But they also get some stuff blatantly wrong, like assuming Orcs are supposedly genetically evil. As if it's baked into their DNA or something, and that's just bull hockey.
Except it WAS genetic when it comes to beings like Orks (and Goblins, etc) because they were creations of malevolent gods. Orks sprang from the blood of Gruumsh when he battled Correllon Larethian. That's why an Ork that is not Lawful Evil is an anomaly and will still face suspicion and/or prejudice in any non-Humanoid settlement. That's the POINT of role-playing a free-willed Ork is you have to fight against your innate nature. Its why Alignment was an Objective Moral System, an objectively measurable force like electromagnetism, because it was based on the Cosmology.
While a bear might always be stronger than a cheetah, that's not true of player characters in 5th Edition. Everyone has the same maximum potential.
To be fair and look at it from the other side... halfling having the same maximum potential Strength as a goliath is a bit odd, by simple virtue of muscle mass and ability to leverage said mass. A bit of an extreme case, perhaps, but...
Anyways, I can kind of see where the argument is coming from. Especially when you can play as a cheetah (tabaxi) and as a (bug)bear.
EDIT - Of course, we also have traits to reflect the difference beyond raw STR scores too...
I feel like using the orc wizard as a point of comparison is disingenuous. When the orc was first printed, that -2 to their Intelligence score meant the most they could have was a 13; if they were using the Standard Array. Most CR 1/4 NPCs have a better primary stat than a mere +1 modifier. Yes, the orc is better in other areas, but not that great. A starting spread of, say, 10 14 14 13 10 12 was about as good as they could hope for. If feats are off the table, then maybe 10 14 14 12 12 12; depending on their choice of background and skill proficiencies.
And remember, D&D did away with negative modifiers in 4e. To sum up, that initial negative modifier was a slap in the face. They made it better, but it still stings that it happened at all.
Why should it still sting? Why revisit the sins of older editions on the new? If my opinion of AD&D's ruleset coloured my overall opinion of D&D as a game I wouldn't be playing at all.
That aside, I've played bards as if they were shamans and a cleric as if he were a wizard in 3E. It had some limitations since I didn't want to outright houserule anything, but you could already make pretty darn good casters (if not necessarily the exact class of your dreams) with every race in 3E. That seemed to be sufficient for everyone I knew who played.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
While a bear might always be stronger than a cheetah, that's not true of player characters in 5th Edition. Everyone has the same maximum potential.
To be fair and look at it from the other side... halfling having the same maximum potential Strength as a goliath is a bit odd, by simple virtue of muscle mass and ability to leverage said mass. A bit of an extreme case, perhaps, but...
Anyways, I can kind of see where the argument is coming from. Especially when you can play as a cheetah (tabaxi) and as a (bug)bear.
I think you can still showcase this with things like Goliaths having powerful build and small races like gnomes being unable to normally wield heavy weapons without having static ASI's though.
Edit: Sorry, only noticed your edit mentioning this.
People love to throw out the "a gnome should always be weaker than an orc and an orc should always be dumber than a gnome!" thing as "proof" that genetic ASIs are a thing and we should all shut up and let our DM assign us our stat arrays for us. This is, however, incorrect. The "Strength" stat in D&D is, as with everything else in the game, a loose approximation at best of physical power, and its primary goal is determining how good you are at physical tasks.
The problem is that "physical tasks" come in two distinct types that the game makes no distinction between: 'Power' and 'Athleticism'. Power is a character's ability to use their muscles to affect the world around them - lifting things, dragging things, moving rocks, hauling bodies, and other Man Vs. Set External Mass tasks. Yes, orcs will always have an advantage over gnomes in this case because 'Power' is a factor of size. The bigger you are, the more power you have, with almost no real exceptionA seven-foot mountain man of a human will have more power than a scrawny six-foot-two runt-of-the-tribe orc, because the biological/physical concept of Power is tied so intrinsically to size that only gross structural changes that disqualify one from the 'Humanoid' creature type can change it.
