I keep hearing this argument that I’m complaining about questionable science in a fantasy world.
Actually, you're just wantonly (or ignorantly) misusing the word "science."
What you are talking about, at best, is "common sense." Except in the case of all these fantastical things (like halflings and orcs and dragons and whatnot), you, like everyone else, have no direct experience, so you're actually talking about your personal take on fantasy tropes.
No. I am referring to the scientific fact that larger animals are stronger than smaller creatures since they have more muscle mass and stronger bones.
A chimpanzee is extremely strong, despite being smaller than a human.
You know, that sounds awfully close to "Half-Orcs are inherently stronger than humans, therefore the species on the whole gets a +2 to Str".....But the woke people at WOTC and numerous people here just don't seem to accept that. Halfings don't get a bonus to the baseline of 8 STR, and the Gnome species on the whole is smarter than other species, and get a +2 over the baseline of 8.
Sometimes strength isn't about how many muscles you have but it can also be how effective that muscle tissue actually is - there are people in real life who are stronger than those bigger and heavier than them, simply because the muscles and fibers and sinews etc are more efficient.
There are many examples in nature where something small can lift something that is much bigger and heavier. The ant is one of the most common examples.
I see no reason why a magical variation can not exist in D&D.
The drive of the latest options regarding racial ASI, is so you can play what race you want more as a narrative/roleplay element rather than having to choose "what I want or what is optimal". It's only a problem if you allow it for one player and not the other. If everyone is getting to choose whatever race they want, they all remain balanced with each other and they get to be optimal -- there's no downside to that.
Technically the racial ASIs only really apply to PCs. If you meet a member of a humanoid race that isn't specialised with a statblock - you just use the Commoner (10 to all stats) statblock instead. NPCs don't get racial ASIs added to that. You get ASIs because you're not an average common member of the race.
I suppose my personal view of it has been biased by experience. From dick DMs to fun ones, they've all been consistent on one thing: they let you change the ASIs as you want anyway. I've not yet been in a game where a DM disallowed it. To me these Tasha options are stuff we've had in all 5e games I've ever played in. So, this 7-page, 140+ post, long thread is just pure dubya-tee-eff confusion material for me. So much arguing over something so trivial. It's kinda funny.
Well that's just my take. As you were.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I keep hearing this argument that I’m complaining about questionable science in a fantasy world.
Actually, you're just wantonly (or ignorantly) misusing the word "science."
What you are talking about, at best, is "common sense." Except in the case of all these fantastical things (like halflings and orcs and dragons and whatnot), you, like everyone else, have no direct experience, so you're actually talking about your personal take on fantasy tropes.
No. I am referring to the scientific fact that larger animals are stronger than smaller creatures since they have more muscle mass and stronger bones.
A chimpanzee is extremely strong, despite being smaller than a human.
You know, that sounds awfully close to "Half-Orcs are inherently stronger than humans, therefore the species on the whole gets a +2 to Str".....But the woke people at WOTC and numerous people here just don't seem to accept that. Halfings don't get a bonus to the baseline of 8 STR, and the Gnome species on the whole is smarter than other species, and get a +2 over the baseline of 8.
Lets use an example: you have two chimps.
Chimp one lives in the wild. Exercises often, has to forage for food and is very fit.
Chimp two is studied by scientists in a lab. Does puzzles, given mental stimulation ect.
Chimp one is the baseline for the species. It, like most other chimps will receive a bonus to strength and dexterity. Chimp two is the outlier, and will instead receive an intelligence bonus.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I keep hearing this argument that I’m complaining about questionable science in a fantasy world.
Actually, you're just wantonly (or ignorantly) misusing the word "science."
What you are talking about, at best, is "common sense." Except in the case of all these fantastical things (like halflings and orcs and dragons and whatnot), you, like everyone else, have no direct experience, so you're actually talking about your personal take on fantasy tropes.
No. I am referring to the scientific fact that larger animals are stronger than smaller creatures since they have more muscle mass and stronger bones.
A chimpanzee is extremely strong, despite being smaller than a human.
Chimps’ muscles have relatively little endurance as well. That doesn’t sound like halflings or gnomes.
I keep hearing this argument that I’m complaining about questionable science in a fantasy world.
Actually, you're just wantonly (or ignorantly) misusing the word "science."
