If you think that it is bias to suggest that humans are not smarter than chimps, and as creatures age, they get physically weaker, and that female primates are physically weaker and smaller than the males of the species, then you may as well say gravity is bias and pseudoscience.
I was trying to avoid this flamewar, but I'm coming in to address this. It's been done before, but hopefully I can do it more effectively here.
Humans are "smarter" than chimpanzees and bonobos on average. Chimpanzees and other great apes can learn and "speak" sign language, invent new terms with it, and communicate effectively between each other and with us. The "dumbest" human is less intelligent than the smartest chimp.
I, and the others that agree with my opinion on this issue, have not been fighting to take away penalties from aging. This is a strawman argument and is irrelevant to this discussion. The reason that rules for aging aren't being published anymore is simply because it isn't useful enough to the game in general to need official publishing in one of the core rule books. There are more important things to be published, like rules for different races, classes, and spells.
Female primates are on average physically weaker in terms of muscle strength than a male of the same species. I, as a cisgender human male, have a genetic disorder known as EDS (Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome) that makes my muscles weaker than the average human, including the average female. There are also female humans that are much stronger than the average human male.
On average is the thing that you, Wren, and the rest of the bunch of you seem to be missing. PCs in D&D are not average. They have access to powers and features that the majority of the population of the world is incapable of getting. An NPC wizard doesn't have access to Arcane Recovery. Orcs don't have Powerful Build listed in their stat block. This is because PCs are not average. They are exceptional. The average Hobbit-Joe may be physically weaker than the average Orc-Joe, but PCs are not average, and are thus not constrained by the outdated, restrictive +2, +1 racial ASIs that the vast majority of the rest of the world's inhabitants are restricted to. However, that is not to say that they are completely free to have whatever powers they want to take willy-nilly. That Hobbit-Joe PC will still have disadvantage on attack rolls with heavy weapons, and that Orc-Joe will be able to carry twice as much as the halfling could with the same STR score.
The point isn't "realistic averages" it is "interesting exceptions".
And you know what the +2 Str, +1 Con represents in the Orc species? It represents the AVERAGE attributes in a species. Then there is the 27 point buy to allocate points to the "interesting exceptions" in a species. That goes across the board for ALL species in the game. There is zero reason to alter the base attributes for any species because the 27 point buy takes care of any exceptions.
Did you not read my post? PCs aren't average, and thus should not be constrained by the averages of the race/species.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Did you not read my post? PCs aren't average, and thus should not be constrained by the averages of the race/species.
I don't think a pair of ability bonuses is particularly constraining.
Then how is it defining to the races? If a +2 to Strength is a main defining characteristic of the Orc species, how is that not constraining? It's a double-sided coin. If a +2 bonus is required to make orcs feel like orcs than a character is constrained to that stereotype.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Did you not read my post? PCs aren't average, and thus should not be constrained by the averages of the race/species.
I don't think a pair of ability bonuses is particularly constraining.
Then how is it defining to the races? If a +2 to Strength is a main defining characteristic of the Orc species, how is that not constraining? It's a double-sided coin. If a +2 bonus is required to make orcs feel like orcs than a character is constrained to that stereotype.
A +2 Str means the racial minimum is 10 instead of 8. How is that constraining? What are you prevented from playing by this +2?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Did you not read my post? PCs aren't average, and thus should not be constrained by the averages of the race/species.
I don't think a pair of ability bonuses is particularly constraining.
They aren't exactly defining either, thus there isn't a reason to keep them.
The defining characteristics of D&D races are and should be the non numerical traits such as Fey Ancestry, Dwarven Resilience, Powerful Build, Relentless Endurance, etc.
Lineage is a chance to restructure and rebalance the classic Races around those abilities instead of 3 stat points.
If you are going too say “hey, let’s make it so that PC 1/2lings. can be stronger than the averting 1/2ling” then you should be able to say “hey, let’s make it so that PC 1/2 Orcs can be stronger than the average 1/2 Orc.” If you can say that, then a PC 1/2 Orc should be able to reach a degree of strength that a PC 1/2ling can’t.