The other aspect of Strength is Athleticism - the character's ability to run, jump, climb, swim, exert themselves and otherwise perform feats of athletics. There is no fixed external mass to overcome for athletics - the character needs to defeat their own body weight, not the weight of Mr. Rock or Mr. Owlbear Corpse. In terms of athleticism, gnomes are better than orcs - the Square-Cube Law means a Small creature has more muscle power per kilogram of body weight than a larger creature does. Not just 'more', but significantly more - pound for pound, your gnomes, gobbos and Legally Distinct Hobbits are twice the athlete you'll ever be. At least.
But because Athleticism and Power are both tied to the same number - your Strength score - a character that is good at one is also, by default, good at the other. A player who puts their points into Strength for their gnome because they want to be an excellent athlete also has a lot of Power, and a player who puts their points into Strength for their orc because they want to be able to move stuff and break things is also an excellent athlete. The orc player feels offended because this little thirty-pound shortstack is as good at moving stuff and breaking things as their seven-foot mini-Hulk, but the thing is? The gnome is just as entitled to being an excellent athlete as the orc is to being a powerhouse, and they both need the same damn number to do it.
So either you dispense with the Six Sacred Scores and come up with much more rich, complex and engaging character creation (please? Pretty please?) or you accept that gnomes and orcs can both have high Strength and be physically gifted in different ways for different reasons. And also it's a fantasy game about magic and pretend elves, and sometimes the needs of the game outweigh scientific reality we're not bound to anyways.
Yeah I agree with this one.
However the only rough spot in 5e is that both small and medium have the same carry capacity which has always irked me a bit. A 40lb goblin with 10 STR should NOT be able to carry as much as a 160lb human with 10 str.
Powerful build helps this with the races that should account for....but small does not impose the opposite restriction which is odd to me.
Other than that your points are a great way to look at "STR"
I refuse to believe the ASIs are solely inherrent.
I probably wouldn't specify it as "solely inherrent". Were I to be designing the system, I'd probably put ASIs in several places, to represent genetic, cultural and training influences.
I'm not really looking to argue here, though. I would, personally, consider the PC "races" as different species/sub-species, with some inherent genetic differences, but it isn't really that important.
To me, I think the important part is to move away from the inflammatory association with real world "racial traits/stereotypes". This concept stokes division and discrimination in the real world, and the link to D&D's "races" harms the game far more than changing a mechanic could (if it even does). I don't see anything really wrong with moving away from static racial ASIs. The system in TCoE doesn't break anything and, while it could probably be implemented better, is a good start.
I think you can still showcase this with things like Goliaths having powerful build and small races like gnomes being unable to normally wield heavy weapons without having static ASI's though.
While that is true, and a stance I agree with, its hard to ignore the average player perception. Perception is reality, and all that.
Either way, though, I think I'm done with this conversation. I don't know why I'm even playing devil's advocate here. I like the new direction, I like the idea that Tasha's is part of a 5.5 rule set, I want to sit down and revise and regroup all the different races into a set of six or so.
If moving ASI around to make your character concept more viable (ie Orc Wizard v. Gnome Wizard) means that you are no longer playing "your favourite race" (good job putting words I did not use in quotes there, bud), then there is no mechanical reason to make that change.
The mechanical reason would be other racial qualities aside from the ASI, like an aaracokra's flight, a (half-)elf's access to Elven Accuracy, a half-orc's Relentless Endurance, a halfling's Lucky, etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I've said my piece, your nonsense about "retcons of lore" was refuted before you said it, and I am done engaging with people unable or unwilling to confront the flaws in their own reasoning or the blatantly untrue assumptions they're basing their arguments on. As Coronet said, this is spiraling.
Nah, you don't get to toss a rhetorical grenade at me and then say "I'm done". Passive-aggressive nonsense doesn't win you an argument. I am not basing my arguments on untrue assumptions and the fact you choose to attempt to frame my statements that way shows I'm right. You cannot show what my arguments are other than some vague assumptions about it. And no, its not "nonsense" about lore changes because that DOES affect long time campaigns.