What you are talking about, at best, is "common sense." Except in the case of all these fantastical things (like halflings and orcs and dragons and whatnot), you, like everyone else, have no direct experience, so you're actually talking about your personal take on fantasy tropes.
No. I am referring to the scientific fact that larger animals are stronger than smaller creatures since they have more muscle mass and stronger bones.
A chimpanzee is extremely strong, despite being smaller than a human.
Chimps’ muscles have relatively little endurance as well. That doesn’t sound like halflings or gnomes.
I'm sorry that a perfect animalian equivalent does not exist to a fantasy race; however, I hope that I showed that strength and size while often, are not always correlated.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I keep hearing this argument that I’m complaining about questionable science in a fantasy world.
Actually, you're just wantonly (or ignorantly) misusing the word "science."
What you are talking about, at best, is "common sense." Except in the case of all these fantastical things (like halflings and orcs and dragons and whatnot), you, like everyone else, have no direct experience, so you're actually talking about your personal take on fantasy tropes.
No. I am referring to the scientific fact that larger animals are stronger than smaller creatures since they have more muscle mass and stronger bones.
A chimpanzee is extremely strong, despite being smaller than a human.
Chimps’ muscles have relatively little endurance as well. That doesn’t sound like halflings or gnomes.
I'm sorry that a perfect animalian equivalent does not exist to a fantasy race; however, I hope that I showed that strength and size while often, are not always correlated.
The central complaint in this thread is that biomechanics are ignored for all PCs.
The fact that you can cherry pick an example of a smaller species being stronger than a larger species is really irrelevant. We can explain WHY your example exists.
I keep hearing this argument that I’m complaining about questionable science in a fantasy world.
Actually, you're just wantonly (or ignorantly) misusing the word "science."
What you are talking about, at best, is "common sense." Except in the case of all these fantastical things (like halflings and orcs and dragons and whatnot), you, like everyone else, have no direct experience, so you're actually talking about your personal take on fantasy tropes.
No. I am referring to the scientific fact that larger animals are stronger than smaller creatures since they have more muscle mass and stronger bones.
A chimpanzee is extremely strong, despite being smaller than a human.
You know, that sounds awfully close to "Half-Orcs are inherently stronger than humans, therefore the species on the whole gets a +2 to Str".....But the woke people at WOTC and numerous people here just don't seem to accept that. Halfings don't get a bonus to the baseline of 8 STR, and the Gnome species on the whole is smarter than other species, and get a +2 over the baseline of 8.
Lets use an example: you have two chimps.
Chimp one lives in the wild. Exercises often, has to forage for food and is very fit.
Chimp two is studied by scientists in a lab. Does puzzles, given mental stimulation ect.
Chimp one is the baseline for the species. It, like most other chimps will receive a bonus to strength and dexterity. Chimp two is the outlier, and will instead receive an intelligence bonus.
Sorry, no. The innate strength or intelligence of a species is created by this thing called "evolution" over many generations where the species adapts to its niche in nature. If the chimps in the lab bred for many generations, and the most intelligent of the species were selected for breeding, and the less intelligent, not selected, yes, over time, you would create a different baseline. And as I have said a dozen times, the 27 point buy DOES account for the outliers. And before you say "that is what lineage and backgrounds do, provide the player an excuse to trash the existing baselines"...uh no. The player can't simply say "I am choosing the stuff I like, and throwing away what I don't like." D&D char creation never has been a buffet, and will never be one at my table.
I'm sorry that a perfect animalian equivalent does not exist to a fantasy race; however, I hope that I showed that strength and size while often, are not always correlated.
The central complaint in this thread is that biomechanics are ignored for all PCs.
The fact that you can cherry pick an example of a smaller species being stronger than a larger species is really irrelevant. We can explain WHY your example exists.
Biomechanics aren't ignored. Elves still have darkvision, Aarcokra (Birdmen, sorry I spelled your name wrong) won't lose their wings.
You can cherry pick two examples of D&D species that don't work perfectly with the new lineage system.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
A chimpanzee is extremely strong, despite being smaller than a human.
You know, that sounds awfully close to "Half-Orcs are inherently stronger than humans, therefore the species on the whole gets a +2 to Str".....But the woke people at WOTC and numerous people here just don't seem to accept that. Halfings don't get a bonus to the baseline of 8 STR, and the Gnome species on the whole is smarter than other species, and get a +2 over the baseline of 8.
