I'd like people's opinion about the options to customize your origins introduced in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything that allows a player to swap "Ability score increases" and proficiencies at character creation. I confess that I'm divided about it.
On one hand, from a gameplay standpoint, I get why it's a good idea, First, it simplifies character creation which can be a good or bad thing depending of the type of player (some like crunchy systems and others prefer simplier things) and second it allows more flexibility when you create your character. From a narrative standpoint, it also allows characters with more varied backgrounds (a dwarf who was not raised in a dwarvish culture shouldn't have the same proficiencies than a dwarf raised in a dwarvish culture). From an ethical standpoint, it also makes sense as it is more inclusive and goes against the (racist) cliché of "everyone from that race is the same". So, I get the idea behind it and I support everything that is inclusive and encourages diversity.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that I like it in game. I mean, it's fun to play a barbarian elf that relies on their strength and has dexterity and charisma as their lowest abilities. It's fun to play against type and this new rule, in a way doesn't allow it because there's no type anymore to play against. Choosing a race at character creation becomes a cosmetic choice that as few or no impact on the gameplay.
Personnally, I think I'll allow it, if it makes sense for the character created depending on their background but I'll still give the choice for a player to go for the "typical" choice. So what's your opinion about it ? Do you plan to use it in your future campaigns ?
Flexible ASI allow everyone to pick any races for other reasons than their ASI specifically, but i wouldn't say it becomes a cosmetic choice only since your race also have traits, which may or may not have some synergy with your class but that are mechanics beyong cosmetic.
Racial ASIs are now simply a game design flaw - they should be handled in character creation, not as part of racial statblocks, since there's no such thing as some species being stronger than others.
As a corollary, all playable races are now more similar - there's fundamentally no concept that this species is stronger but that species is more agile. Instead, we have this species is intrinsically superior (half-elves) and this species is intrinsically inferior (kobolds).
Racial proficiencies can no longer be used as a balancing mechanic - for example, Mountain Dwarves can't be forced to pay for their extra ability point by using up their racial foo on proficiencies rendered partially redundant by where their point goes, since most classes interested in Strength are already proficient in Light and Medium armor.
Note also that swapping proficiencies around doesn't distinguish between cultural proficiencies (such as Dwarves being trained in tool use) and ones explicitly intended to convey genetic predispositions (such as Elves having keen senses), but that's not a mechanical issue - I'm just emphasizing that it's a false premise that all racial proficiencies are cultural.
The net result is that game balance has shifted, with the set of optimal races for each class being very different now - sure, you can pick that race you wanted without worrying about your ASIs going in a direction you don't care about, but simultaneously, since no race has that concern, you have to concern yourself with all the non-swappable racial powers.
In particular, because Tasha's fails to let you dynamically assign what ability sets your save DCs when you dynamically assign your ASIs, and because different races have different amounts of swappable powers (namely proficiencies vs non-proficiencies), Tasha's benefits some races more than others.
Overall, I'm not really a fan - mostly it feels like an excuse for WOTC to put in less design work so we know less about their intended content, like dropping alignments from NPC statblocks. The benefits are strictly for power gamers - it's now easier to optimize a character and harder for the DM to enforce key aspects of world-building (e.g. Dwarves aren't any better at mining now than humans - they don't have the endurance they've been known for since Tolkien).
It's purely beneficial for the game. Giving players more choice about their character design and build can only be a good thing. Players are freed up to play Gnome Barbarians, Half-Orc Wizards, and whatever else they want to without feeling like they're building underpowered characters.
Racials ASI's just meant that there were 'correct' choices of race for players who wanted to max out their character builds. Those are majorly reduced with the changes in Tasha's.
The racial ASI's never really made much sense anyway. You can roll an 18 Strength for a gnome, and a 3 strength for a half-orc. The idea that it's important that half-orcs have a strength range of 5-20 instead of 3-18 to represent being stronger than gnomes is nonsensical from any kind of "realism" stand point (always roll my eyes at myself when discussing gnome-orc realism) anyway.