I dont like the Tasha's changes (Same as most people I think). They were ham fisted and lazy. I think it would have been better to add stats to backgrounds instead so that anyone could be anything (I think JoelTheWalrus mad an amazing thread about it) without the races feeling bland, but the change was needed. The problem was if you wanted to play say a super smart orc, or a super strong halfling, you couldn't or you would be behind the other str based characters.
Also I think it is so stupid for people to be saying 'you cant bend physics' in a fantasy game....Its a fantasy game
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Did you not read my post? PCs aren't average, and thus should not be constrained by the averages of the race/species.
I don't think a pair of ability bonuses is particularly constraining.
They aren't exactly defining either, thus there isn't a reason to keep them.
The defining characteristics of D&D races are and should be the non numerical traits such as Fey Ancestry, Dwarven Resilience, Powerful Build, Relentless Endurance, etc.
Lineage is a chance to restructure and rebalance the classic Races around those abilities instead of 3 stat points.
I've seen a few too many arguments about bio-essentialism made to buy the non-defining argument this easily. There certainly appear to be players on the remove floating ASIs side of the argument precisely because these bonuses are defining.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Did you not read my post? PCs aren't average, and thus should not be constrained by the averages of the race/species.
I don't think a pair of ability bonuses is particularly constraining.
They aren't exactly defining either, thus there isn't a reason to keep them.
The defining characteristics of D&D races are and should be the non numerical traits such as Fey Ancestry, Dwarven Resilience, Powerful Build, Relentless Endurance, etc.
Lineage is a chance to restructure and rebalance the classic Races around those abilities instead of 3 stat points.
I've seen a few too many arguments about bio-essentialism made to buy the non-defining argument this easily. There certainly appear to be players on the remove floating ASIs side of the argument precisely because these bonuses are defining.
My point is that Stat Bonuses as a way to define character Races/Lineages is limited and uninteresting compared to actual Race/Lineage abilities. This also applies to Cultural skills and abilities in my opinion. Removing them from Race forces them to be more creative when publishing future Lineages since they can't rely on "just give them a +2 to X and a couple of free Skills and call it a day".
My point is that Stat Bonuses as a way to define character Races/Lineages is limited and uninteresting compared to actual Race/Lineage abilities. This also applies to Cultural skills and abilities in my opinion. Removing them from Race forces them to be more creative when publishing future Lineages since they can't rely on "just give them a +2 to X and a couple of free Skills and call it a day".
Sure, I like this rationale. However, there's quite a bit of extra context to unpack here.
For one, there isn't a whole lot left if you remove ASIs and cultural abilities from the current races. They'd really need a bit more to set them apart, I think. Which begs the question of how - whether it'd be racial backgrounds or feats or something else, that'd need to be created. Tying into that, players will presumably still want some cultural background options. I'm fine with divorcing those from race (or better, make them modular enough so players can easily remove whatever the racial standard is and replace it with whatever suits them better), but that's more design work to be done.
For another, for the people who want to do away with fixed ASIs because those (according to them) are a bit too predeterministic towards what classes these races are suited to the same would arguably have to apply to actual race/lineage abilities. The bio-essentialism argument would still apply. I personally don't have a problem with it (and I'm not going to rehash it here), but if that's the case why not keep the ASIs? Why not go with more instead of less and give races a broader suite of abilities, so they'd have one or two things for several different classes?
All of this seems like a great conversation to be had for a new edition, but kind of a big mess to put into practice in the middle of this one. Much easier for now to go with Tasha's approach and highlight that the rules as written aren't a straightjacket. You want something different? Run it by your DM, work something out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Recommend disengaging, Ken. Your heart's in the right place, but this is something like the thirtieth thread in which the same four or five guys hold the same stance that any modernization of the game is tantamount to brand murder and Ruining D&D Forever. People have been arguing with the same squad of nay-saying gatekeepers since Tasha's Cauldron was announced. All those threads end the same way - people *****ing about D&D they don't like, mods locking threads, and infraction points for everybody.