Lets use an example: you have two chimps.
Chimp one lives in the wild. Exercises often, has to forage for food and is very fit.
Chimp two is studied by scientists in a lab. Does puzzles, given mental stimulation ect.
Chimp one is the baseline for the species. It, like most other chimps will receive a bonus to strength and dexterity. Chimp two is the outlier, and will instead receive an intelligence bonus.
Sorry, no. The innate strength or intelligence of a species is created by this thing called "evolution" over many generations where the species adapts to its niche in nature. If the chimps in the lab bred for many generations, and the most intelligent of the species were selected for breeding, and the less intelligent, not selected, yes, over time, you would create a different baseline. And as I have said a dozen times, the 27 point buy DOES account for the outliers. And before you say "that is what lineage and backgrounds do, provide the player an excuse to trash the existing baselines"...uh no. The player can't simply say "I am choosing the stuff I like, and throwing away what I don't like." D&D char creation never has been a buffet, and will never be one at my table.
For the first section, evolution doesn't exist in D&D. (Or at least the Forgotten Realms). Each species was directly created by the gods, and others were the result of demonic tampering. (Let me say that I wholeheartedly believe in evolution. Do not try to use that against me.)
Secondly, for all this mess you (and many others) are making around high scores at character creation, does a couple levels later not bother you? That a halfling and goliath can have the same max strength at level eight?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Vince, Evolution does not have any impact on the fantasy races of D&D because they were create by divine beings to be exactly what they are. Those same divine beings have recently decreed that all of the races have the same physical and mental potential. They have also decreed that you may stick to the ancient doctrines of the holy PHB if you wish, but that is a choice for you and you alone to make.
Because it's the obvious example, and because 5E did away with negative racial ability modifiers. Halflings, gnomes, kobolds and goblins being equally strong as dwarves on average already stretches belief. What would a suggested tweak to being Small entail?
1) Hm. So, a modification to Small could potentially be anything, from restricting Strength cap from 20 to 18, or a starting penalty, whatever.
2) What I personally would do? Disadvantage on Strength rolls that rely on relative size. Its kind of a mirror to Sunlight Sensitivity, but instead of light causing disadvantage on attacks and perception checks, its checks where leverage and ability to apply muscles.
3) Based on what you're saying here, can I presume that you only have trouble with the Small beings matching Medium sized ones?
That aside, again, nobody's stopping elves from being strong, dwarves from being dexterous or gnomes from being charismatic. Rolling stats in order is not a thing, and we don't get told what to do or not to do with our class-based ASIs. Thanks to bounded accuracy everybody has the same potential anyway - the difference is one of cost.
4) That's kind of part of the issue. The arguments used for halfling v. half-orc also are applying to all the races. Halflings aren't really big on strength because of the cost associated as well as the direction their innate traits push them (slipping through bigger creatures, etc push them towards skirmisher builds, for instance).
So, why should there be a cost for an elf on becoming strong as, say, a dwarf? Its just as thematic for a wood elf to be a totem barbarian as a dwarf to be a zealot or battlerager barbarian. So, why should you have to pay a cost? What does that really add? Is it a problem?
5) Halfling v. half-orc has become emblematic of the entire question, but I want to really want about others, especially since Halflings do have a quality that makes them weaker than half-orcs; Small beings can't carry as much as Medium beings, and can't use Heavy weapons. This might not be far enough, but if tweaked, it solves the problem. Which them moves us from the Small v. Medium creature question to Medium v. Medium.
6) So. Why should wood elves be penalized for being a barbarian?
1) it could be, sure, but both these suggestion and everything in between are likely to draw the ire of the anti-essentialism crowd. Just saying.
2) most Str rolls seem to be determined (in part) by relative size. I'm not sure what rolls you're including or excluding here.
3) we don't have Large character races, so that comparison can be disregarded at least. It's more that it's an absolute rule though - I'd have no problem with a Small race of ant-people with Powerful Build and/or a Str bonus, for instance, or with any of the existing Small races matching their bigger cousins if that race had a reputation for being beefy. None of them are reputedly muscular in 5E, and they certainly weren't in previous editions (on the contrary).
