why a halfling and an orc could have the same str. If you don’t like it, cool, how about this. Magic, or their mother drank a potion of strength while pregnant and it affected the baby, or they were granted power by a god, or any one of a thousand ways you can justify literally anything in a fantasy game.
i promise their are way more people that will simply use this as a way to play a race they’ve always wanted to play, but never did because it clashes with the classes they like than the number of people who will let out a maniacal laugh as they craft the most broken player ever!
That is munchkinism. Picking a race purely because it’s ability bumps best match your class is munchkinism. As opposed to playing whatever race/class combo you want in spite of them clashing.
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.
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.
I never said that time is the only factor that matters, I was simply providing a possible explanation of why a halfling and an orc could have the same str. If you don’t like it, cool, how about this. Magic, or their mother drank a potion of strength while pregnant and it affected the baby, or they were granted power by a god, or any one of a thousand ways you can justify literally anything in a fantasy game.
Well if the DM is willing to stretch things far enough, why do you need anything official? They already can.
Exactly my point
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
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.
Agreed!
I am totally for style before stats. Two of my character concepts, I absolutely love, is a Rock Gnome rogue (agreed, it is an Arcane Trickster, but still mainly a rogue) and a Kobold Sorcerer. Both build with point buy. They are just pure fun.
Seeing this debate here and on other forums have been interesting to say the least, and I don't mean this with any sarcasm either. It gives a lot of food for thought on the idea of what features and stats should be tied a race in regards to its biology or being and what features and stats are tied to the cultures common to these races in any given setting. Is a feature meant to represent the culture a race is commonly known to be associated with, or by evolving over long periods of time in an environment that favors such features, or even the idea that a feature was instilled in said race at its very creation by the god(s) that created them.
Ultimately I'm reserving my judgement for when the book comes out as while we have some hints and ideas of how the lineage system may work, we don't know how this will truly work. I'm curious to say the least though.
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 ******* 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."
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.
I did't say it makes absolutely no difference. I said it would not drag the party down or make you unable to overcome in-game challenges.
You also proceed from a false premise, which is that the Wizard (your example) only has one function, and that is to cast spells, and not just spells, but spells that have a failure chance (not all spells do -- you have no chance of failing when you cast spells like Invisibility and Mirror Image). The implicit assumption here is that every character should be a one-trick-pony, and should be really, exceptionally good at that one trick.
And maybe you like playing one-trick-ponies. Maybe lots of people do. OK. But it is not necessary to max out the trick of your one-trick-pony to have a perfectly viable, playable, enjoyable character. In fact, a character with the stats spread out and distributed more evenly, to enable the ability to do a bunch of things decently rather than one thing super-amazingly and everything else meh, is often far more useful to a party than the one-trick-pony.
I mean sure, the Wizard with a list as long as his arm of damage/attack/aoe spells and the 20 INT will be able to nuke a room full of zombies way better than my jack-of-all-trades guy... but Jack is going to probably be a lot better at all kinds of other utility things, like charming the Sgt. at Arms, sneaking around without being seen, surviving getting hit a couple of times in combat because I put some extra points into CON, and so forth.
And again, if you wanna play a character where you can put the +2/+1 in whatever stat you want, there is a way to do it. It's called a Variant human.
Yes, they are supposed to be the exception, but they, IMO, should not necessarily be equal. The average (because that is what we are talking about, the average starting point for heros) 300 lb species should have some inherent strength advantage over a 40 lb race. I don't care how exceptional you are as a PC, you still start at level 1. Through EXTRA work (ya know, all those levels after lvl 1), you can grow to have the same strength or more than that 300 lb species, but it strains credulity to think that your "backstory" is enough to get your 40 lb race to a starting STR of 20. Additionally, it strains credulity to think that BOTH species could have the SAME backstory (both hit the gym at 5 AM, 8 days a week) yet the one that is nearly 8 times the weight is no stronger for it.
Extra work?!? How dare you?!? Why should everyone not be handed exactly what they want on a silver platter?!? Where’s your sense of entitlement?!?
Didn’t you know that having to work a little harder to be the best at something one is not naturally already good at is unfair? 🙄
This is an idiotic argument. “Extra work”. So you have a halfling with a starting 17 str (not rolling) who their entire life (100-200 years) until they became an adventurer worked out compared to a 30 year old Orc and somehow this is unacceptable. Give me a break.
Ah, but you forget....halflings are naturally weaker than half orcs, due to their smaller composure. While a half orc may have been born with 14 strength (decent base 12 + 2 from racial), realistically? A halfling's size means that he will probably be born with around 8 strength. A halfling that begins life with 17 strength should be exceedingly rare, to the point of impossibility. But some former posts pointed out: why should adventurers be confined to the 'normal' quotient of a given race? That is for you and your DM to figure out. If any player could choose to create his Orcish Wizard with a 20 in every stat (because for some reason, his backstory grants it....), then the game becomes idiotically broken.