Being allowed to build characters with stats that the character might need does allow for variance (and therefore optimization) on the less important traits. But with such a higher floor, the differences between a mediocre (i.e. not intentionally bad) and an optimized character will be smaller than they would have been otherwise. You now have to weigh things like limited castings vs armor availability vs feats. Sure some of those things are great… in fact all of them are great and your decision is probably harder than it used to be, not easier.
I get what you and others are saying but it's only from the perspective of a player who is concerned with the relative power of their character.
Everyone plays as they like in a table that fits their gameplay style, but personally, I never cared if my character is over or underpowered. What interests me is the roleplay, how the character will interact for good or for bad with the world, not how their stats will mathematically make them "better". I would even say than it's more satisfying to accomplish a task with a character that is bad at this specific task.
Also your example of the gnome with an 18 strength and a orc with a 3 strength is not very revelant because it refers to extreme cases. Of course, it can happen and in that case the ASI poorly represent a racial superior strength attached to the orcs but the more likely case is that a character will have abilities without ASI ranging from 8 to 15 which means that with ASI your orc will have a strength somewhere between 10 and 17 while your gnome will only have between 8 and 15. It's in this medium range that ASI make a real difference.
My main concern is that (almost) every TTRPG tries to find ways for the gameplay and the narrative to intersect. and this change negates that. For instance in the World of Darkness games, at character creation you chose a Vice and a Virtue. These choices are just to encourage you to play your character in a certain way but to enforce it there is a mechanic that rewards you to play your character according to your virtue and vice (you regain willpower).
By removing racial ASI, I can still play a grumpy dwarf who's tough and good at mining if I want to but I gain no reward from it. If I want to play a scholar roguish dwarf, I can still do it... And I can even do it better than before because there's nothing that makes it more difficult.
(sorry, I'm not english so it's sometimes hard for me to say clearly what I mean).
I'd like people's opinion about the options to customize your origins introduced in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything that allows a player to swap "Ability score increases" and proficiencies at character creation. I confess that I'm divided about it.
On one hand, from a gameplay standpoint, I get why it's a good idea, First, it simplifies character creation which can be a good or bad thing depending of the type of player (some like crunchy systems and others prefer simplier things) and second it allows more flexibility when you create your character. From a narrative standpoint, it also allows characters with more varied backgrounds (a dwarf who was not raised in a dwarvish culture shouldn't have the same proficiencies than a dwarf raised in a dwarvish culture). From an ethical standpoint, it also makes sense as it is more inclusive and goes against the (racist) cliché of "everyone from that race is the same". So, I get the idea behind it and I support everything that is inclusive and encourages diversity.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that I like it in game. I mean, it's fun to play a barbarian elf that relies on their strength and has dexterity and charisma as their lowest abilities. It's fun to play against type and this new rule, in a way doesn't allow it because there's no type anymore to play against. Choosing a race at character creation becomes a cosmetic choice that as few or no impact on the gameplay.
Personnally, I think I'll allow it, if it makes sense for the character created depending on their background but I'll still give the choice for a player to go for the "typical" choice. So what's your opinion about it ? Do you plan to use it in your future campaigns ?
I was doing the flexible ASI thing in my campaign even before Tasha's came out -- everyone got a +2, and +1 and a -1 they could put wherever they wanted
Decoupling race from stats doesn't stop you from making a tough dwarf, a strong orc, a quick halfling etc. if that's what you want to play. It just gives you more options if you don't
The arguments against it make very little sense to me
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I get what you and others are saying but it's only from the perspective of a player who is concerned with the relative power of their character.
Everyone plays as they like in a table that fits their gameplay style, but personally, I never cared if my character is over or underpowered. What interests me is the roleplay, how the character will interact for good or for bad with the world, not how their stats will mathematically make them "better". I would even say than it's more satisfying to accomplish a task with a character that is bad at this specific task.
