I am actually very intrigued by the idea of changing max possible ability scores per race...while also keeping Tasha's floating racial ASIs at creation.
I am actually very intrigued by the idea of changing max possible ability scores per race...while also keeping Tasha's floating racial ASIs at creation.
I dunno that kinda seems to be moving in the opposite direction of where they're headed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
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.
You know what? If you want to be a stick in the mud, then fine. That's your business. But you're being a jerk when you don't have to be. I saw those misconceptions and made strides to correct them. But I can't make people read them, and I can't make people take my words to heart even if they do. That's on them, and your abhorrent behavior is on you. Good manners are free. There's no reason for you not to be able to afford them.
And there was a lot wrong with the Good Old Days. Female characters used to not be as strong as their male counterparts; it was impossible. Oriental Adventures is full of racist crap; whether it was intentional or not. And don't even get me started on all the sexual nonsense that Greenwood injected into the Realms. Or everything questionable about Dragonlance. Times change, and societal standards with them. The game (engine, really) is not a monolith. Gary Gygax isn't a canonized Saint. D&D is allowed to evolve. It's allowed to leave his writings behind.
Would we have the likes of Deadlands, Legend of the Five Rings, Shadowrun, World of Darkness, and multitudes more if Dungeons & Dragons hadn't paved the way? I can't say for certain. No one can.
But I can say the hobby has certainly grown over the last 45 years. And you can, too.
Quite! And there is always the possibility that they could change grappling rules for D&D 5E so that if you are one size smaller than the creature you are attempting to grapple, you have disadvantage on your Athletics roll, and if you are more than one size smaller you have disadvantage and a -5 to your Athletics roll...
Also, I’m no min-maxer but I like the custom ASIs... (I only min-max passive perception because I enjoy watching my DMs suffer)
I am actually very intrigued by the idea of changing max possible ability scores per race...while also keeping Tasha's floating racial ASIs at creation.
I dunno that kinda seems to be moving in the opposite direction of where they're headed.
Probably, but it's still an intriguing idea. Maybe I'll just make my own D&D with blackjack and hookers and variable ability score ceilings.
They can't use heavy weapons without DIS (reduces DPR) and the best they can hope for is 1d10 Warhammer.
Where as the Goliath can wield a Maul (2d6) with no DIS and do more damage.
So Goliath would be at an advantage.
The average damage with a d8 weapon with Dueling would cap at 11.5; barring magic items. But they can also use shields for more AC. A 2d6 heavy weapon averages 13.33 with Great Weapon Fighting. Or 12 with the Defense style and +1 AC. It's a competitive wash.
I’d like to point out that a couple people on both sides have used Tolkien’s name as synonymous with racial stereotyping. That’s very unfair to the author. While it may not come through in the movies, Tolkien was extremely anti-racist, and that shows in his books. Not only does he fully develop cultures in a way Peter Jackson didn’t (he never treats dwarves as comic relief, for one thing) but he also directly engages with the issues of race and war. There’s one passage in The Two Towers that comes to mind, where Sam Gamgee contemplates the death of a soldier from Harad, which focuses on humanizing the enemy, and we see Tolkien’s compassion and struggle with his own participation in World War I. (Tolkien is also much more anti-war than the movies, but that’s a different story.) Not to mention, there’s at least one letter in which he snarkily rejects a German publisher’s offer circa WWII because of the publisher’s racism.
All that to say, Professor Tolkien was, as far as we know, a very empathetic and anti-racist person, especially for his time. I don’t think it’s fair to use his name as a synonym for fantasy racism: he’d probably be shocked and sad to hear that happening.
They can't use heavy weapons without DIS (reduces DPR) and the best they can hope for is 1d10 Warhammer.
Where as the Goliath can wield a Maul (2d6) with no DIS and do more damage.
So Goliath would be at an advantage.
The average damage with a d8 weapon with Dueling would cap at 11.5; barring magic items. But they can also use shields for more AC. A 2d6 heavy weapon averages 13.33 with Great Weapon Fighting. Or 12 with the Defense style and +1 AC. It's a competitive wash.
