D&D (2024) (+) New Edition Changes for Inclusivity (discuss possibilities)

[Cadence]

Why do they need a bigger bonus? Ape's are strength 16, they are already as strong as a Gorilla.

Ok, now I'm wondering why the 5e MM only give Apes a 16 STR and PF gives it a 15.

And honestly, gnomes and halflings would already be insane to witness in real life. Strength 12 isn't unreasonable with the standard array. It lets you carry 180lbs. Your typical gnome or halfling weighs 40lbs. They are capable of carrying four times their body weight without struggle. Up to nine times if they push. They can leap nearly four times their own height.

Good points, thanks. I hadn't looked at the 5e encumbrance rules before. I would never have guessed they would set the no-penalty default carrying capacity to 15 x STR, and then hae the optional encumbrance rule be encumered at 5x and heavily encumbered at 10x...

I guess the ship on worry about STR and size in 5e already sailed, and I missed seeing it go.

3.5/PF had the 3/4 multiplier and a lower limit. The halfling with a 12 str in PF would have only 32 pounds for light load, 64 for medium, and 97 for heavy. They'd need to have a 25 to carry 180 pounds with no penalty at all.

And this seems "looney toons" because you are picturing a 1st grade child, but it isn't a first grade child, it is a grown adult with wiry musculature who is just as agile and cooridinated as a human.

I actually started by picturing the hobbits in the LotR movie and went from there. 5e Samwise doesn't really even need poor Bill.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Ok, now I'm wondering why the 5e MM only give Apes a 16 STR and PF gives it a 15.

Short answer: because the strength of all things in the universe capable of exerting force must fit on a scale of 1-30, with a modifier range of -5 to +10. Therefore, a strength check with a DC of 12 to 15 can be passed by the weakest creature in the universe and failed by the strongest god.

But humans need to fill the entire 3-18 part of the scale. Meaning very few creatures in the setting can be weaker than a human, and never by much.

In other words, don't think about it too hard. It's not worth it.

 

[Cadence]

You [ @FrogReaver ] have to remember, he doesn't believe that he has to back up his claims. That's your job..........in a library.

There have been many people on here that have been in favor of being more inclusive, but either not for getting rid of all racial mods or not thinking it was necessary. There seemed to have been a consensus in past threads that the biggest problem might just be the language used to describe them (mimicking racists of the late 1800s and early 1900s). Have there even been 2 posters that would get rid of all differences between the races in terms of mechanics?

Assuming you've been reading the various threads you've regularly posted in since the Orc/OA ones started, you saw that there's that wide range of views among those pushing for inclusivity. I can go dig up the posts with that where I @'ed folks in particular with some of these points.

I am guessing that @doctorbadwolf has been following along as well for a while and also assumes you've been reading the things in the threads that you regularly reply in. In that case I don't find his statement impolite.

 

[Derren]

All people are equal.

All humans are equal, but in D&D you are not dealing with just humans.

 

[FrogReaver]

There have been many people on here that have been in favor of being more inclusive, but either not for getting rid of all racial mods or not thinking it was necessary. There seemed to have been a consensus in past threads that the biggest problem might just be the language used to describe them (mimicking racists of the late 1800s and early 1900s). Have there even been 2 posters that would get rid of all differences between the races in terms of mechanics?

Assuming you've been reading the various threads you've regularly posted in since the Orc/OA ones started, you saw that there's that wide range of views among those pushing for inclusivity. I can go dig up the posts with that where I @'ed folks in particular with some of these points.

I am guessing that @doctorbadwolf has been following along as well for a while and also assumes you've been reading the things in the threads that you regularly reply in. In that case I don't find his statement impolite. ;-)

Or god forbid I have a different opinion about what’s been said than you do.

 

[FrogReaver]

All humans are equal, but in D&D you are not dealing with just humans.

Yep. That’s exactly what I said.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Serious question: Is not presenting furries and orcs as standard PC races uninclusive?

 

[reelo]

Serious question: Is not presenting furries and orcs as standard PC races uninclusive?

Not as far as I'm concerned. I'm fed up with kitchen-sink settings. The tighter the race/class selection for PCs, the better. Setting should have a theme, have focus. Tortles, Tabaxi, Kenku, Aracokra, but also Tieflings, Aasimar, Genasi etc do not interest me one bit.

 

[Cadence]

Serious question: Is not presenting furries and orcs as standard PC races uninclusive?

Given the number of different types of humanoids that exist across all of fiction, folklore, myth, trope, and modern culture... I'm pretty sure that not everything could be presented in a reasonable number of books.

There have certainly been some on here that seem to have implied that not having every conceivable option available was uninclusive. I'm guessing there aren't many who would say that.

Didn't past editions have rules for creating balanced new races on the fly? Does 5e?

I'm fed up with kitchen-sink settings. The tighter the race/class selection for PCs, the better. Setting should have a theme, have focus. Tortles, Tabaxi, Kenku, Aracokra, but also Tieflings, Aasimar, Genasi etc do not interest me one bit.

My world building is usually pretty focussed in what races and classes are allowed, unless I've set out to make a kitchen-sink.

 

[FrogReaver]

Serious question: Is not presenting furries and orcs as standard PC races uninclusive?

I’m not sure. I’m thinking that Not having something that looks like you in the game tends to be labeled as uninclusive. I’m interested to see the responses.