The analogy between bears and rabbits is not the best. Comparing the strength, or intelligence, or anything else of two different species of bear is much closer to comparing the different races of D&D because all of the races are humanoid.
Clarification: the original post had nothing to do with ability scores. I was trying to start a conversation about the idea of "Lineage" being broader than species.
But, c'est la vie. Forum threads are what they are, and conversations wander over the course of a dozen pages.
Clarification: the original post had nothing to do with ability scores. I was trying to start a conversation about the idea of "Lineage" being broader than species.
But, c'est la vie. Forum threads are what they are, and conversations wander over the course of a dozen pages.
Seems that way. I do hope they plan to release a UA dealing with culture and how it will function separate from the lineage system.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Clarification: the original post had nothing to do with ability scores. I was trying to start a conversation about the idea of "Lineage" being broader than species.
But, c'est la vie. Forum threads are what they are, and conversations wander over the course of a dozen pages.
Seems that way. I do hope they plan to release a UA dealing with culture and how it will function separate from the lineage system.
Honestly they need to do the PF2e system....where your race, background, and class affect your ability scores. It creates a better picture.
Clarification: the original post had nothing to do with ability scores. I was trying to start a conversation about the idea of "Lineage" being broader than species.
But, c'est la vie. Forum threads are what they are, and conversations wander over the course of a dozen pages.
Seems that way. I do hope they plan to release a UA dealing with culture and how it will function separate from the lineage system.
Honestly they need to do the PF2e system....where your race, background, and class affect your ability scores. It creates a better picture.
One of the players at my table loves the PF2e system of character creation. It can be a little too complex for me.....but then 5e is very simplistic. I miss playing 4e.....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
"Their only interest is imposing their worldview on others."
Pot, meet kettle. You are objecting to an optional rule being added to a game because it doesn't fit with your world view.
Also, like it or not, there is a large and growing portion of society who take these matters seriously. Many of them are the younger people who WotC want to capture as players for the long term. D&D is a product to sell, and it makes a lot of sense to make changes to it to make it more appealing to their target audiences.
The underlying issue in all of this is that WoTC is kowtowing to groups who don't even really care about D&D.
Their only interest is imposing their worldview on others. Once they do, they just move on. They are NOT long term customers.
That is blatantly untrue and a disingenuous strawman argument.
I've only been playing a little over a year, but I have the highest-level subscription available on Beyond, all available content purchased or pre-ordered, over 90 characters created (including non-optimized characters I've played and enjoyed like a DEX-based Hill Dwarf Bard), I run multiple games (one for my kids), play several times a week, and have purchased endless amounts of paraphernalia including mats, minis, and so on. My wife has bought over three hundred full sets of dice since I started running that game for my kids, in which she's playing a Minotaur Barbarian. I have since gotten multiple other friends into the hobby and they've purchased content and ephemera and gotten into the hobby hard. I will likely be playing D&D for the rest of my life.
And I am in favor of Wizards' overall new direction.
It's an easy thing to say "these people who have issue with a thing I love unreservedly are just fakers and liars," but that perspective never once seems to interrogate what those mythical people would get out of it. D&D has seen a massive explosion in recent years, to the point where it is far more popular than it ever has been, and even just recording your own sessions and publishing them can be an actual career. The game has expanded, the audience has expanded, and as happens with anything that gets bigger and more mainstream, new kinds of people bring new perspectives and desires. They shine a light on things that the older, smaller, core fanbase never would have thought of and have things they'd like to see change. Some of those requests are reasonable, some are not, but there is a genuine element of mental illness in assuming the people dedicating thought, time, and effort to that push do not care.
And honestly, people who never would have wanted to play D&D in ye olden times because it was such a straight, white, cisgender male-focused hobby coming in and pointing out things that don't work for them socially, culturally, mentally, or emotionally, is no less valid than the old-schoolers kickin' up a fuss about how 4e was a glorified wargame or whatever. The lifelong fans who lived through the satanic panic always take issue with the game, and the fact that these new issues from new audiences are regarding a different flavor of sticking point does not make their complaints some sort of ludicrous false-flag operation with nebulous goals and gains.