Also your example of the gnome with an 18 strength and a orc with a 3 strength is not very revelant because it refers to extreme cases. Of course, it can happen and in that case the ASI poorly represent a racial superior strength attached to the orcs but the more likely case is that a character will have abilities without ASI ranging from 8 to 15 which means that with ASI your orc will have a strength somewhere between 10 and 17 while your gnome will only have between 8 and 15. It's in this medium range that ASI make a real difference.
My main concern is that (almost) every TTRPG tries to find ways for the gameplay and the narrative to intersect. and this change negates that. For instance in the World of Darkness games, at character creation you chose a Vice and a Virtue. These choices are just to encourage you to play your character in a certain way but to enforce it there is a mechanic that rewards you to play your character according to your virtue and vice (you regain willpower).
By removing racial ASI, I can still play a grumpy dwarf who's tough and good at mining if I want to but I gain no reward from it. If I want to play a scholar roguish dwarf, I can still do it... And I can even do it better than before because there's nothing that makes it more difficult.
(sorry, I'm not english so it's sometimes hard for me to say clearly what I mean).
Your post initially states that you are not concerned about relative power of the character, and then finishes by saying that because of this change you don't gain rewards from playing a grumpy dwarf who is good at mining. Why would you be concerned about rewards if you are not interested in relative power levels?
I don't see any reason that the gameplay and narrative don't interact. I have never, ever seen anything to suggest that anyone had a better time roleplaying because their stats were increased one way at character creation rather than another.
Using the Tasha's ASIs, you can still create your character exactly as you did before, putting the stats into the slots that you think are appropriate for the race. Nobody loses anything by this: there are only gains for those that don't want to be conformed into a particular slot.
I'm playing a goliath at the moment. Goliaths are big and strong. They're big because... They're just big. They can't help it. But they're strong because their culture demands a lot of athleticism from them. They'll literally get exiled from their communities if they can't climb rocks fast enough. It's almost comical. I digress.
I don't need a built in bonus to Strength for that. What I need, if I'm making a goliath who fits into traditional goliath culture, is proficiency in Athletics. And they can get that!
I'm really not that interested in the idea of a race that's "naturally" stronger or weaker than others. I don't want to give any ground to eugenicists or racial supremacists in my fantasy storytelling, if I can help it. I don't want that kind of brain poison in me.
All the other arguments, while many are perfectly valid, aren't really the motivator for me. I just don't like the taste of it.
Anyway, your ability scores can demonstrably be increased with practice, so I don't really see the problem with extending that out to becoming an alternate explanation for racial ability score adjustments. Considering none of them give penalties anymore, you can just say "dwarf culture involves a lot of drinking and fighting, so most dwarves develop a Con bonus during their hundreds of years of life."
I'm really not that interested in the idea of a race that's "naturally" stronger or weaker than others. I don't want to give any ground to eugenicists or racial supremacists in my fantasy storytelling, if I can help it. I don't want that kind of brain poison in me.
I understand what you say and the example of your goliath makes sense.
But the part that of your answer that I'm quoting is maybe the crux of my problem.
First of all, let me say that I totally agree with your argument but I don't see the races in D&D from that perspective. There is an assumption (maybe enforced by past editions of the game) that the races of d&d are kinda analogs for "human races". But there is no plural in human race, there is just one race: human, that's it. And from that perspective it's stupid to suggest that some "type of humans" are "naturally" stronger or weaker than others.
But I don't see D&D races as analogs for so-called "human races". I see them really as different species and I'd compare them (including the humans) to animals more than to humans. And if you see it from that perspective, it's obvious that lions are stronger than squirrels (squirrels are better at climbing trees and hiding nuts but that's beside the point) and that has nothing to do with stupid racial supremacism, it's just a fact. And also from that perspective, I don't care if Loxodons are taller than humans or elves because human, elves and loxodons are different species.
