Hence my use of the words "bridge too far" vs "a step in the wrong direction". Obviously being 10 ft tall and purple is extreme. The point is not.
We each have visions of what it means to be a mountain dwarf. For me that includes being a bit hardier and stronger in general than your average human. For you it doesn't. I think ability score modifiers are one of the handful of things that distinguish one race and sub-race from another; a difference that is magnified by typical player choice of race and class combinations.
I think the game loses more than it gains from this change.
As for the rest, typical twisting of my words into knots to make them into something they're not. Have a good one.
I try to have good ones. They come rarely.
I wonder then what you meant by "Huh. Here I thought mountain dwarves got a +2 to strength and hill dwarves got a +1 to wisdom because that's what the PHB told us they got.
Also, that they're fantasy made up races and can be just about anything."
I mean, I see two points here. They are because they are (a tautology) and They are fantasy races, so they can be anything (with an implied, "so it doesn't matter")
Now you are trying to say that it is because it makes dwarves hardier and stronger than the typical human, but that goes against your words above. Then there are reasons beyond "because the book said so"
You also try to say that part of the races identity is tied into the typical classes people play them as... which is the exact opposite of what I want. I don't want things segregated like that, I find it boring to constantly see half-orc barbarians. It is tedious, and leaves large swaths of their potential as a race untouched. Not mechanically, but in the story.
But at this point, you will just keep shifting the reasons, and repeating that your objection is because you fear for the game losing something. Something that you can't even show existed in the first place, because you seem to have no clear basis to argue from.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a
Two things: rules are changed to make things easier. That is exactly what I said. When things become easier, mechanics become easier to exploit. ie. Min/maxers. Two - I have never equated min/maxers to not caring about story or lore. I just see them bending lore in order achieve their build; which is almost inevitably, a combination of things that when added, make them stronger than what they could achieve with a prior build.
Easier than just saying "I want to play a Gith"? Easier than playing a Rogue and saying "I want to play a high elf"?
There is a concept of diminishing returns. A change that has an effect has less and less of an effect the more the change is repeated.
These builds were already so easy that making them even easier is like throwing water balloons at the people in the Sea World Splash Zone. Sure. you are objectively adding more water to the situation, but it isn't like anyone is really going to notice getting any wetter.
A DM's world is built around the exceptional, not the common. Think of Thanksgiving dinner. The common is like the silverware, plates, bowls, tablecloth, etc. on a dinner table. The exceptional is the turkey, gravy, cranberries, etc. The exceptional are also the PC's. And what they build sits on that table. So when a build is made of sushi, and placed on the table. Yeah, it is good. But then someone else brings kangaroo steaks. Which are good. And another brings crab legs. Which are good. But now the common stuff seems out of place (at least to the DM) because they wanted Thanksgiving dinner.
This is an incredibly poor analogy. Because, this rule doesn't make playing a Dwarf Wizard possible, it makes it potentially mechanically equal to playing a Gnome Wizard. In the stats the DM will see the least.
So, if a Dwarf Wizard is crab legs, those are already at the table. Have been since you set down the first 5e plate.
And, Thanksgiving is vastly different for different people. My Thanksgiving traditonal meals are likely not everyone's (in fact I would say there are at least three dishes I can think of off the top of my head you did not include). So, this myth you have constructed is already false. There is no "common meal" for everyone to agree on at their own house. And, every campaign "table" has unique flavors anyways.
What this analogy really seems to say is that my crab legs aren't welcome at your table. Which is fine, I have my own table, but I don't see why you need to condemn the recipe book just because it offers things you don't consider "traditional"
A DM can do anything. Correct. But it doesn't make it right. There is a logic, even in a fantasy world. When it is broken, via player or DM or lore or mechanics, it interrupts the process to enjoy the game for some. There are many examples of this: the infusion of playable races, the negation of weight when discussing strength, the rules lawyer that insists a single word means exactly what they think it means, and a DM that sets encounters up that always specifically negate the heroes' strengths (example: most bad guys can see invisibility or have damage resistance against the hero's usual damage type.)
So yes, a DM can do it. But, when the Thanksgiving's table begins to get crowded by the exceptional, and it doesn't match, it does not matter what the DM changes. The Thanksgiving table with its silly sage gravy boat and sausage-apple stuffing pan is changed because the palate alters what it tastes based on the previous flavor in its mouth. And if it sushi, the stuffing might not go over so well.
LOL, really? Wow, appeals to internal logic.
Fair enough. People are diverse, they have a very diverse set of circumstances, genetics, preferences, ect that lead to them being very different people.
They can also be trained to change their physical body or their mind a lot. I am not a strong man now, but if I spent six years on an intense gym work out, I'd likely be much much much stronger. People can train themselves to address a large variety of different tasks with increased awareness, charm, or intellect.
Dwarves and Elves are people. Not human, sure, but people nonetheless, so a Dwarf or an Elf could do the same thing.
And, finally, no one sees me roll for stats for an NPC. I don't decide to make the captain of the guard, then pull out my 4d6, roll them and drop the lowest six times, assigning those scores. I also don't use point buy to build the Guard Captain. If I even decide the Captain has stats at all, I just assign them the stats that make sense for them. I actually, in fact, look at their role in the story and assign them the stats that make sense for that role. Relying on Internal Logic.