Nobody'll ever convince these people the sky isn't falling.
I’d just like to point out three things
1.) WotC might be watching
2.) I created this thread. I’ve not discussed this topic elsewhere
3.) Except for one snide comment aimed at me which I largely ignored, I’ve not seen any flaming or flame baiting going on here
1) Ha. No they're not. Even if they were, they wouldn't care about just a handful or two of people bickering on the internet and have made up their minds on this topic already.
3) I would call Vince saying "people who have no interest in D&D" flame baiting. I would call you saying "what I’m looking for is somebody who believes this new way of doing races is a good idea" flame baiting. You have been provided tons of threads representing both sides of people on this issue. Asking for more is flame baiting.
1.) Your tone is unnecessarily hostile. That hostility adds nothing constructive to the conversation and risks taking away quite a lot. I will act as that hostility is a momentary lapse in good judgement on your part and ignore it. I have seen polls on other threads. Based on those polls, the majority of people do not like getting rid of racial ability score adjustments.
2.) If you had read the post you link to, you would see that it makes no mention of racial ability adjustments. It is a post about the cultural symbolism of the colors black and white. I’m sure your linking to it was just carelessness and not an attempt to lie.
3.) Your highly peculiar and idiosyncratic definition of “flame baiting” serves some purpose, I’m sure. I’m equally sure that you and I will disagree as to what that purpose is.
Did you not read my post? PCs aren't average, and thus should not be constrained by the averages of the race/species.
I don't think a pair of ability bonuses is particularly constraining.
They aren't exactly defining either, thus there isn't a reason to keep them.
The defining characteristics of D&D races are and should be the non numerical traits such as Fey Ancestry, Dwarven Resilience, Powerful Build, Relentless Endurance, etc.
Lineage is a chance to restructure and rebalance the classic Races around those abilities instead of 3 stat points.
I've seen a few too many arguments about bio-essentialism made to buy the non-defining argument this easily. There certainly appear to be players on the remove floating ASIs side of the argument precisely because these bonuses are defining.
My point is that Stat Bonuses as a way to define character Races/Lineages is limited and uninteresting compared to actual Race/Lineage abilities. This also applies to Cultural skills and abilities in my opinion. Removing them from Race forces them to be more creative when publishing future Lineages since they can't rely on "just give them a +2 to X and a couple of free Skills and call it a day".
Isn’t that based on a flawed premise though?
It seems to presume that there is an option where races are distinguished only by their racial ability adjustments. No one has ever argued for that.
I think you miss understand me. I am not saying that anyone here or else where it arguing that race is ONLY distinguished by racial ability adjustments. I am arguing that the ability adjustments shouldn't be used as a measure at all. It is limited and uninspired. You take away the stat adjustments and cultural abilities and what you are left with is a very small set of racial abilities that took any real thought to make. I am making a comment on the previous design philosophy of WotC and how they seem to be moving into a more interesting direction.
Okay, I understand better. But, I still don’t understand the basis for you putting, for example, ability score adjustments and dark vision into two different categories of racial characteristics.
The combination of numbers between 6 stats is very limited so not a very good way to make anything feel unique. Dark Vision is not really a good example of a creative Racial Ability and giving it to pretty much everyone is lazy design in my opinion. I am hoping for more abilities like Stone's Endurance, Draconic Ancestry, or Feline Agility. Things that are bit more unique and really set one race apart from another.
The combination of numbers between 6 stats is very limited so not a very good way to make anything feel unique. Dark Vision is not really a good example of a creative Racial Ability and giving it to pretty much everyone is lazy design in my opinion. I am hoping for more abilities like Stone's Endurance, Draconic Ancestry, or Feline Agility. Things that are bit more unique and really set one race apart from another.
I can’t even begin to understand your argument. You are making this an either / or proposition. There’s nothing preventing having Stone’s Endurance AND a racial ability mod.