4) there is no cost for an elf to become as strong as a dwarf, unless we're talking subraces - in which case the first question is why mountain dwelling dwarves have it easier being swole than their cousins in the hills (altitude training? That's typically an endurance thing).
5) I'll point out that, speaking just for myself, I'm not here for the halflings (or even the Small races) per se. I like the fixed ASIs, period. I like that some races have it easier developing their intellect, or tend to be more hardy naturally, or more often have a knack for being personable, or often have fast hands, and so on. Making Small races weaker in some way would be throwing me a bone, it wouldn't make me happy about the direction race design is taking.
6) Wood Elves are fast and agile, have keen senses and make excellent guerilla warriors. These seem like pretty good traits for a barbarian to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
5) I'll point out that, speaking just for myself, I'm not here for the halflings (or even the Small races) per se. I like the fixed ASIs, period. I like that some races have it easier developing their intellect, or tend to be more hardy naturally, or more often have a knack for being personable, or often have fast hands, and so on. Making Small races weaker in some way would be throwing me a bone, it wouldn't make me happy about the direction race design is taking.
I feel like the rest can be ignored, partially because the others aren't really answering any question (you didn't even say if you like the direction or not), but also because this is the heart of the matter, I think.
I get the impression that its race-based Attributes or bust to represent this Small v. Medium for you, and about an attachment to racial attributes in general. Which kind of suggests that you like the implied stereotypes and implicit cost for stepping outside the stereotype. Is my impression correct or off base?
5) I'll point out that, speaking just for myself, I'm not here for the halflings (or even the Small races) per se. I like the fixed ASIs, period. I like that some races have it easier developing their intellect, or tend to be more hardy naturally, or more often have a knack for being personable, or often have fast hands, and so on. Making Small races weaker in some way would be throwing me a bone, it wouldn't make me happy about the direction race design is taking.
I feel like the rest can be ignored, partially because the others aren't really answering any question (you didn't even say if you like the direction or not), but also because this is the heart of the matter, I think.
I get the impression that its race-based Attributes or bust to represent this Small v. Medium for you, and about an attachment to racial attributes in general. Which kind of suggests that you like the implied stereotypes and implicit cost for stepping outside the stereotype. Is my impression correct or off base?
Again, I'd have no problem with a Small race getting a Str bonus and/or Powerful Build. I just want it to be made plausible - all four current Small races have always been depicted as less beefy than most other humanoid races. I'm even ok with them starting out on even footing as any race that doesn't get a Str bonus, as is the case with fixed stat bonuses in 5E.
I like the racial attributes because they're clear. We currently have non-ASI, non-cultural racial attributes as well already, but they're not exactly numerous. Give me more of them and I'll be pretty happy about that. However, a good percentage of them will imply stereotypes just as much as ASIs do. Melee fighter? You'll be better at that with Relentless Endurance than without. Scout? Darkvision will make a massive difference. Unarmored caster? Guess you would really like some Natural Armor then. It doesn't matter if we're talking ASI or other racial quality - both imply stereotypes, and both imply a cost for stepping outside those stereotypes. The only way to avoid that is to drastically limit racial diversity and yes, for D&D that'd piss me off royally. I like explicit, fundamental, biological racial diversity in D&D. For me it won't be D&D without that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It doesn't matter if we're talking ASI or other racial quality - both imply stereotypes, and both imply a cost for stepping outside those stereotypes. The only way to avoid that is to drastically limit racial diversity...
They could totally avoid it without limiting diversity (in fact they would increase diversity). D&D is too hidebound to move to a proper mix-and-match trait system, though. Making ASIs float is a small step, that at least improves the situation. Complaining that it should be all-or-nothing is often a way to refuse any progress.
Floating ASIs increases diversity, by increasing available variation. Generally, increasing player options means they will come up with more diverse ideas.
It doesn't matter if we're talking ASI or other racial quality - both imply stereotypes, and both imply a cost for stepping outside those stereotypes. The only way to avoid that is to drastically limit racial diversity...
1) They could totally avoid it without limiting diversity (in fact they would increase diversity). D&D is too hidebound to move to a proper mix-and-match trait system, though. Making ASIs float is a small step, that at least improves the situation. Complaining that it should be all-or-nothing is often a way to refuse any progress.
2) Floating ASIs increases diversity, by increasing available variation. Generally, increasing player options means they will come up with more diverse ideas.