So, my Tiefling Guard Captain, who has fought and struggled to be accepted by the people, became a hero by fighting for those who hated him during a Goblin Raid and trains constantly to keep in shape and be a good example for his men, can have a strength of 16. No one at the table is going to call me on it (if they even know) because it makes perfect sense that that guy would be pretty dang strong. He isn't breaking the bounds of realism, and his story matches with his stats.
But, he would not be creatable by point buy or standard array per the PHB.
In fact, most NPC statblocks can't be made with point buy, either being too low or too high. So... what realism am I breaking? That a man who trains every day to increase his strength is strong? That a Guard captain is stronger, tougher, smarter, more observant and charismatic than a potato farmer?
And yes, I made them better at almost everything. But, so does the monster manual. Look at the CR 2 Bandit Captain.
Str: 15 Dex: 16 Con: 14 Int: 14 Wis: 11 Cha: 14
Since I can add racial modifiers to that, I know that that is before racial mods, so what would it take to purchase this as a Point Buy? 44 points by my math. Nearly double the Point Buy value.
But, this isn't a problem, because there is a logic to the fantasy world, and this does not break that logic.
So, the DM assigning the scores he needs won't either.
That is the point many have made. Let's make it easier for this elf to have this. But, and here is what the other side keeps saying: You can have your elf learn oratory skills. They can be intelligent wise. You can do it right from the start. You can point buy them a 15 intelligence wisdom. That is way above the average. You can do this in the rules as they are written in the PHB. No need to change anything.
But wait... what do I hear? The war horn of someone...
who...
wants...
a...
16 to start with.
See. It goes both ways, which is why I am not taking a side. I am simply answering your question. You can have exactly what you ask for, a high score in any attribute. But, the average PC's chosen race is set up with strengths. One that says: when a PC chooses this race, the race is +X better than the other races.
Now if you do not like that, that is okay. You can just have the DM create a house rule that negates this and change the point buy to where players can reach 16 or 18 or 20.
But for some reason that doesn't sit as well. Not with me. Not with you (I am guessing). Not with a lot of people.
Honestly, it was something I often considered doing. Instead, most people rolled, and we instituted rules for dealing with low rolls, and basically just tried to get higher than the array or point buy.
But, that house rule you propose.... It wouldn't be any different in practice than this optional Tasha's rule. And if nothing changes... why would people be for that if they are against this?
I never said they would make a race less special. I said it will decrease the amount of rare race/class combinations because it removes the negative for the players that must have a "strong" character build.
I was pulling in some issues other posters have had.
And, if making rare things more common is the effect, again, that is exactly what I want. And I don't see how that hurts the game.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bugbears are like 7-8' tall humanoids who tend to be depicted as incredibly thick boys. If any race in all the game smaller than an Ogre is going to have a strength modifier, it is them.
The fact that they are super stealthy and rely on ambush is not convincing to me that they are good at juggling, tumbling, picking pockets, dodging poisoned darts, shooting bows, fighting with daggers or literally anything else remotely associated with Dexterity.
Everything about them still says they are just as big and clumsy as a bear with big mitts for hands that lack any real manual dexterity, but can probably wrap around your head and crush it like an orange.
It simply indicates to me that perhaps the presumption that Dexterity is not at all the be-all, end-all to dictate one's ability to be stealthy. That maybe there should be an option to substitute in other attributes for certain skills where and when appropriate. Maybe Bugbear's Stealth should instead by dictated by their Wisdom-- or maybe it should be a general rule that one can substitute Survival for Stealth when sneaking around in the wilderness.
So you want to completely avoid the question by changing how Bugbears deal with stealth, instead of acknowledging that your stereotypical bugbear is said to be good at both Dex and Strength.
I mean, make things more complicated if you want man, but that seems to be an entirely seperate discussion and ignores the point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same reason applies to both of them. They are big and strong first and foremost, stealthy and charismatic second. Bugbears may like to try and sneak, but it's their size and muscles that win the day. Go look at Dragon stats. They are among the most charismatic creatures, yet their strength dwarfs their charisma. Dragonborn are no different.
Dragonborn aren't dragons, so why would I look to Dragon Stats? And Dragons may be stronger than they are charismatic, but they are in fact known for being exceptional in just about all stats.
But, it is late and I am over an hour late to bed, and I can see that you are really just applying arbitrary standards. Bugbears have an ability literally tied to them fighting best from an ambush, but you want to say that their muscles win the day, because they are big.
And sure, maybe they are big and strong. And so are Orcs, And Goliaths, and Firbolgs, and Minotaurs, and the list goes on.
And under your ruling they would all... be the exact same. +2 Strength, +2 floating. You've done the exact same thing that you were complaining Tasha's does. Reducing races to being mechanically identical. Only, instead of making everyone based off one set, you made six sets. Well, Five. No one is likely to get Wisdom as their primary unless you decide that Firbolgs aren't big and strong. Which, they should be, I mean, look at Giants. They are very strong.
So, you are doing the same thing, just not comitting all the way to it. And I guess if that makes you happy, follow your Bliss, but I don't see how you can accuse other tables of making their characters too samey when you are going to do the exact same thing.