You are introducing Fighting Styles which indicates that both are fighters. I am simply making it about the base race.
If you simply just go by race alone with no class advantages it goes to the Goliath.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
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).
Yup, bounded accuracy is also kind of limiting to player control (half jest, half serious).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I wonder if all these people talking about the importance of size, and the need for it to impact stats, would be in favor of rules to reflect metabolism rate, lifespan, DEX increases for the square cube law, INT based on brain size, hit points based on mass, ability to stay warm (the square cube law again), and all those other pesky biological differences. Also proper scaling of equipment size, weight, and strength. D&D has always glossed that over with "magic" and "playability" only the most minimal of rules.
They can't use heavy weapons without DIS (reduces DPR) and the best they can hope for is 1d10 Warhammer.
Where as the Goliath can wield a Maul (2d6) with no DIS and do more damage.
So Goliath would be at an advantage.
The average damage with a d8 weapon with Dueling would cap at 11.5; barring magic items. But they can also use shields for more AC. A 2d6 heavy weapon averages 13.33 with Great Weapon Fighting. Or 12 with the Defense style and +1 AC. It's a competitive wash.
You are introducing Fighting Styles which indicates that both are fighters. I am simply making it about the base race.
If you simply just go by race alone with no class advantages it goes to the Goliath.
They could be paladins or rangers, but okay. Remove those from the equation and we're left with 9.5 vs 12. Or 10.5 if the weapon can also be Versatile (d10). But the one dealing 9.5 can also wield a shield, and that +2 AC shouldn't be discounted. Because the goliath wielding the 2d6 weapon can't. Now we're comparing dealing less damage vs being less likely to get hit. And they both have an equal chance to hit, themselves.
Altering maximum ability scores is a very dicey thing. It can be a conversation worth having (if not with the grognards in this gods-cursed thread), but it's not really any less prone to saying terrible things about people than baked-in ASIs are.
Saying "orcs can put their points wherever they want, but they have a racial maximum Intelligence score of 11" is honestly kinda worse than saying "this gnome over here is intrinsically smarter than that orc over there because of weird fantasy pseudogenetics".
Frankly? Just put your points where you want them to be. You should not have to eat penalties and be terrible at your job unless you want to eat penalties and be terrible at your job because that's part of the story you're telling. If you want to be the orcish wizard with 11 Intelligence that spends the game trying to learn and improve and be a better wizard because of some deeply personal backstory thing your character has going on? Oh well. I won't agree with it, and if I'm the DM for that game, I'm going to make sure to have a conversation with you about the realities of spending many multiple months and/or years playing a severely disadvantaged character. But if the player has their heart set on playing that story and they're not doing it to be a Bohemian Failure Monkey, then I'd let them do them.
If I want to play the scrawny, limp-wristed orcish Big Brain who fled her tribe with a secret scroll of lore to gain admittance to a wizard academy because her tribe was going to use her as a ritual sacrifice and she wanted to live? The orcish wizard student who took to her teachings despite the ignorance and hatred leveled at her and became a splendid magus, and now adventures to prove her mettle whilst dodging the ravagers from her old tribe seeking to harvest her head in vengeance for her theft?
Why the hell are you stopping me, if that story fits within the world lore of the campaign?
I’d like to point out that a couple people on both sides have used Tolkien’s name as synonymous with racial stereotyping. That’s very unfair to the author. While it may not come through in the movies, Tolkien was extremely anti-racist, and that shows in his books. Not only does he fully develop cultures in a way Peter Jackson didn’t (he never treats dwarves as comic relief, for one thing) but he also directly engages with the issues of race and war. There’s one passage in The Two Towers that comes to mind, where Sam Gamgee contemplates the death of a soldier from Harad, which focuses on humanizing the enemy, and we see Tolkien’s compassion and struggle with his own participation in World War I. (Tolkien is also much more anti-war than the movies, but that’s a different story.) Not to mention, there’s at least one letter in which he snarkily rejects a German publisher’s offer circa WWII because of the publisher’s racism.
All that to say, Professor Tolkien was, as far as we know, a very empathetic and anti-racist person, especially for his time. I don’t think it’s fair to use his name as a synonym for fantasy racism: he’d probably be shocked and sad to hear that happening.