This last point is also the reason why I'm not a big fan of half-elves and half-orcs. Their parents are from different species, they shouldn't be able to cross breed. It would be like a human cross breeding with a horse...it just doesn't work (and it's gross). On that point, one could argue that lions and tigers can cross breed (it's called ligers) like dogs and wolves can too but that's because they come from the same branch and nothing in d&d suggests that humans, elves and orcs (and the other major races for that matter) come from a common ancestral specie.
And to circle back to my point about racial ASIs, that's why they do not bother me. Differenct animal species have different traits. Dragonborns are different, that's cool, that's ok but that's just it, they're different. They're not superior or inferior, just different.
I like that the option is standardized and welcoming for players who want it, but honestly I find it more fun to play as a character that isn't perfectly optimized. So if I want to play as a Half-Orc Wizard, I'm just a wizard with unusually high STR and CON. I'm actually DM'ing a campaign with a player who went for Half-Orc as a wizard mostly for the Relentless Endurance feature... if you're going to rely on a D6 of HP and can't wear armor, you might as well be able to pop back up from Zero HP once per long rest. It's honestly saved her character more than once.
I'm really not that interested in the idea of a race that's "naturally" stronger or weaker than others. I don't want to give any ground to eugenicists or racial supremacists in my fantasy storytelling, if I can help it. I don't want that kind of brain poison in me.
You're gonna be pissed when you find out about Powerful Build then.
This last point is also the reason why I'm not a big fan of half-elves and half-orcs. Their parents are from different species, they shouldn't be able to cross breed. It would be like a human cross breeding with a horse...it just doesn't work (and it's gross). On that point, one could argue that lions and tigers can cross breed (it's called ligers) like dogs and wolves can too but that's because they come from the same branch and nothing in d&d suggests that humans, elves and orcs (and the other major races for that matter) come from a common ancestral specie.
There is no reason it couldn't be exactly the other way: The fact that half-elves and half-orcs exist is not an anomaly and shows that the humanoid races are in fact the same species. That they're called races in and of itself, rather than species, evokes real world race issues, and your view doesn't fix any of that. The authors tried to make a change for the betterment of the game in a different world than what it was written in even just a few years ago. That is how it should be.
This last point is also the reason why I'm not a big fan of half-elves and half-orcs. Their parents are from different species, they shouldn't be able to cross breed. It would be like a human cross breeding with a horse...it just doesn't work (and it's gross). On that point, one could argue that lions and tigers can cross breed (it's called ligers) like dogs and wolves can too but that's because they come from the same branch and nothing in d&d suggests that humans, elves and orcs (and the other major races for that matter) come from a common ancestral specie.
There is no reason it couldn't be exactly the other way: The fact that half-elves and half-orcs exist is not an anomaly and shows that the humanoid races are in fact the same species. That they're called races in and of itself, rather than species, evokes real world race issues, and your view doesn't fix any of that. The authors tried to make a change for the betterment of the game in a different world than what it was written in even just a few years ago. That is how it should be.
I never said it couldn't be exactly the other way.
Basically, I specifically said that you can view "races" in D&d as different branches of a same specie (Humanoids) OR you can view them as different species (personally, I prefer to see it that way but it's personal). And from that later perspective and only from that latter perspective, half-elves and half-orcs don't make much sense.
I also never said that viewing it from this perspective solves problems like racism, systemic or otherwise. If you want to address those themes in your campaign, you're still free to do so. If you want to ignore them because you're playing to have fun and don't want to address those controversials topics in your game, you're also free to do so.
Also, to circle back to the question of racial ASIs (because it's about d&d, not politics), seeing races in d&d as branches of a same specie makes racial ASIs problematic (and I think that's the main reason developers decided to get rid of it). But if you see races in d&d as different species, the racial ASIs make much more sense because different species have different characteristics that can translate into ASI and other capacities (like Darkvision or Draconic Ancestry, for instance).
For me, I don't really think about it being a global thing. I still like the idea that dwarves are still (across a population) generally more stout that other races, elves are more nimble, etc.