1) Could you expand a bit on this?
2) Not diversity within races, diversity among races. Clear, defining differences between one race and the next, so elves aren't just aloof and graceful humans with pointy ears and dwarves aren't just stout and gruff humans with strong livers and a propensity for excessive facial hair.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Heh. Pointing out the irony of that statement, Pang. "Not diversity within races, diversity among races." Because the former just isn't important, ne? Doesn't matter if every single dwarf is an exact clone of every other dwarf, just so long as that legion of completely identical dwarves is markedly distinct from this other legion of completely identical elves?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You know, that sounds awfully close to "Half-Orcs are inherently stronger than humans, therefore the species on the whole gets a +2 to Str".....But the woke people at WOTC and numerous people here just don't seem to accept that. Halfings don't get a bonus to the baseline of 8 STR, and the Gnome species on the whole is smarter than other species, and get a +2 over the baseline of 8.
Sometimes strength isn't about how many muscles you have but it can also be how effective that muscle tissue actually is - there are people in real life who are stronger than those bigger and heavier than them, simply because the muscles and fibers and sinews etc are more efficient.
There are many examples in nature where something small can lift something that is much bigger and heavier. The ant is one of the most common examples.
I see no reason why a magical variation can not exist in D&D.
The drive of the latest options regarding racial ASI, is so you can play what race you want more as a narrative/roleplay element rather than having to choose "what I want or what is optimal". It's only a problem if you allow it for one player and not the other. If everyone is getting to choose whatever race they want, they all remain balanced with each other and they get to be optimal -- there's no downside to that.
Technically the racial ASIs only really apply to PCs. If you meet a member of a humanoid race that isn't specialised with a statblock - you just use the Commoner (10 to all stats) statblock instead. NPCs don't get racial ASIs added to that. You get ASIs because you're not an average common member of the race.
I suppose my personal view of it has been biased by experience. From dick DMs to fun ones, they've all been consistent on one thing: they let you change the ASIs as you want anyway. I've not yet been in a game where a DM disallowed it. To me these Tasha options are stuff we've had in all 5e games I've ever played in. So, this 7-page, 140+ post, long thread is just pure dubya-tee-eff confusion material for me. So much arguing over something so trivial. It's kinda funny.
Well that's just my take. As you were.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Lets use an example: you have two chimps.
Chimp one is the baseline for the species. It, like most other chimps will receive a bonus to strength and dexterity. Chimp two is the outlier, and will instead receive an intelligence bonus.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Chimps’ muscles have relatively little endurance as well. That doesn’t sound like halflings or gnomes.
I'm sorry that a perfect animalian equivalent does not exist to a fantasy race; however, I hope that I showed that strength and size while often, are not always correlated.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
The central complaint in this thread is that biomechanics are ignored for all PCs.
The fact that you can cherry pick an example of a smaller species being stronger than a larger species is really irrelevant. We can explain WHY your example exists.
Sorry, no. The innate strength or intelligence of a species is created by this thing called "evolution" over many generations where the species adapts to its niche in nature. If the chimps in the lab bred for many generations, and the most intelligent of the species were selected for breeding, and the less intelligent, not selected, yes, over time, you would create a different baseline. And as I have said a dozen times, the 27 point buy DOES account for the outliers. And before you say "that is what lineage and backgrounds do, provide the player an excuse to trash the existing baselines"...uh no. The player can't simply say "I am choosing the stuff I like, and throwing away what I don't like." D&D char creation never has been a buffet, and will never be one at my table.
Biomechanics aren't ignored. Elves still have darkvision, Aarcokra (Birdmen, sorry I spelled your name wrong) won't lose their wings.
You can cherry pick two examples of D&D species that don't work perfectly with the new lineage system.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
For the first section, evolution doesn't exist in D&D. (Or at least the Forgotten Realms). Each species was directly created by the gods, and others were the result of demonic tampering. (Let me say that I wholeheartedly believe in evolution. Do not try to use that against me.)