Like, seriously. This is the worst of all possible starting points for a philosophy or conversation on this topic.
Clarification: the original post had nothing to do with ability scores. I was trying to start a conversation about the idea of "Lineage" being broader than species.
But, c'est la vie. Forum threads are what they are, and conversations wander over the course of a dozen pages.
Seems that way. I do hope they plan to release a UA dealing with culture and how it will function separate from the lineage system.
Honestly they need to do the PF2e system....where your race, background, and class affect your ability scores. It creates a better picture.
One of the players at my table loves the PF2e system of character creation. It can be a little too complex for me.....but then 5e is very simplistic. I miss playing 4e.....
I’m a 3e person. In my opinion 4e was complicated in all the wrong things. Anyway, back on off topic: How does the PF2e ability score system work? I haven’t played.
One nice side effect is that, now there’s no real meaning to an official list of races, I can now run Tolkienesque elf/dwarf/orc/hobbit only worlds and no one will complain. :-)
Seriously, though, do I worry that the old system is racist? No, and I’m a college liberal. Will I use the new system? Not without changing up a few things. But I’m not going to get annoyed with it, even though I feel like it was unnecessary. Aside from the odd min/maxer and the coming legions of mountain dwarves, it won’t hurt the game. There’s loads of better things to complain about, like finesse weapons making DEX overpowered or dual wielding being ridiculously unrealistic.
The underlying issue in all of this is that WoTC is kowtowing to groups who don't even really care about D&D.
Their only interest is imposing their worldview on others. Once they do, they just move on. They are NOT long term customers.
That is blatantly untrue and a disingenuous strawman argument.
I've only been playing a little over a year, but I have the highest-level subscription available on Beyond, all available content purchased or pre-ordered, over 90 characters created (including non-optimized characters I've played and enjoyed like a DEX-based Hill Dwarf Bard), I run multiple games (one for my kids), play several times a week, and have purchased endless amounts of paraphernalia including mats, minis, and so on. My wife has bought over three hundred full sets of dice since I started running that game for my kids, in which she's playing a Minotaur Barbarian. I have since gotten multiple other friends into the hobby and they've purchased content and ephemera and gotten into the hobby hard. I will likely be playing D&D for the rest of my life.
And I am in favor of Wizards' overall new direction.
It's an easy thing to say "these people who have issue with a thing I love unreservedly are just fakers and liars," but that perspective never once seems to interrogate what those mythical people would get out of it. D&D has seen a massive explosion in recent years, to the point where it is far more popular than it ever has been, and even just recording your own sessions and publishing them can be an actual career. The game has expanded, the audience has expanded, and as happens with anything that gets bigger and more mainstream, new kinds of people bring new perspectives and desires. They shine a light on things that the older, smaller, core fanbase never would have thought of and have things they'd like to see change. Some of those requests are reasonable, some are not, but there is a genuine element of mental illness in assuming the people dedicating thought, time, and effort to that push do not care.
And honestly, people who never would have wanted to play D&D in ye olden times because it was such a straight, white, cisgender male-focused hobby coming in and pointing out things that don't work for them socially, culturally, mentally, or emotionally, is no less valid than the old-schoolers kickin' up a fuss about how 4e was a glorified wargame or whatever. The lifelong fans who lived through the satanic panic always take issue with the game, and the fact that these new issues from new audiences are regarding a different flavor of sticking point does not make their complaints some sort of ludicrous false-flag operation with nebulous goals and gains.
Like, seriously. This is the worst of all possible starting points for a philosophy or conversation on this topic.
Halflings and half-giants (I assume you mean firbolgs and goliaths) are already substantially different. Even if they could both wield a longsword with effectiveness, halflings are sized Small. They have disadvantage on attack rolls with Heavy weapons. And the half-giant(s) have Powerful Build, allowing them to double their carrying capacity for their Medium stature. Even if we held up exemplars of both with 20 Strength, the half-giant has a clear advantage over the halfling.