All the options do is make it so that that the character **you play** can be formed exactly as you wish. If I don't want to feel like I'm restricted by picking more dexterous races for my two-sword ranger, the optional rule means I don't have to be. I don't have to pick half-orc for my strength-build warrior; I can pick centaur because it's different and merely sounds fun.
That's why I like the optional rule. I don't view it as changing the races in the world. It really just changes my character. Allows for more mixing and matching without feeling like you have to give anything up on the numbers side of things. It's very freeing.
I also realize that when I've used it, I really only tend to change one of the stat bumps. I still generally feel obliged to adhere to the archetypes. My two cents.
Re: race vs species - All you're (plural) doing is kicking the can down the street with this. You're basically saying "in real life, race theorists are wrong... But what if they were right? Wouldn't that be fun to explore?" I find myself increasingly uninterested in playing the devil's advocate for backwards ideas as I grow older (and as I recognize my own position as a person who would suffer if certain bad ideas took hold more broadly). Obviously this exact path will not be the same for everyone, but I would urge you -- just once, because there's nothing to be gained from harping on it here -- to think about whether you want to give certain ideas a home in your head, and about what they might do while they're there. That's all I'll say about that.
To touch on a point I didn't really focus on, note that a character can, over the course of 20 levels, affect their ability scores by +10, which is five times as much as their racial ability score adjustment. In other words, the effect of effort already vastly overpowers the effect of race. I just don't see a lot of value in the latter when the former is so much more humanistic, more... Hopeful? And more reflective of how people work in real life, if you care about that sort of thing.
I like that the option is standardized and welcoming for players who want it, but honestly I find it more fun to play as a character that isn't perfectly optimized. So if I want to play as a Half-Orc Wizard, I'm just a wizard with unusually high STR and CON. I'm actually DM'ing a campaign with a player who went for Half-Orc as a wizard mostly for the Relentless Endurance feature... if you're going to rely on a D6 of HP and can't wear armor, you might as well be able to pop back up from Zero HP once per long rest. It's honestly saved her character more than once.
Doing "suboptimal" stuff can be fun -- I'm in a campaign right now where we rolled up our characters randomly (race/class/background), and I wound up with an orc rogue. I've learned first-hand that Aggressive is a pretty useful feature when fighting multiple enemies, if you want to stay at range
That said, you can still do that kind of thing with the Tasha's options too. Make a swole wizard if you want -- you aren't stuck picking a race like half-orc in order to pull it off
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Re: race vs species - All you're (plural) doing is kicking the can down the street with this. You're basically saying "in real life, race theorists are wrong... But what if they were right? Wouldn't that be fun to explore?" I find myself increasingly uninterested in playing the devil's advocate for backwards ideas as I grow older (and as I recognize my own position as a person who would suffer if certain bad ideas took hold more broadly). Obviously this exact path will not be the same for everyone, but I would urge you -- just once, because there's nothing to be gained from harping on it here -- to think about whether you want to give certain ideas a home in your head, and about what they might do while they're there. That's all I'll say about that.
+1
To touch on a point I didn't really focus on, note that a character can, over the course of 20 levels, affect their ability scores by +10, which is five times as much as their racial ability score adjustment. In other words, the effect of effort already vastly overpowers the effect of race. I just don't see a lot of value in the latter when the former is so much more humanistic, more... Hopeful? And more reflective of how people work in real life, if you care about that sort of thing.
The whole nature-vs-nurture thing is kinda the root of the problem with RPGs...even if it is a "classic" fantasy trope, it's just tired. It doesn't even make for good game mechanics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi !
I'd like people's opinion about the options to customize your origins introduced in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything that allows a player to swap "Ability score increases" and proficiencies at character creation. I confess that I'm divided about it.