Secondly, for all this mess you (and many others) are making around high scores at character creation, does a couple levels later not bother you? That a halfling and goliath can have the same max strength at level eight?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Vince, Evolution does not have any impact on the fantasy races of D&D because they were create by divine beings to be exactly what they are. Those same divine beings have recently decreed that all of the races have the same physical and mental potential. They have also decreed that you may stick to the ancient doctrines of the holy PHB if you wish, but that is a choice for you and you alone to make.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I wish evolution existed in D&D. But not Darwin's evolution. I want pokemon evolutions.
that's basically what gaining levels is...
Nah. Totally different. Pokemon evolution would be if goblins turned into hobgoblins, then bugbears. Orcs would turn into ogres and then oni.
That would really throw an adventuring party for a loop.
As you battle the goblin raiding party, one of them begins to glow and grow in size. Goblin has evolved into Hobgoblin!
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
1) it could be, sure, but both these suggestion and everything in between are likely to draw the ire of the anti-essentialism crowd. Just saying.
2) most Str rolls seem to be determined (in part) by relative size. I'm not sure what rolls you're including or excluding here.
3) we don't have Large character races, so that comparison can be disregarded at least. It's more that it's an absolute rule though - I'd have no problem with a Small race of ant-people with Powerful Build and/or a Str bonus, for instance, or with any of the existing Small races matching their bigger cousins if that race had a reputation for being beefy. None of them are reputedly muscular in 5E, and they certainly weren't in previous editions (on the contrary).
4) there is no cost for an elf to become as strong as a dwarf, unless we're talking subraces - in which case the first question is why mountain dwelling dwarves have it easier being swole than their cousins in the hills (altitude training? That's typically an endurance thing).
5) I'll point out that, speaking just for myself, I'm not here for the halflings (or even the Small races) per se. I like the fixed ASIs, period. I like that some races have it easier developing their intellect, or tend to be more hardy naturally, or more often have a knack for being personable, or often have fast hands, and so on. Making Small races weaker in some way would be throwing me a bone, it wouldn't make me happy about the direction race design is taking.
6) Wood Elves are fast and agile, have keen senses and make excellent guerilla warriors. These seem like pretty good traits for a barbarian to me.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I feel like the rest can be ignored, partially because the others aren't really answering any question (you didn't even say if you like the direction or not), but also because this is the heart of the matter, I think.
I get the impression that its race-based Attributes or bust to represent this Small v. Medium for you, and about an attachment to racial attributes in general. Which kind of suggests that you like the implied stereotypes and implicit cost for stepping outside the stereotype. Is my impression correct or off base?
Again, I'd have no problem with a Small race getting a Str bonus and/or Powerful Build. I just want it to be made plausible - all four current Small races have always been depicted as less beefy than most other humanoid races. I'm even ok with them starting out on even footing as any race that doesn't get a Str bonus, as is the case with fixed stat bonuses in 5E.
I like the racial attributes because they're clear. We currently have non-ASI, non-cultural racial attributes as well already, but they're not exactly numerous. Give me more of them and I'll be pretty happy about that. However, a good percentage of them will imply stereotypes just as much as ASIs do. Melee fighter? You'll be better at that with Relentless Endurance than without. Scout? Darkvision will make a massive difference. Unarmored caster? Guess you would really like some Natural Armor then. It doesn't matter if we're talking ASI or other racial quality - both imply stereotypes, and both imply a cost for stepping outside those stereotypes. The only way to avoid that is to drastically limit racial diversity and yes, for D&D that'd piss me off royally. I like explicit, fundamental, biological racial diversity in D&D. For me it won't be D&D without that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
They could totally avoid it without limiting diversity (in fact they would increase diversity). D&D is too hidebound to move to a proper mix-and-match trait system, though. Making ASIs float is a small step, that at least improves the situation. Complaining that it should be all-or-nothing is often a way to refuse any progress.
Floating ASIs increases diversity, by increasing available variation. Generally, increasing player options means they will come up with more diverse ideas.
1) Could you expand a bit on this?
2) Not diversity within races, diversity among races. Clear, defining differences between one race and the next, so elves aren't just aloof and graceful humans with pointy ears and dwarves aren't just stout and gruff humans with strong livers and a propensity for excessive facial hair.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Heh. Pointing out the irony of that statement, Pang. "Not diversity within races, diversity among races." Because the former just isn't important, ne? Doesn't matter if every single dwarf is an exact clone of every other dwarf, just so long as that legion of completely identical dwarves is markedly distinct from this other legion of completely identical elves?
Please do not contact or message me.