And, I'm sorry, but you can absolutely have a halfling gladiator who puts emphasis on Dexterity instead of Strength.
Clarification: the original post had nothing to do with ability scores. I was trying to start a conversation about the idea of "Lineage" being broader than species.
But, c'est la vie. Forum threads are what they are, and conversations wander over the course of a dozen pages.
Seems that way. I do hope they plan to release a UA dealing with culture and how it will function separate from the lineage system.
Honestly they need to do the PF2e system....where your race, background, and class affect your ability scores. It creates a better picture.
One of the players at my table loves the PF2e system of character creation. It can be a little too complex for me.....but then 5e is very simplistic. I miss playing 4e.....
I’m a 3e person. In my opinion 4e was complicated in all the wrong things. Anyway, back on topic: How does the PF2e ability score system work? I haven’t played.
Bascially your race comes with 3 improvements and (usually) one flaw.
For example: Goblins have +1 to DEX/CON/CHA and a -1 in WIS
Then you go to your backgroud
For example: I am a bartender. I get another +1 to CHA and CON
... all characters of a given lineage must be absolutely identical forever, ...
But they aren't, and never were. Min/maxers likely ended up with a whole bunch of near identical twins (which is fine, I don't have a problem with that per se), but otherwise stat distribution (especially if you rolled to generate stats) isn't going to end up the same for every orc, every halfling, every thrice-damned human whose meemaw diddled a succubus, every gnome who stuck his nose were he shouldn't and got cursed by a hag, every half-drow who had to endure a half-century of slave labour and torture, and so on. This isn't even up for debate, as far as I can tell.
Query for you, Pang.
If someone were to say "Damnit, I hate that Wizards is letting players assign their numbers where they want now!", would a casual observer unfamiliar with the game know that this person was only talking about the three points associated with their lineage?
Serious question, for all the folks so hell-bent on NOT MY D&D-ing this: what is the functional difference between granting a player control over 72 points of their numbers and granting them control over 75 points of their numbers? Why is it that assigning those first 72 points is a sacred right all players should absolutely defend, a cherished cornerstone of player agency and creating your own character, but if you try and assign those last three points yourself instead of letting the DM (or Jeremy Crawford) do it for you lightning will smite you to Hell?
It's stupid. It's just stupid. The biological differences between species is better reflected in qualitative species traits such as Powerful Build, Innate Spellcasting, and other things that make a difference. It should be in the lore and cultures of the world, how the character is viewed by and interacts with others, and where the party is or is not welcome.
If the DM is going to force the player to conform to the DM's own specific view of What A Species Should Be, then the DM can damn well assign his own stat array to every species, tell players which class that species is allowed to be, and just make the sheet his own damn self. All tiffles are Fiend pact warlocks, all half-orcs are Berserker barbarians, all elves are Hunter rangers, so on and so forth.
If a DM can't trust their player to engage with the world, find a worthwhile place within it, and create a character the DM is happy to run a game for, why the **** is that person the DM in the first place? And/or why is that player still at the table?
I think you inadvertently hit on the disconnect between us. Floating vs non-floating racial ASIs is not about control for me. It's about racial identity. If you think qualitative species traits are a better solution for this that's a discussion worth having, but the obvious first argument would be that we have relatively few of those right now and they arguably barely scratch the surface of racial diversity - particularly in terms of physical and mental differences. The second one, and one that's pertinent here, is what exactly is the difference between ASIs and fixed species traits then? Qualitative traits "make a difference"? Does that mean ASIs don't? If that's the case, what are we even talking about?
You'll have to take my word for it, but I've never kicked out a player or otherwise punished them for suggesting or asking for something to be done differently. I'll let the smiting comment slide as unnecessary hyperbole too. I for sure do resent the implication that I don't trust my players or that I somehow want to control what their characters can do or are beyond what's appropriate as determined by rules and setting though. You can stuff that where the sun don't shine and sit on it.
What a species is is determined by the setting. What a character is as a unique specimen of that species is determined by the player. But there's nothing wrong with individual characters still being part of a race.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Stop trying to make this thread about something it isn't.