But they also get some stuff blatantly wrong, like assuming Orcs are supposedly genetically evil. As if it's baked into their DNA or something, and that's just bull hockey.
Except it WAS genetic when it comes to beings like Orks (and Goblins, etc) because they were creations of malevolent gods. Orks sprang from the blood of Gruumsh when he battled Correllon Larethian. That's why an Ork that is not Lawful Evil is an anomaly and will still face suspicion and/or prejudice in any non-Humanoid settlement. That's the POINT of role-playing a free-willed Ork is you have to fight against your innate nature. Its why Alignment was an Objective Moral System, an objectively measurable force like electromagnetism, because it was based on the Cosmology.
Orks are Warhammer. If you want to talk about the forces of Chaos and/or The Warp, you're in the wrong place.
And that thing about Orcs springing from the blood of Gruumsh is a myth. To borrow from one of my favorite YT channels, "Myths aren't stories that aren't true. Rather, they are stories which do not neatly fit into the historical record." How true any of that is can vary from table to table. Corellon and the other major deities were also jerks who deprived Gruumsh of somewhere for his people to call home. And when Gruumsh had the gaul to get mad that everything was literally taken from him and the Orcs, Corellon shot out his eye.
Or did he? Some art of Gruumsh depicts him like a cyclops. And in the Forgotten Realms, he and Talos are two sides of the same coin. And Talos wears an eyepatch. See? it's all mythology. *Makes a sweeping gesture.*
Also, it's Chaotic Evil and not Lawful Evil. And if you think alignment was ever seriously objective...you know what? I can't help you there.
I've said my piece, your nonsense about "retcons of lore" was refuted before you said it, and I am done engaging with people unable or unwilling to confront the flaws in their own reasoning or the blatantly untrue assumptions they're basing their arguments on. As Coronet said, this is spiraling.
Nah, you don't get to toss a rhetorical grenade at me and then say "I'm done". Passive-aggressive nonsense doesn't win you an argument. I am not basing my arguments on untrue assumptions and the fact you choose to attempt to frame my statements that way shows I'm right. You cannot show what my arguments are other than some vague assumptions about it. And no, its not "nonsense" about lore changes because that DOES affect long time campaigns.
I'm going to stop you right there. No one owes you engagement. If someone else wants to walk away, they can. And if you don't get the closure you seek, too bad.
But they also get some stuff blatantly wrong, like assuming Orcs are supposedly genetically evil. As if it's baked into their DNA or something, and that's just bull hockey.
Except it WAS genetic when it comes to beings like Orks (and Goblins, etc) because they were creations of malevolent gods. Orks sprang from the blood of Gruumsh when he battled Correllon Larethian. That's why an Ork that is not Lawful Evil is an anomaly and will still face suspicion and/or prejudice in any non-Humanoid settlement. That's the POINT of role-playing a free-willed Ork is you have to fight against your innate nature. Its why Alignment was an Objective Moral System, an objectively measurable force like electromagnetism, because it was based on the Cosmology.
Orks are Warhammer. If you want to talk about the forces of Chaos and/or The Warp, you're in the wrong place.
And that thing about Orcs springing from the blood of Gruumsh is a myth. To borrow from one of my favorite YT channels, "Myths aren't stories that aren't true. Rather, they are stories which do not neatly fit into the historical record." How true any of that is can vary from table to table. Corellon and the other major deities were also jerks who deprived Gruumsh of somewhere for his people to call home. And when Gruumsh had the gaul to get mad that everything was literally taken from him and the Orcs, Corellon shot out his eye.
Or did he? Some art of Gruumsh depicts him like a cyclops. And in the Forgotten Realms, he and Talos are two sides of the same coin. And Talos wears an eyepatch. See? it's all mythology. *Makes a sweeping gesture.*
Also, it's Chaotic Evil and not Lawful Evil. And if you think alignment was ever seriously objective...you know what? I can't help you there.