This is 100% accurate and paints his intentions as noble. Which I believe they were.
But it also ignores that not all racism is conscious and much of what feeds an ecosystem of racial disparity is unintentional on the part of those who perpetuate it. Overt and systemic racism are not the same thing, but they do feed each other and lead to the same place. Tolkien meant well and did some great things and I would never attack his character, but the fact remains that there is vicious racial stereotyping in his books that have lead to an entire culture of fantasy-fiction communities unwilling to engage with the fact that there are still some problems with the assumptions inherent in the genre.
As I said elsewhere upthread: Unintended consequences are no less real. Most drunk drivers don't intend to kill people, but it doesn't make anyone they do less dead.
They can't use heavy weapons without DIS (reduces DPR) and the best they can hope for is 1d10 Warhammer.
Where as the Goliath can wield a Maul (2d6) with no DIS and do more damage.
So Goliath would be at an advantage.
And the halfling could dual-wield or use a shield, possibly with both items being enchanted vs the goliath's single maul, and have better initiative and AC. The comparison is a bit more complex than that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am actually very intrigued by the idea of changing max possible ability scores per race...while also keeping Tasha's floating racial ASIs at creation.
I dunno that kinda seems to be moving in the opposite direction of where they're headed.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
But the halfling will do less damage.
They can't use heavy weapons without DIS (reduces DPR) and the best they can hope for is 1d10 Warhammer.
Where as the Goliath can wield a Maul (2d6) with no DIS and do more damage.
So Goliath would be at an advantage.
You know what? If you want to be a stick in the mud, then fine. That's your business. But you're being a jerk when you don't have to be. I saw those misconceptions and made strides to correct them. But I can't make people read them, and I can't make people take my words to heart even if they do. That's on them, and your abhorrent behavior is on you. Good manners are free. There's no reason for you not to be able to afford them.
And there was a lot wrong with the Good Old Days. Female characters used to not be as strong as their male counterparts; it was impossible. Oriental Adventures is full of racist crap; whether it was intentional or not. And don't even get me started on all the sexual nonsense that Greenwood injected into the Realms. Or everything questionable about Dragonlance. Times change, and societal standards with them. The game (engine, really) is not a monolith. Gary Gygax isn't a canonized Saint. D&D is allowed to evolve. It's allowed to leave his writings behind.
Would we have the likes of Deadlands, Legend of the Five Rings, Shadowrun, World of Darkness, and multitudes more if Dungeons & Dragons hadn't paved the way? I can't say for certain. No one can.
But I can say the hobby has certainly grown over the last 45 years. And you can, too.
Quite! And there is always the possibility that they could change grappling rules for D&D 5E so that if you are one size smaller than the creature you are attempting to grapple, you have disadvantage on your Athletics roll, and if you are more than one size smaller you have disadvantage and a -5 to your Athletics roll...
Also, I’m no min-maxer but I like the custom ASIs... (I only min-max passive perception because I enjoy watching my DMs suffer)
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Probably, but it's still an intriguing idea. Maybe I'll just make my own D&D with blackjack and hookers and variable ability score ceilings.
And that's before considering the Halfling's lower speed and various other factors.
The average damage with a d8 weapon with Dueling would cap at 11.5; barring magic items. But they can also use shields for more AC. A 2d6 heavy weapon averages 13.33 with Great Weapon Fighting. Or 12 with the Defense style and +1 AC. It's a competitive wash.
This thread is the fastest growing one since sliced undead.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
I’d like to point out that a couple people on both sides have used Tolkien’s name as synonymous with racial stereotyping. That’s very unfair to the author. While it may not come through in the movies, Tolkien was extremely anti-racist, and that shows in his books. Not only does he fully develop cultures in a way Peter Jackson didn’t (he never treats dwarves as comic relief, for one thing) but he also directly engages with the issues of race and war. There’s one passage in The Two Towers that comes to mind, where Sam Gamgee contemplates the death of a soldier from Harad, which focuses on humanizing the enemy, and we see Tolkien’s compassion and struggle with his own participation in World War I. (Tolkien is also much more anti-war than the movies, but that’s a different story.) Not to mention, there’s at least one letter in which he snarkily rejects a German publisher’s offer circa WWII because of the publisher’s racism.