On one hand, from a gameplay standpoint, I get why it's a good idea, First, it simplifies character creation which can be a good or bad thing depending of the type of player (some like crunchy systems and others prefer simplier things) and second it allows more flexibility when you create your character. From a narrative standpoint, it also allows characters with more varied backgrounds (a dwarf who was not raised in a dwarvish culture shouldn't have the same proficiencies than a dwarf raised in a dwarvish culture). From an ethical standpoint, it also makes sense as it is more inclusive and goes against the (racist) cliché of "everyone from that race is the same". So, I get the idea behind it and I support everything that is inclusive and encourages diversity.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that I like it in game. I mean, it's fun to play a barbarian elf that relies on their strength and has dexterity and charisma as their lowest abilities. It's fun to play against type and this new rule, in a way doesn't allow it because there's no type anymore to play against. Choosing a race at character creation becomes a cosmetic choice that as few or no impact on the gameplay.
Personnally, I think I'll allow it, if it makes sense for the character created depending on their background but I'll still give the choice for a player to go for the "typical" choice. So what's your opinion about it ? Do you plan to use it in your future campaigns ?
Flexible ASI allow everyone to pick any races for other reasons than their ASI specifically, but i wouldn't say it becomes a cosmetic choice only since your race also have traits, which may or may not have some synergy with your class but that are mechanics beyong cosmetic.
I am for the removal of stereotypes, so if that means there aren’t [stereo]types for me to play against, that’s fine.
Mostly what it does is:
Overall, I'm not really a fan - mostly it feels like an excuse for WOTC to put in less design work so we know less about their intended content, like dropping alignments from NPC statblocks. The benefits are strictly for power gamers - it's now easier to optimize a character and harder for the DM to enforce key aspects of world-building (e.g. Dwarves aren't any better at mining now than humans - they don't have the endurance they've been known for since Tolkien).
It's purely beneficial for the game. Giving players more choice about their character design and build can only be a good thing. Players are freed up to play Gnome Barbarians, Half-Orc Wizards, and whatever else they want to without feeling like they're building underpowered characters.
Racials ASI's just meant that there were 'correct' choices of race for players who wanted to max out their character builds. Those are majorly reduced with the changes in Tasha's.
The racial ASI's never really made much sense anyway. You can roll an 18 Strength for a gnome, and a 3 strength for a half-orc. The idea that it's important that half-orcs have a strength range of 5-20 instead of 3-18 to represent being stronger than gnomes is nonsensical from any kind of "realism" stand point (always roll my eyes at myself when discussing gnome-orc realism) anyway.
Being allowed to build characters with stats that the character might need does allow for variance (and therefore optimization) on the less important traits. But with such a higher floor, the differences between a mediocre (i.e. not intentionally bad) and an optimized character will be smaller than they would have been otherwise. You now have to weigh things like limited castings vs armor availability vs feats. Sure some of those things are great… in fact all of them are great and your decision is probably harder than it used to be, not easier.
I get what you and others are saying but it's only from the perspective of a player who is concerned with the relative power of their character.
Everyone plays as they like in a table that fits their gameplay style, but personally, I never cared if my character is over or underpowered. What interests me is the roleplay, how the character will interact for good or for bad with the world, not how their stats will mathematically make them "better". I would even say than it's more satisfying to accomplish a task with a character that is bad at this specific task.
Also your example of the gnome with an 18 strength and a orc with a 3 strength is not very revelant because it refers to extreme cases. Of course, it can happen and in that case the ASI poorly represent a racial superior strength attached to the orcs but the more likely case is that a character will have abilities without ASI ranging from 8 to 15 which means that with ASI your orc will have a strength somewhere between 10 and 17 while your gnome will only have between 8 and 15. It's in this medium range that ASI make a real difference.
My main concern is that (almost) every TTRPG tries to find ways for the gameplay and the narrative to intersect. and this change negates that. For instance in the World of Darkness games, at character creation you chose a Vice and a Virtue. These choices are just to encourage you to play your character in a certain way but to enforce it there is a mechanic that rewards you to play your character according to your virtue and vice (you regain willpower).
By removing racial ASI, I can still play a grumpy dwarf who's tough and good at mining if I want to but I gain no reward from it. If I want to play a scholar roguish dwarf, I can still do it... And I can even do it better than before because there's nothing that makes it more difficult.