Except we GOT to this point because know-nothing, low-information new players claimed not only was old Dungeons & Dragons basically warmed over Middle-Earth (which it categorically WAS NOT) but that older editions were bad-wrong-fun and us nasty old grognards need to be shut up for the good of society. My very first post in this thread was to correct the absolute mountain of misinformation regarding Dungeons & Dragons being "just Tolkien 2.0", which comes from people that don't know a damn thing about the game itself nor Tolkien other some surface level observation.
I'm well aware of the fact that D&D isn't a Tolkien clone, and while other people might have claimed it, I do not. But D&D is also much more than Greyhawk. There are probably a dozen other equally well developed settings, and everything does not have to be what the Greyhawk manuals or Gygax says verbatim.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
The analogy between bears and rabbits is not the best. Comparing the strength, or intelligence, or anything else of two different species of bear is much closer to comparing the different races of D&D because all of the races are humanoid.
Pandas are of the Ursidae family. Molecular research has borne this out. They are every bit as much bears as polar bears based on exact science, not biologists' opinions. I just wanted to point this out to put your - and I agree it's more apt! - comparison in perspective.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Stop trying to make this thread about something it isn't.
Except we GOT to this point because know-nothing, low-information new players claimed not only was old Dungeons & Dragons basically warmed over Middle-Earth (which it categorically WAS NOT) but that older editions were bad-wrong-fun and us nasty old grognards need to be shut up for the good of society. My very first post in this thread was to correct the absolute mountain of misinformation regarding Dungeons & Dragons being "just Tolkien 2.0", which comes from people that don't know a damn thing about the game itself nor Tolkien other some surface level observation.
Literally nobody said you need to shut up for the good of society. Pretty sure the closest anyone got was more akin to "hey, play the way you want, but stop telling everyone else they're wrong for liking the new stuff."
And really...how is you going out of your way to smear and denigrate new players any better than what you perceive as people doing the same to older players? The issue here at no point has been how much time anyone here's invested in D&D, it's been about their attitudes to change and unwillingness to see that new things can be good things and that there is, in fact, a world beyond what you personally have seen and experienced.
The mark of an adult is taking in new information and adjusting your opinion in response. The truest mark of maturity is being able to change your mind.
Clarification: the original post had nothing to do with ability scores. I was trying to start a conversation about the idea of "Lineage" being broader than species.
Of course it is. That doesn't mean species isn't part of lineage, and thus something that has bearing on it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I am so positively thrilled by the Lineages part of the UA... I don’t own Tasha’s Cauldron but I have seen it’s race section, and while I like the subclasses, sidekicks, etc. I felt it’s race section was severely disappointing, but no longer! This UA brightened my day, and while I don’t like the lineages in it, I am so absolutely thrilled by it’s update to the archaic and positively constrictive races. I’m no Metagamer, but I do absolutely love the idea of not judging people (or other lineages) on an absolute. All in all, I’m buzzing!
Halflings and half-giants (I assume you mean firbolgs and goliaths) are already substantially different. Even if they could both wield a longsword with effectiveness, halflings are sized Small. They have disadvantage on attack rolls with Heavy weapons. And the half-giant(s) have Powerful Build, allowing them to double their carrying capacity for their Medium stature. Even if we held up exemplars of both with 20 Strength, the half-giant has a clear advantage over the halfling.
And, I'm sorry, but you can absolutely have a halfling gladiator who puts emphasis on Dexterity instead of Strength.
Did I say otherwise? Did I not say explicitly "In the end, the halfling might end up being more dangerous and able to eat the half-giant," ?
But in a context of pure strength, in addition to the advantages that you mention, it would be silly that their strengths can even be compared, just as the koala and the gorilla.
My comment is not a comment on dangerosity, it's just to point out that all FANTASY races are not created equal, even heroes amongst these races. Insisting that they could be the same "just because it's not fair" is moronic. It's even worse when the reason is "because I want to be able to minmax my character without any care for the logic of the world because I know that I can write a backstory to "explain" it".