For reference: does a person get to decide who he/she is born as? No, and while 5e rules are infinitely more flexible than the former given example, there is some extent to which restriction is intended. If the PHB states that even playing a Drow requires your DM's go ahead (for gameplay reasons), it is certainly true that Ability Scores are generally meant to abide by racial context.
"Ah, but you forget....halflings are naturally weaker than half orcs, due to their smaller composure. While a half orc may have been born with 14 strength (decent base 12 + 2 from racial), realistically? A halfling's size means that he will probably be born with around 8 strength."
What are you basing this on? If we go by point buy every stat is an 8 base, and rolling you are looking at a potential Orc with a 5 (3+2) vs a Halfling with an 18 (18+0) is someone choose to do so. So no, I reject your premise that a halfling is "born" weaker.
"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.
Yes, they are supposed to be the exception, but they, IMO, should not necessarily be equal. The average (because that is what we are talking about, the average starting point for heros) 300 lb species should have some inherent strength advantage over a 40 lb race. I don't care how exceptional you are as a PC, you still start at level 1. Through EXTRA work (ya know, all those levels after lvl 1), you can grow to have the same strength or more than that 300 lb species, but it strains credulity to think that your "backstory" is enough to get your 40 lb race to a starting STR of 20. Additionally, it strains credulity to think that BOTH species could have the SAME backstory (both hit the gym at 5 AM, 8 days a week) yet the one that is nearly 8 times the weight is no stronger for it.
Extra work?!? How dare you?!? Why should everyone not be handed exactly what they want on a silver platter?!? Where’s your sense of entitlement?!?
Didn’t you know that having to work a little harder to be the best at something one is not naturally already good at is unfair? 🙄
This is an idiotic argument. “Extra work”. So you have a halfling with a starting 17 str (not rolling) who their entire life (100-200 years) until they became an adventurer worked out compared to a 30 year old Orc and somehow this is unacceptable. Give me a break.
Ah, but you forget....halflings are naturally weaker than half orcs, due to their smaller composure. While a half orc may have been born with 14 strength (decent base 12 + 2 from racial), realistically? A halfling's size means that he will probably be born with around 8 strength. A halfling that begins life with 17 strength should be exceedingly rare, to the point of impossibility. But some former posts pointed out: why should adventurers be confined to the 'normal' quotient of a given race? That is for you and your DM to figure out. If any player could choose to create his Orcish Wizard with a 20 in every stat (because for some reason, his backstory grants it....), then the game becomes idiotically broken.
For reference: does a person get to decide who he/she is born as? No, and while 5e rules are infinitely more flexible than the former given example, there is some extent to which restriction is intended. If the PHB states that even playing a Drow requires your DM's go ahead (for gameplay reasons), it is certainly true that Ability Scores are generally meant to abide by racial context.
"Ah, but you forget....halflings are naturally weaker than half orcs, due to their smaller composure. While a half orc may have been born with 14 strength (decent base 12 + 2 from racial), realistically? A halfling's size means that he will probably be born with around 8 strength."
What are you basing this on? If we go by point buy every stat is an 8 base, and rolling you are looking at a potential Orc with a 5 (3+2) vs a Halfling with an 18 (18+0) is someone choose to do so. So no, I reject your premise that a halfling is "born" weaker.
Yes, you *technically* could choose to do so. But be realistic. A little halfling is most often going to be born weaker than a burly half orc. It's just common sense, and it would be misinformed to say otherwise. And given racial stats compliment that idea, rather than make or break it.
Absolutely, there may be an orc born with a crippling disease, reducing his strength to a score of 5. And yes, there may be freak-of-nature halfling who is born with an incredible 17 strength and lots of chest hair. But these are not the average examples of each race. By all means, make a character who is exceptional amongst the members of his kind....but that's a DM/ player discussion. What you can't do is modify the racial system to fit the 'exceptional' quotient.
I reiterate: 'For reference: does a person get to decide who he/she is born as? No, and while 5e rules are infinitely more flexible than the former given example, there is some extent to which restriction is intended. If the PHB states that even playing a Drow requires your DM's go ahead (for gameplay reasons), it is certainly true that Ability Scores are generally meant to abide by racial context.'
End of discussion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
That is your right and prerogative as a DM. 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. If a DM wants to forbid Tasha's Allspice Soup Pot, they can. If they wish to mandate that any given species must take one of two or three 'traditional' classes for their species, they can do that as well. If they wish to mandate that any given species must take one of two or three 'traditional' backgrounds for their species, that is also very much a thing they can do. In one of the games I've prototyped and discussed with my table, all the various species were divided and isolated by a hyper-virulent arcane plague. Certain species lost the knowledge of how certain classes worked over time; humanity, for instance, could no longer hear the voices of the gods and spirits and were unable to take levels in cleric, druid, or paladin, nor could they take any of the 'Divine' subclasses for other classes. Instead, the surviving enclaves of humanity relied on wizardry and artifice (and the occasional sorcerer) for their magical needs. People asked me why; my reply was "if we end up playing this and you dig deep enough into the history of the world, you'll find out."