That's an interesting bit about Talos and Grummsh. I never recognized that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
If moving ASI around to make your character concept more viable (ie Orc Wizard v. Gnome Wizard) means that you are no longer playing "your favourite race" (good job putting words I did not use in quotes there, bud), then there is no mechanical reason to make that change.
The mechanical reason would be other racial qualities aside from the ASI, like an aaracokra's flight, a (half-)elf's access to Elven Accuracy, a half-orc's Relentless Endurance, a halfling's Lucky, etc.
I fully agree with the stats being movable as there are exceptions in all races for all manner of stats (really strong gnomes, really smart orcs).
I would literally only add one thing to help balance it: A class feature for all "small" races
Small Stature: Due to your size your carry capacity is 10 X your STR score instead of the normal 15 X STR score. Additionally your Lift/Pull/Drag is limited to 20 X your STR score instead of the normal 30X your STR score.
But they also get some stuff blatantly wrong, like assuming Orcs are supposedly genetically evil. As if it's baked into their DNA or something, and that's just bull hockey.
Except it WAS genetic when it comes to beings like Orks (and Goblins, etc) because they were creations of malevolent gods. Orks sprang from the blood of Gruumsh when he battled Correllon Larethian. That's why an Ork that is not Lawful Evil is an anomaly and will still face suspicion and/or prejudice in any non-Humanoid settlement. That's the POINT of role-playing a free-willed Ork is you have to fight against your innate nature. Its why Alignment was an Objective Moral System, an objectively measurable force like electromagnetism, because it was based on the Cosmology.
Orks are Warhammer. If you want to talk about the forces of Chaos and/or The Warp, you're in the wrong place.
And that thing about Orcs springing from the blood of Gruumsh is a myth. To borrow from one of my favorite YT channels, "Myths aren't stories that aren't true. Rather, they are stories which do not neatly fit into the historical record." How true any of that is can vary from table to table. Corellon and the other major deities were also jerks who deprived Gruumsh of somewhere for his people to call home. And when Gruumsh had the gaul to get mad that everything was literally taken from him and the Orcs, Corellon shot out his eye.
Or did he? Some art of Gruumsh depicts him like a cyclops. And in the Forgotten Realms, he and Talos are two sides of the same coin. And Talos wears an eyepatch. See? it's all mythology. *Makes a sweeping gesture.*
Also, it's Chaotic Evil and not Lawful Evil. And if you think alignment was ever seriously objective...you know what? I can't help you there.
That's an interesting bit about Talos and Grummsh. I never recognized that.
To be fair, I've heard many different interpretations on the various creation stories and myth in d&d throughout the different editions. A lot of it can be seen as nebulous, even within the same setting depending on the edition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
The problem with this is it makes a few assumptions. The first is that racial ability score increases are genetic, like alignment. They're not. It's reflective of the archetypal culture. In a culture where everyone is expected to be able to fight, strength or dexterity, and some kind of weapon training, makes sense. A society that embraces curiosity and values education is going to see a bump in Intelligence.
It's more likely both, but if I were to argue one or the other I'd point out that the all-cultural-no-genetic angle logically means every race is intrinsically on average equally strong, equally limber, equally strong-willed and so on. Does that seem likely, or even just not totally weird? Nature conspired to make everyone equal in most aspects of their being?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
But they also get some stuff blatantly wrong, like assuming Orcs are supposedly genetically evil. As if it's baked into their DNA or something, and that's just bull hockey.
Except it WAS genetic when it comes to beings like Orks (and Goblins, etc) because they were creations of malevolent gods. Orks sprang from the blood of Gruumsh when he battled Correllon Larethian. That's why an Ork that is not Lawful Evil is an anomaly and will still face suspicion and/or prejudice in any non-Humanoid settlement. That's the POINT of role-playing a free-willed Ork is you have to fight against your innate nature. Its why Alignment was an Objective Moral System, an objectively measurable force like electromagnetism, because it was based on the Cosmology.
Orks are Warhammer. If you want to talk about the forces of Chaos and/or The Warp, you're in the wrong place.