The interesting thing about the Halfing v. Giant duel is that both could get to 20 strength. Under current 5e rules, all the Halfling needs is to invest one more Asi and they would be equal. Would you want to change that?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
The interesting thing about the Halfing v. Giant duel is that both could get to 20 strength. Under current 5e rules, all the Halfling needs is to invest one more Asi and they would be equal. Would you want to change that?
I would tbh (maybe racial ASI should increase the cap too).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The analogy between bears and rabbits is not the best. Comparing the strength, or intelligence, or anything else of two different species of bear is much closer to comparing the different races of D&D because all of the races are humanoid.
Clarification: the original post had nothing to do with ability scores. I was trying to start a conversation about the idea of "Lineage" being broader than species.
But, c'est la vie. Forum threads are what they are, and conversations wander over the course of a dozen pages.
Please do not contact or message me.
Seems that way. I do hope they plan to release a UA dealing with culture and how it will function separate from the lineage system.
"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
Honestly they need to do the PF2e system....where your race, background, and class affect your ability scores. It creates a better picture.
One of the players at my table loves the PF2e system of character creation. It can be a little too complex for me.....but then 5e is very simplistic. I miss playing 4e.....
"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
"Their only interest is imposing their worldview on others."
Pot, meet kettle. You are objecting to an optional rule being added to a game because it doesn't fit with your world view.
Also, like it or not, there is a large and growing portion of society who take these matters seriously. Many of them are the younger people who WotC want to capture as players for the long term. D&D is a product to sell, and it makes a lot of sense to make changes to it to make it more appealing to their target audiences.
That is blatantly untrue and a disingenuous strawman argument.
I've only been playing a little over a year, but I have the highest-level subscription available on Beyond, all available content purchased or pre-ordered, over 90 characters created (including non-optimized characters I've played and enjoyed like a DEX-based Hill Dwarf Bard), I run multiple games (one for my kids), play several times a week, and have purchased endless amounts of paraphernalia including mats, minis, and so on. My wife has bought over three hundred full sets of dice since I started running that game for my kids, in which she's playing a Minotaur Barbarian. I have since gotten multiple other friends into the hobby and they've purchased content and ephemera and gotten into the hobby hard. I will likely be playing D&D for the rest of my life.
And I am in favor of Wizards' overall new direction.
It's an easy thing to say "these people who have issue with a thing I love unreservedly are just fakers and liars," but that perspective never once seems to interrogate what those mythical people would get out of it. D&D has seen a massive explosion in recent years, to the point where it is far more popular than it ever has been, and even just recording your own sessions and publishing them can be an actual career. The game has expanded, the audience has expanded, and as happens with anything that gets bigger and more mainstream, new kinds of people bring new perspectives and desires. They shine a light on things that the older, smaller, core fanbase never would have thought of and have things they'd like to see change. Some of those requests are reasonable, some are not, but there is a genuine element of mental illness in assuming the people dedicating thought, time, and effort to that push do not care.
And honestly, people who never would have wanted to play D&D in ye olden times because it was such a straight, white, cisgender male-focused hobby coming in and pointing out things that don't work for them socially, culturally, mentally, or emotionally, is no less valid than the old-schoolers kickin' up a fuss about how 4e was a glorified wargame or whatever. The lifelong fans who lived through the satanic panic always take issue with the game, and the fact that these new issues from new audiences are regarding a different flavor of sticking point does not make their complaints some sort of ludicrous false-flag operation with nebulous goals and gains.
Like, seriously. This is the worst of all possible starting points for a philosophy or conversation on this topic.
I’m a 3e person. In my opinion 4e was complicated in all the wrong things. Anyway, back on off topic: How does the PF2e ability score system work? I haven’t played.
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
One nice side effect is that, now there’s no real meaning to an official list of races, I can now run Tolkienesque elf/dwarf/orc/hobbit only worlds and no one will complain. :-)
Seriously, though, do I worry that the old system is racist? No, and I’m a college liberal. Will I use the new system? Not without changing up a few things. But I’m not going to get annoyed with it, even though I feel like it was unnecessary. Aside from the odd min/maxer and the coming legions of mountain dwarves, it won’t hurt the game. There’s loads of better things to complain about, like finesse weapons making DEX overpowered or dual wielding being ridiculously unrealistic.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Very well said!