I’m sorry, but it is incredulous to assert that a 3 1/2ft tall, 40 lb (when soaking wet) halfling race has the same strength spread as 1/2 Orcs. And even though much Dwarf strength comes from culture, it is absurd to simply deny the affect of evolution on attributes.
Just so we're clear, we're talking about a world that has magic, dragons, demons, and floating eyeballs and you're complaining about questionable science?
Also to be clear, you've defined halflings as merely being small humans, rather than small dwarves who shave?
This whole argument is ridiculous in the fantasy context.
How do giants stand up without breaking their legs? How do dragons fly with those comparatively puny wings? How does a Beholder float? How do Orcs and Humans produce off-spring? If there's a human/Orc hybrid and a Human/Elf hybrid, where's the Orc/Elf hybrid? Where are the halfling/human hybrids?
Does evolution even exist in a fantasy world where gods create species from whole cloth? How can wizards polymorph? How can druids wild shape?
Here's the secret: it's all made up. It's not real. It doesn't have to follow our physical laws because "magic".
WotC already decided that ability score adjustments and cultural abilities will not be part of the design going forward. I don't need to argue either or. That ship has sailed. I am simply pointing out that given the change in design philosophy, WotC needs to lean into well thought out race/lineage abilities in future publications. It is a change that I think will lead to far more interesting and meaningful choices in character creation.
I am new to Beyond but seems that the whole ASI is as controversial here as other areas.
I do not get it myself but it does appear to be a sore spot. I thought making it an option was a good idea so DMs could do what they want with the system.
I asked my players what they wanted to do and they chose to use them and we have been having fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Did you not read my post? PCs aren't average, and thus should not be constrained by the averages of the race/species.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I don't think a pair of ability bonuses is particularly constraining.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Then how is it defining to the races? If a +2 to Strength is a main defining characteristic of the Orc species, how is that not constraining? It's a double-sided coin. If a +2 bonus is required to make orcs feel like orcs than a character is constrained to that stereotype.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
A +2 Str means the racial minimum is 10 instead of 8. How is that constraining? What are you prevented from playing by this +2?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
They aren't exactly defining either, thus there isn't a reason to keep them.
The defining characteristics of D&D races are and should be the non numerical traits such as Fey Ancestry, Dwarven Resilience, Powerful Build, Relentless Endurance, etc.
Lineage is a chance to restructure and rebalance the classic Races around those abilities instead of 3 stat points.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
If you are going too say “hey, let’s make it so that PC 1/2lings. can be stronger than the averting 1/2ling” then you should be able to say “hey, let’s make it so that PC 1/2 Orcs can be stronger than the average 1/2 Orc.” If you can say that, then a PC 1/2 Orc should be able to reach a degree of strength that a PC 1/2ling can’t.
I dont like the Tasha's changes (Same as most people I think). They were ham fisted and lazy. I think it would have been better to add stats to backgrounds instead so that anyone could be anything (I think JoelTheWalrus mad an amazing thread about it) without the races feeling bland, but the change was needed. The problem was if you wanted to play say a super smart orc, or a super strong halfling, you couldn't or you would be behind the other str based characters.
Also I think it is so stupid for people to be saying 'you cant bend physics' in a fantasy game....Its a fantasy game
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I've seen a few too many arguments about bio-essentialism made to buy the non-defining argument this easily. There certainly appear to be players on the remove floating ASIs side of the argument precisely because these bonuses are defining.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Just posting before the thread lock.
My point is that Stat Bonuses as a way to define character Races/Lineages is limited and uninteresting compared to actual Race/Lineage abilities. This also applies to Cultural skills and abilities in my opinion. Removing them from Race forces them to be more creative when publishing future Lineages since they can't rely on "just give them a +2 to X and a couple of free Skills and call it a day".
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Sure, I like this rationale. However, there's quite a bit of extra context to unpack here.
For one, there isn't a whole lot left if you remove ASIs and cultural abilities from the current races. They'd really need a bit more to set them apart, I think. Which begs the question of how - whether it'd be racial backgrounds or feats or something else, that'd need to be created. Tying into that, players will presumably still want some cultural background options. I'm fine with divorcing those from race (or better, make them modular enough so players can easily remove whatever the racial standard is and replace it with whatever suits them better), but that's more design work to be done.