And that thing about Orcs springing from the blood of Gruumsh is a myth. To borrow from one of my favorite YT channels, "Myths aren't stories that aren't true. Rather, they are stories which do not neatly fit into the historical record." How true any of that is can vary from table to table. Corellon and the other major deities were also jerks who deprived Gruumsh of somewhere for his people to call home. And when Gruumsh had the gaul to get mad that everything was literally taken from him and the Orcs, Corellon shot out his eye.
Or did he? Some art of Gruumsh depicts him like a cyclops. And in the Forgotten Realms, he and Talos are two sides of the same coin. And Talos wears an eyepatch. See? it's all mythology. *Makes a sweeping gesture.*
Also, it's Chaotic Evil and not Lawful Evil. And if you think alignment was ever seriously objective...you know what? I can't help you there.
That's an interesting bit about Talos and Grummsh. I never recognized that.
To be fair, I've heard many different interpretations on the various creation stories and myth in d&d throughout the different editions. A lot of it can be seen as nebulous, even within the same setting depending on the edition.
Since myth's are supposed to be nebulous and esoteric, I think that is a good thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
The problem with this is it makes a few assumptions. The first is that racial ability score increases are genetic, like alignment. They're not. It's reflective of the archetypal culture. In a culture where everyone is expected to be able to fight, strength or dexterity, and some kind of weapon training, makes sense. A society that embraces curiosity and values education is going to see a bump in Intelligence.
It's more likely both, but if I were to argue one or the other I'd point out that the all-cultural-no-genetic angle logically means every race is intrinsically on average equally strong, equally limber, equally strong-willed and so on. Does that seem likely, or even just not totally weird? Nature conspired to make everyone equal in most aspects of their being?
I think that WotC wants to make it a cultural thing. So if your gnome grows up in a library...yeah it makes sense they have a bump for INT. If they grew up in the underdark hammering away at rocks all day...they will have a bump to STR.
I still agree you can solve it with class features instead of ASI like in my previous response.
Oh well. This discussion was good for a while, but it has devolved into the usual fighting. I guess I am done here.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Except it WAS genetic when it comes to beings like Orks (and Goblins, etc) because they were creations of malevolent gods. Orks sprang from the blood of Gruumsh when he battled Correllon Larethian. That's why an Ork that is not Lawful Evil is an anomaly and will still face suspicion and/or prejudice in any non-Humanoid settlement. That's the POINT of role-playing a free-willed Ork is you have to fight against your innate nature. Its why Alignment was an Objective Moral System, an objectively measurable force like electromagnetism, because it was based on the Cosmology.
To be fair and look at it from the other side... halfling having the same maximum potential Strength as a goliath is a bit odd, by simple virtue of muscle mass and ability to leverage said mass. A bit of an extreme case, perhaps, but...
Anyways, I can kind of see where the argument is coming from. Especially when you can play as a cheetah (tabaxi) and as a (bug)bear.
EDIT - Of course, we also have traits to reflect the difference beyond raw STR scores too...
Why should it still sting? Why revisit the sins of older editions on the new? If my opinion of AD&D's ruleset coloured my overall opinion of D&D as a game I wouldn't be playing at all.
That aside, I've played bards as if they were shamans and a cleric as if he were a wizard in 3E. It had some limitations since I didn't want to outright houserule anything, but you could already make pretty darn good casters (if not necessarily the exact class of your dreams) with every race in 3E. That seemed to be sufficient for everyone I knew who played.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think you can still showcase this with things like Goliaths having powerful build and small races like gnomes being unable to normally wield heavy weapons without having static ASI's though.
Edit: Sorry, only noticed your edit mentioning this.
"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
Yeah I agree with this one.
However the only rough spot in 5e is that both small and medium have the same carry capacity which has always irked me a bit. A 40lb goblin with 10 STR should NOT be able to carry as much as a 160lb human with 10 str.
Powerful build helps this with the races that should account for....but small does not impose the opposite restriction which is odd to me.