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." That doesn't tend to work as well as building a world where there are reasons some things just don't exist/aren't possible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You do realize that your conclusion 100% supports disassociating stats from race right?
Ah, but you forget....halflings are naturally weaker than half orcs, due to their smaller composure. While a half orc may have been born with 14 strength (decent base 12 + 2 from racial), realistically? A halfling's size means that he will probably be born with around 8 strength. A halfling that begins life with 17 strength should be exceedingly rare, to the point of impossibility. But some former posts pointed out: why should adventurers be confined to the 'normal' quotient of a given race? That is for you and your DM to figure out. If any player could choose to create his Orcish Wizard with a 20 in every stat (because for some reason, his backstory grants it....), then the game becomes idiotically broken.
For reference: does a person get to decide who he/she is born as? No, and while 5e rules are infinitely more flexible than the former given example, there is some extent to which restriction is intended. If the PHB states that even playing a Drow requires your DM's go ahead (for gameplay reasons), it is certainly true that Ability Scores are generally meant to abide by racial context.
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
Because they want Lucky, Halfling Nimbleness, and Naturally Stealthy, but don’t want to “waste” having their +2 in Dex +1 in Cha. In short, munchkinism.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I googled and didn't get nothing. What the heck is "Soup Pot Rules"?
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
How does that require explanation? You literally described how stats shouldn’t force you to play a certain way and that you can use creativity and imagination to play the way you want. That sounds like an elevator pitch for letting people put stats wherever they want.
I think you totally misread this.
He said, that 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.
I don't know what's coming in the source regarding origins, but if this stuff is accurate, it seems to me that WotC wants officially claim that it's okay to play with alternatives but not forcing people to play with alternatives. Existing sources I've seen have alternate/optional rules (though I've only seen 4 sources). For all I know (and I know little), this could be an expanded reminder that players don't have to limit themselves to the rules if they don't wanna. There's a lot of pushback against the notion, but I don't believe WotC ever meant 5e to be the end-all-beat-all rules as written for everyone no matter what the group wanted (but I could be wrong).
I don't know how this plays in to tournaments, but in my experience, tournaments can place limitations on what players and DMs are allowed for the individual tournaments.
Of course, we have to see this source to know for certain. So, this is just a wild guess. For all I know (and, again, I know so little), it might flat-out state that everyone must play by new rules. I'm not partial to that for myself, but that's me.
If it's optional (and I'm stilling leaning heavily toward that it will be if this is what's going to happen at all), I'd choose to play with the existing criteria for a specific kind of strategic challenge made by someone else instead of building my own. Doesn't mean DIY is any less strategic - just means I don't have to do the extra work since someone else created something they felt is a decent challenge, and I'm okay with that. While I like the exception in stories, I'm more comfortable with configurations that come in specific sets for gameplay. That doesn't mean it's the only way to play.
It has always been my understanding that groups could always allow players to customize their origin traits if the group agreed to it, but sometimes, it feels like people say that nobody's allowed to do that ever - not saying anyone here makes that claim, but I'm just stating that sometimes it feels that way. Again, it's possible that, if these things indeed come to pass, WotC is just presenting a reminder that it's okay to play your way. Dunno.
I'd need to see the new source to have a better idea what's going to happen.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Yeah, it must be "munchkinism” that a person wants to play a Tabaxi but isn’t using CHA and could be better served by sliding that point to something else. Let’s all be honest, 5e is pretty well balanced and having a lower than optimal stat isn’t game breaking and in the same breath saying you can play an Orc Wizard who has a +2 INT isn’t going to destroy the game either. It will be an option to let people build characters with a smidge more optimization.
If you don’t like it, don’t use it. Will power gamers take advantage and find ways to build super powerful options, sure, but they already do that and the percentage of them vs the percentage of people who just want a little bump is a heck of a lot.
i promise their are way more people that will simply use this as a way to play a race they’ve always wanted to play, but never did because it clashes with the classes they like than the number of people who will let out a maniacal laugh as they craft the most broken player ever!
I never said that time is the only factor that matters, I was simply providing a possible explanation of why a halfling and an orc could have the same str. If you don’t like it, cool, how about this. Magic, or their mother drank a potion of strength while pregnant and it affected the baby, or they were granted power by a god, or any one of a thousand ways you can justify literally anything in a fantasy game.
That is munchkinism. Picking a race purely because it’s ability bumps best match your class is munchkinism. As opposed to playing whatever race/class combo you want in spite of them clashing.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
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.