For another, for the people who want to do away with fixed ASIs because those (according to them) are a bit too predeterministic towards what classes these races are suited to the same would arguably have to apply to actual race/lineage abilities. The bio-essentialism argument would still apply. I personally don't have a problem with it (and I'm not going to rehash it here), but if that's the case why not keep the ASIs? Why not go with more instead of less and give races a broader suite of abilities, so they'd have one or two things for several different classes?
All of this seems like a great conversation to be had for a new edition, but kind of a big mess to put into practice in the middle of this one. Much easier for now to go with Tasha's approach and highlight that the rules as written aren't a straightjacket. You want something different? Run it by your DM, work something out.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1.) Your tone is unnecessarily hostile. That hostility adds nothing constructive to the conversation and risks taking away quite a lot. I will act as that hostility is a momentary lapse in good judgement on your part and ignore it.
I have seen polls on other threads. Based on those polls, the majority of people do not like getting rid of racial ability score adjustments.
2.) If you had read the post you link to, you would see that it makes no mention of racial ability adjustments. It is a post about the cultural symbolism of the colors black and white. I’m sure your linking to it was just carelessness and not an attempt to lie.
3.) Your highly peculiar and idiosyncratic definition of “flame baiting” serves some purpose, I’m sure. I’m equally sure that you and I will disagree as to what that purpose is.
Isn’t that based on a flawed premise though?
It seems to presume that there is an option where races are distinguished only by their racial ability adjustments. No one has ever argued for that.
I think you miss understand me. I am not saying that anyone here or else where it arguing that race is ONLY distinguished by racial ability adjustments. I am arguing that the ability adjustments shouldn't be used as a measure at all. It is limited and uninspired. You take away the stat adjustments and cultural abilities and what you are left with is a very small set of racial abilities that took any real thought to make. I am making a comment on the previous design philosophy of WotC and how they seem to be moving into a more interesting direction.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Okay, I understand better. But, I still don’t understand the basis for you putting, for example, ability score adjustments and dark vision into two different categories of racial characteristics.
The combination of numbers between 6 stats is very limited so not a very good way to make anything feel unique. Dark Vision is not really a good example of a creative Racial Ability and giving it to pretty much everyone is lazy design in my opinion. I am hoping for more abilities like Stone's Endurance, Draconic Ancestry, or Feline Agility. Things that are bit more unique and really set one race apart from another.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I can’t even begin to understand your argument. You are making this an either / or proposition. There’s nothing preventing having Stone’s Endurance AND a racial ability mod.
Just so we're clear, we're talking about a world that has magic, dragons, demons, and floating eyeballs and you're complaining about questionable science?
Also to be clear, you've defined halflings as merely being small humans, rather than small dwarves who shave?
This whole argument is ridiculous in the fantasy context.
How do giants stand up without breaking their legs? How do dragons fly with those comparatively puny wings? How does a Beholder float? How do Orcs and Humans produce off-spring? If there's a human/Orc hybrid and a Human/Elf hybrid, where's the Orc/Elf hybrid? Where are the halfling/human hybrids?
Does evolution even exist in a fantasy world where gods create species from whole cloth? How can wizards polymorph? How can druids wild shape?
Here's the secret: it's all made up. It's not real. It doesn't have to follow our physical laws because "magic".
WotC already decided that ability score adjustments and cultural abilities will not be part of the design going forward. I don't need to argue either or. That ship has sailed. I am simply pointing out that given the change in design philosophy, WotC needs to lean into well thought out race/lineage abilities in future publications. It is a change that I think will lead to far more interesting and meaningful choices in character creation.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I am new to Beyond but seems that the whole ASI is as controversial here as other areas.
I do not get it myself but it does appear to be a sore spot. I thought making it an option was a good idea so DMs could do what they want with the system.
I asked my players what they wanted to do and they chose to use them and we have been having fun.