Halflings and half-giants (I assume you mean firbolgs and goliaths) are already substantially different. Even if they could both wield a longsword with effectiveness, halflings are sized Small. They have disadvantage on attack rolls with Heavy weapons. And the half-giant(s) have Powerful Build, allowing them to double their carrying capacity for their Medium stature. Even if we held up exemplars of both with 20 Strength, the half-giant has a clear advantage over the halfling.
And, I'm sorry, but you can absolutely have a halfling gladiator who puts emphasis on Dexterity instead of Strength.
Bascially your race comes with 3 improvements and (usually) one flaw.
For example: Goblins have +1 to DEX/CON/CHA and a -1 in WIS
Then you go to your backgroud
For example: I am a bartender. I get another +1 to CHA and CON
Then you go class
I pick a bard so I get a +1 in CHA
So I get +3 CHA, +2 CON, +1 DEX, -1 WIS
I think you inadvertently hit on the disconnect between us. Floating vs non-floating racial ASIs is not about control for me. It's about racial identity. If you think qualitative species traits are a better solution for this that's a discussion worth having, but the obvious first argument would be that we have relatively few of those right now and they arguably barely scratch the surface of racial diversity - particularly in terms of physical and mental differences. The second one, and one that's pertinent here, is what exactly is the difference between ASIs and fixed species traits then? Qualitative traits "make a difference"? Does that mean ASIs don't? If that's the case, what are we even talking about?
You'll have to take my word for it, but I've never kicked out a player or otherwise punished them for suggesting or asking for something to be done differently. I'll let the smiting comment slide as unnecessary hyperbole too. I for sure do resent the implication that I don't trust my players or that I somehow want to control what their characters can do or are beyond what's appropriate as determined by rules and setting though. You can stuff that where the sun don't shine and sit on it.
What a species is is determined by the setting. What a character is as a unique specimen of that species is determined by the player. But there's nothing wrong with individual characters still being part of a race.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm well aware of the fact that D&D isn't a Tolkien clone, and while other people might have claimed it, I do not. But D&D is also much more than Greyhawk. There are probably a dozen other equally well developed settings, and everything does not have to be what the Greyhawk manuals or Gygax says verbatim.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Pandas are of the Ursidae family. Molecular research has borne this out. They are every bit as much bears as polar bears based on exact science, not biologists' opinions. I just wanted to point this out to put your - and I agree it's more apt! - comparison in perspective.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Literally nobody said you need to shut up for the good of society. Pretty sure the closest anyone got was more akin to "hey, play the way you want, but stop telling everyone else they're wrong for liking the new stuff."
And really...how is you going out of your way to smear and denigrate new players any better than what you perceive as people doing the same to older players? The issue here at no point has been how much time anyone here's invested in D&D, it's been about their attitudes to change and unwillingness to see that new things can be good things and that there is, in fact, a world beyond what you personally have seen and experienced.
The mark of an adult is taking in new information and adjusting your opinion in response. The truest mark of maturity is being able to change your mind.
Of course it is. That doesn't mean species isn't part of lineage, and thus something that has bearing on it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I am so positively thrilled by the Lineages part of the UA... I don’t own Tasha’s Cauldron but I have seen it’s race section, and while I like the subclasses, sidekicks, etc. I felt it’s race section was severely disappointing, but no longer! This UA brightened my day, and while I don’t like the lineages in it, I am so absolutely thrilled by it’s update to the archaic and positively constrictive races. I’m no Metagamer, but I do absolutely love the idea of not judging people (or other lineages) on an absolute. All in all, I’m buzzing!
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
The interesting thing about the Halfing v. Giant duel is that both could get to 20 strength. Under current 5e rules, all the Halfling needs is to invest one more Asi and they would be equal. Would you want to change that?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I would tbh (maybe racial ASI should increase the cap too).