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.
Exactly my point
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
Agreed!
I am totally for style before stats. Two of my character concepts, I absolutely love, is a Rock Gnome rogue (agreed, it is an Arcane Trickster, but still mainly a rogue) and a Kobold Sorcerer. Both build with point buy. They are just pure fun.
Seeing this debate here and on other forums have been interesting to say the least, and I don't mean this with any sarcasm either. It gives a lot of food for thought on the idea of what features and stats should be tied a race in regards to its biology or being and what features and stats are tied to the cultures common to these races in any given setting. Is a feature meant to represent the culture a race is commonly known to be associated with, or by evolving over long periods of time in an environment that favors such features, or even the idea that a feature was instilled in said race at its very creation by the god(s) that created them.
Ultimately I'm reserving my judgement for when the book comes out as while we have some hints and ideas of how the lineage system may work, we don't know how this will truly work. I'm curious to say the least though.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
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 ******* 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."
Please do not contact or message me.
I did't say it makes absolutely no difference. I said it would not drag the party down or make you unable to overcome in-game challenges.
You also proceed from a false premise, which is that the Wizard (your example) only has one function, and that is to cast spells, and not just spells, but spells that have a failure chance (not all spells do -- you have no chance of failing when you cast spells like Invisibility and Mirror Image). The implicit assumption here is that every character should be a one-trick-pony, and should be really, exceptionally good at that one trick.
And maybe you like playing one-trick-ponies. Maybe lots of people do. OK. But it is not necessary to max out the trick of your one-trick-pony to have a perfectly viable, playable, enjoyable character. In fact, a character with the stats spread out and distributed more evenly, to enable the ability to do a bunch of things decently rather than one thing super-amazingly and everything else meh, is often far more useful to a party than the one-trick-pony.
I mean sure, the Wizard with a list as long as his arm of damage/attack/aoe spells and the 20 INT will be able to nuke a room full of zombies way better than my jack-of-all-trades guy... but Jack is going to probably be a lot better at all kinds of other utility things, like charming the Sgt. at Arms, sneaking around without being seen, surviving getting hit a couple of times in combat because I put some extra points into CON, and so forth.
And again, if you wanna play a character where you can put the +2/+1 in whatever stat you want, there is a way to do it. It's called a Variant human.
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.
"Ah, but you forget....halflings are naturally weaker than half orcs, due to their smaller composure. While a half orc may have been born with 14 strength (decent base 12 + 2 from racial), realistically? A halfling's size means that he will probably be born with around 8 strength."
What are you basing this on? If we go by point buy every stat is an 8 base, and rolling you are looking at a potential Orc with a 5 (3+2) vs a Halfling with an 18 (18+0) is someone choose to do so. So no, I reject your premise that a halfling is "born" weaker.
I can see where this will all lead.
"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.
Yes, you *technically* could choose to do so. But be realistic. A little halfling is most often going to be born weaker than a burly half orc. It's just common sense, and it would be misinformed to say otherwise. And given racial stats compliment that idea, rather than make or break it.
Absolutely, there may be an orc born with a crippling disease, reducing his strength to a score of 5. And yes, there may be freak-of-nature halfling who is born with an incredible 17 strength and lots of chest hair. But these are not the average examples of each race. By all means, make a character who is exceptional amongst the members of his kind....but that's a DM/ player discussion. What you can't do is modify the racial system to fit the 'exceptional' quotient.
I reiterate: 'For reference: does a person get to decide who he/she is born as? No, and while 5e rules are infinitely more flexible than the former given example, there is some extent to which restriction is intended. If the PHB states that even playing a Drow requires your DM's go ahead (for gameplay reasons), it is certainly true that Ability Scores are generally meant to abide by racial context.'
End of discussion.
Hi there! I'm a Christian musician based in Canada :)
That is your right and prerogative as a DM. 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. If a DM wants to forbid Tasha's Allspice Soup Pot, they can. If they wish to mandate that any given species must take one of two or three 'traditional' classes for their species, they can do that as well. If they wish to mandate that any given species must take one of two or three 'traditional' backgrounds for their species, that is also very much a thing they can do. In one of the games I've prototyped and discussed with my table, all the various species were divided and isolated by a hyper-virulent arcane plague. Certain species lost the knowledge of how certain classes worked over time; humanity, for instance, could no longer hear the voices of the gods and spirits and were unable to take levels in cleric, druid, or paladin, nor could they take any of the 'Divine' subclasses for other classes. Instead, the surviving enclaves of humanity relied on wizardry and artifice (and the occasional sorcerer) for their magical needs. People asked me why; my reply was "if we end up playing this and you dig deep enough into the history of the world, you'll find out."
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." That doesn't tend to work as well as building a world where there are reasons some things just don't exist/aren't possible.
Please do not contact or message me.