(sorry, I'm not english so it's sometimes hard for me to say clearly what I mean).
Wait, what pre-Tasha’s used to reward playing a grumpy dwarf?
Also, there is a mechanic for playing your bonds/ideals/flaws. They’re just background related rather than racial.
I was doing the flexible ASI thing in my campaign even before Tasha's came out -- everyone got a +2, and +1 and a -1 they could put wherever they wanted
Decoupling race from stats doesn't stop you from making a tough dwarf, a strong orc, a quick halfling etc. if that's what you want to play. It just gives you more options if you don't
The arguments against it make very little sense to me
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Your post initially states that you are not concerned about relative power of the character, and then finishes by saying that because of this change you don't gain rewards from playing a grumpy dwarf who is good at mining. Why would you be concerned about rewards if you are not interested in relative power levels?
I don't see any reason that the gameplay and narrative don't interact. I have never, ever seen anything to suggest that anyone had a better time roleplaying because their stats were increased one way at character creation rather than another.
Using the Tasha's ASIs, you can still create your character exactly as you did before, putting the stats into the slots that you think are appropriate for the race. Nobody loses anything by this: there are only gains for those that don't want to be conformed into a particular slot.
I'm playing a goliath at the moment. Goliaths are big and strong. They're big because... They're just big. They can't help it. But they're strong because their culture demands a lot of athleticism from them. They'll literally get exiled from their communities if they can't climb rocks fast enough. It's almost comical. I digress.
I don't need a built in bonus to Strength for that. What I need, if I'm making a goliath who fits into traditional goliath culture, is proficiency in Athletics. And they can get that!
I'm really not that interested in the idea of a race that's "naturally" stronger or weaker than others. I don't want to give any ground to eugenicists or racial supremacists in my fantasy storytelling, if I can help it. I don't want that kind of brain poison in me.
All the other arguments, while many are perfectly valid, aren't really the motivator for me. I just don't like the taste of it.
Anyway, your ability scores can demonstrably be increased with practice, so I don't really see the problem with extending that out to becoming an alternate explanation for racial ability score adjustments. Considering none of them give penalties anymore, you can just say "dwarf culture involves a lot of drinking and fighting, so most dwarves develop a Con bonus during their hundreds of years of life."
I understand what you say and the example of your goliath makes sense.
But the part that of your answer that I'm quoting is maybe the crux of my problem.
First of all, let me say that I totally agree with your argument but I don't see the races in D&D from that perspective. There is an assumption (maybe enforced by past editions of the game) that the races of d&d are kinda analogs for "human races". But there is no plural in human race, there is just one race: human, that's it. And from that perspective it's stupid to suggest that some "type of humans" are "naturally" stronger or weaker than others.
But I don't see D&D races as analogs for so-called "human races". I see them really as different species and I'd compare them (including the humans) to animals more than to humans. And if you see it from that perspective, it's obvious that lions are stronger than squirrels (squirrels are better at climbing trees and hiding nuts but that's beside the point) and that has nothing to do with stupid racial supremacism, it's just a fact. And also from that perspective, I don't care if Loxodons are taller than humans or elves because human, elves and loxodons are different species.
This last point is also the reason why I'm not a big fan of half-elves and half-orcs. Their parents are from different species, they shouldn't be able to cross breed. It would be like a human cross breeding with a horse...it just doesn't work (and it's gross). On that point, one could argue that lions and tigers can cross breed (it's called ligers) like dogs and wolves can too but that's because they come from the same branch and nothing in d&d suggests that humans, elves and orcs (and the other major races for that matter) come from a common ancestral specie.
And to circle back to my point about racial ASIs, that's why they do not bother me. Differenct animal species have different traits. Dragonborns are different, that's cool, that's ok but that's just it, they're different. They're not superior or inferior, just different.