All that to say, Professor Tolkien was, as far as we know, a very empathetic and anti-racist person, especially for his time. I don’t think it’s fair to use his name as a synonym for fantasy racism: he’d probably be shocked and sad to hear that happening.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
You are introducing Fighting Styles which indicates that both are fighters. I am simply making it about the base race.
If you simply just go by race alone with no class advantages it goes to the Goliath.
Yes the films did fail on that bit... beautiful films but with a bit much absolution.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
That's not necessarily a good thing, though, since only ~50% of the posts are actually constructive.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
I appreciate your pun
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Yup, bounded accuracy is also kind of limiting to player control (half jest, half serious).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I wonder if all these people talking about the importance of size, and the need for it to impact stats, would be in favor of rules to reflect metabolism rate, lifespan, DEX increases for the square cube law, INT based on brain size, hit points based on mass, ability to stay warm (the square cube law again), and all those other pesky biological differences. Also proper scaling of equipment size, weight, and strength. D&D has always glossed that over with "magic" and "playability" only the most minimal of rules.
They could be paladins or rangers, but okay. Remove those from the equation and we're left with 9.5 vs 12. Or 10.5 if the weapon can also be Versatile (d10). But the one dealing 9.5 can also wield a shield, and that +2 AC shouldn't be discounted. Because the goliath wielding the 2d6 weapon can't. Now we're comparing dealing less damage vs being less likely to get hit. And they both have an equal chance to hit, themselves.
So...0.5?
Like I said, it's a wash.
Altering maximum ability scores is a very dicey thing. It can be a conversation worth having (if not with the grognards in this gods-cursed thread), but it's not really any less prone to saying terrible things about people than baked-in ASIs are.
Saying "orcs can put their points wherever they want, but they have a racial maximum Intelligence score of 11" is honestly kinda worse than saying "this gnome over here is intrinsically smarter than that orc over there because of weird fantasy pseudogenetics".
Frankly? Just put your points where you want them to be. You should not have to eat penalties and be terrible at your job unless you want to eat penalties and be terrible at your job because that's part of the story you're telling. If you want to be the orcish wizard with 11 Intelligence that spends the game trying to learn and improve and be a better wizard because of some deeply personal backstory thing your character has going on? Oh well. I won't agree with it, and if I'm the DM for that game, I'm going to make sure to have a conversation with you about the realities of spending many multiple months and/or years playing a severely disadvantaged character. But if the player has their heart set on playing that story and they're not doing it to be a Bohemian Failure Monkey, then I'd let them do them.
If I want to play the scrawny, limp-wristed orcish Big Brain who fled her tribe with a secret scroll of lore to gain admittance to a wizard academy because her tribe was going to use her as a ritual sacrifice and she wanted to live? The orcish wizard student who took to her teachings despite the ignorance and hatred leveled at her and became a splendid magus, and now adventures to prove her mettle whilst dodging the ravagers from her old tribe seeking to harvest her head in vengeance for her theft?
Why the hell are you stopping me, if that story fits within the world lore of the campaign?
Please do not contact or message me.
This is 100% accurate and paints his intentions as noble. Which I believe they were.
But it also ignores that not all racism is conscious and much of what feeds an ecosystem of racial disparity is unintentional on the part of those who perpetuate it. Overt and systemic racism are not the same thing, but they do feed each other and lead to the same place. Tolkien meant well and did some great things and I would never attack his character, but the fact remains that there is vicious racial stereotyping in his books that have lead to an entire culture of fantasy-fiction communities unwilling to engage with the fact that there are still some problems with the assumptions inherent in the genre.
As I said elsewhere upthread: Unintended consequences are no less real. Most drunk drivers don't intend to kill people, but it doesn't make anyone they do less dead.
And the halfling could dual-wield or use a shield, possibly with both items being enchanted vs the goliath's single maul, and have better initiative and AC. The comparison is a bit more complex than that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].