Other than that your points are a great way to look at "STR"
I probably wouldn't specify it as "solely inherrent". Were I to be designing the system, I'd probably put ASIs in several places, to represent genetic, cultural and training influences.
I'm not really looking to argue here, though. I would, personally, consider the PC "races" as different species/sub-species, with some inherent genetic differences, but it isn't really that important.
To me, I think the important part is to move away from the inflammatory association with real world "racial traits/stereotypes". This concept stokes division and discrimination in the real world, and the link to D&D's "races" harms the game far more than changing a mechanic could (if it even does). I don't see anything really wrong with moving away from static racial ASIs. The system in TCoE doesn't break anything and, while it could probably be implemented better, is a good start.
While that is true, and a stance I agree with, its hard to ignore the average player perception. Perception is reality, and all that.
Either way, though, I think I'm done with this conversation. I don't know why I'm even playing devil's advocate here. I like the new direction, I like the idea that Tasha's is part of a 5.5 rule set, I want to sit down and revise and regroup all the different races into a set of six or so.
The mechanical reason would be other racial qualities aside from the ASI, like an aaracokra's flight, a (half-)elf's access to Elven Accuracy, a half-orc's Relentless Endurance, a halfling's Lucky, etc.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Nah, you don't get to toss a rhetorical grenade at me and then say "I'm done". Passive-aggressive nonsense doesn't win you an argument. I am not basing my arguments on untrue assumptions and the fact you choose to attempt to frame my statements that way shows I'm right. You cannot show what my arguments are other than some vague assumptions about it. And no, its not "nonsense" about lore changes because that DOES affect long time campaigns.
Orks are Warhammer. If you want to talk about the forces of Chaos and/or The Warp, you're in the wrong place.
And that thing about Orcs springing from the blood of Gruumsh is a myth. To borrow from one of my favorite YT channels, "Myths aren't stories that aren't true. Rather, they are stories which do not neatly fit into the historical record." How true any of that is can vary from table to table. Corellon and the other major deities were also jerks who deprived Gruumsh of somewhere for his people to call home. And when Gruumsh had the gaul to get mad that everything was literally taken from him and the Orcs, Corellon shot out his eye.
Or did he? Some art of Gruumsh depicts him like a cyclops. And in the Forgotten Realms, he and Talos are two sides of the same coin. And Talos wears an eyepatch. See? it's all mythology. *Makes a sweeping gesture.*
Also, it's Chaotic Evil and not Lawful Evil. And if you think alignment was ever seriously objective...you know what? I can't help you there.
I'm going to stop you right there. No one owes you engagement. If someone else wants to walk away, they can. And if you don't get the closure you seek, too bad.
That's an interesting bit about Talos and Grummsh. I never recognized that.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I fully agree with the stats being movable as there are exceptions in all races for all manner of stats (really strong gnomes, really smart orcs).
I would literally only add one thing to help balance it: A class feature for all "small" races
Small Stature: Due to your size your carry capacity is 10 X your STR score instead of the normal 15 X STR score. Additionally your Lift/Pull/Drag is limited to 20 X your STR score instead of the normal 30X your STR score.
To be fair, I've heard many different interpretations on the various creation stories and myth in d&d throughout the different editions. A lot of it can be seen as nebulous, even within the same setting depending on the edition.
"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
It's more likely both, but if I were to argue one or the other I'd point out that the all-cultural-no-genetic angle logically means every race is intrinsically on average equally strong, equally limber, equally strong-willed and so on. Does that seem likely, or even just not totally weird? Nature conspired to make everyone equal in most aspects of their being?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Since myth's are supposed to be nebulous and esoteric, I think that is a good thing.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
And Pandering to the Twitter Mob (Who hate D&D) because it is .....D&D
I think that WotC wants to make it a cultural thing. So if your gnome grows up in a library...yeah it makes sense they have a bump for INT. If they grew up in the underdark hammering away at rocks all day...they will have a bump to STR.
I still agree you can solve it with class features instead of ASI like in my previous response.
Could you clarify what you mean?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System