I like that the option is standardized and welcoming for players who want it, but honestly I find it more fun to play as a character that isn't perfectly optimized. So if I want to play as a Half-Orc Wizard, I'm just a wizard with unusually high STR and CON. I'm actually DM'ing a campaign with a player who went for Half-Orc as a wizard mostly for the Relentless Endurance feature... if you're going to rely on a D6 of HP and can't wear armor, you might as well be able to pop back up from Zero HP once per long rest. It's honestly saved her character more than once.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
You're gonna be pissed when you find out about Powerful Build then.
There is no reason it couldn't be exactly the other way: The fact that half-elves and half-orcs exist is not an anomaly and shows that the humanoid races are in fact the same species. That they're called races in and of itself, rather than species, evokes real world race issues, and your view doesn't fix any of that. The authors tried to make a change for the betterment of the game in a different world than what it was written in even just a few years ago. That is how it should be.
I never said it couldn't be exactly the other way.
Basically, I specifically said that you can view "races" in D&d as different branches of a same specie (Humanoids) OR you can view them as different species (personally, I prefer to see it that way but it's personal). And from that later perspective and only from that latter perspective, half-elves and half-orcs don't make much sense.
I also never said that viewing it from this perspective solves problems like racism, systemic or otherwise. If you want to address those themes in your campaign, you're still free to do so. If you want to ignore them because you're playing to have fun and don't want to address those controversials topics in your game, you're also free to do so.
Also, to circle back to the question of racial ASIs (because it's about d&d, not politics), seeing races in d&d as branches of a same specie makes racial ASIs problematic (and I think that's the main reason developers decided to get rid of it). But if you see races in d&d as different species, the racial ASIs make much more sense because different species have different characteristics that can translate into ASI and other capacities (like Darkvision or Draconic Ancestry, for instance).
For me, I don't really think about it being a global thing. I still like the idea that dwarves are still (across a population) generally more stout that other races, elves are more nimble, etc.
All the options do is make it so that that the character **you play** can be formed exactly as you wish. If I don't want to feel like I'm restricted by picking more dexterous races for my two-sword ranger, the optional rule means I don't have to be. I don't have to pick half-orc for my strength-build warrior; I can pick centaur because it's different and merely sounds fun.
That's why I like the optional rule. I don't view it as changing the races in the world. It really just changes my character. Allows for more mixing and matching without feeling like you have to give anything up on the numbers side of things. It's very freeing.
I also realize that when I've used it, I really only tend to change one of the stat bumps. I still generally feel obliged to adhere to the archetypes. My two cents.
Re: race vs species - All you're (plural) doing is kicking the can down the street with this. You're basically saying "in real life, race theorists are wrong... But what if they were right? Wouldn't that be fun to explore?" I find myself increasingly uninterested in playing the devil's advocate for backwards ideas as I grow older (and as I recognize my own position as a person who would suffer if certain bad ideas took hold more broadly). Obviously this exact path will not be the same for everyone, but I would urge you -- just once, because there's nothing to be gained from harping on it here -- to think about whether you want to give certain ideas a home in your head, and about what they might do while they're there. That's all I'll say about that.
To touch on a point I didn't really focus on, note that a character can, over the course of 20 levels, affect their ability scores by +10, which is five times as much as their racial ability score adjustment. In other words, the effect of effort already vastly overpowers the effect of race. I just don't see a lot of value in the latter when the former is so much more humanistic, more... Hopeful? And more reflective of how people work in real life, if you care about that sort of thing.
Doing "suboptimal" stuff can be fun -- I'm in a campaign right now where we rolled up our characters randomly (race/class/background), and I wound up with an orc rogue. I've learned first-hand that Aggressive is a pretty useful feature when fighting multiple enemies, if you want to stay at range
That said, you can still do that kind of thing with the Tasha's options too. Make a swole wizard if you want -- you aren't stuck picking a race like half-orc in order to pull it off
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
+1
The whole nature-vs-nurture thing is kinda the root of the problem with RPGs...even if it is a "classic" fantasy trope, it's just tired. It doesn't even make for good game mechanics.