Chaosmancer
Legend
Well...it seems pretty obvious that the stat bonuses are a pretty big part of how the distinct characteristics of the race are represented - now it was never a good way to do that. And to 5e's credit it at least realised that something additional is needed, which is why races get quite a lot of additional features. (13th Age is bad at this - it gives stat bonuses that are made meaningless by class and an encounter power that doesn't always do much at all to emphasise the idea of an elf, or a half elf - thankfully it has backgrounds so they can take up a lot of the slack). So taking it away has to make some kind of difference there, especially if you're not replacing it with anything else.
This is part of the issue. How do you represent the huge size difference between a Goliath and a Halfling? There seem to be three ways: the Goliath gets powerful build, the halfling is small, and the Goliath gets a strength bonus.
Now none of this is remotely realistic; concessions are made to playability (otherwise we'd get the ridiculously overpowerd 2e Dark Sun giants or something like that). The rules represent the difference rather than simulate it. However, if you take away one of those points of distinction you do weaken the representation.
So there's the issue, the +2 weakness is such a weak distinction that it shouldn't matter if you effectively take it away - but it's weak by design and neccessity - and while weak it's still doing a job.
Except... it isn't doing that job. It looks like that is it's job when you compare halflings and Goliaths, who have a height difference of (6'4" to 2'9") 3 ft and 7 inches minimum... but Mountain Dwarves also have a +2 strength and have a height of 4'2" which is only a foot and five, less than half the difference.
Firbolgs are equally as tall as Goliaths, but only get a +1 to strength, and the 5 ft tall Tabaxi (nearly foot taller than the dwarf, but also more than a foot shorter than the Goliath and Firbolg) gets no bonus to strength, just like the halfling whom is still two feet and three inches shorter than the Tabaxi.
So, if part of the job of Strength is to show height.... it fails completely. The same difference of +2 can represent anywhere from nearly four feet of height difference, to four inches. That is a difference of 1200% for that range. Which gets large enough that I suspect it was never intended to be a filling that role.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, not only dex, but also intelligence. And... Who plays the non Vhumans? Very rare. But humans are adaptive if you go this way. Good everywhere, master of none. (HO GOD! NON VHUMANS ARE ALL BARDS!!!!!! Time to burn my books...)
Double checks my post
So... I mentioned intelligence. In fact, other than the throw-away line about Dex, that was all I was talking about.
I also never said if it was Vhuman or Non-Vhuman... so I have no idea why you decided to focus on that.
And, you seem to have missed the point entirely.
High Elves are often depicted as the best wizards and magic-users in the world, with the strongest tradition of arcane learning and study, they are masters of it. They get a +1 Int.
Humans are depicted as adapatable, they can go in any direction, they don't really have that strong tradition of magic. They also get +1 INT.
Hobgoblins were not often depicted this way, they are never really considered some of the Premier Arcane Casters of the world.... they also get a +1 to Int.
If +1 INT is meant to represent a "Strong Tradition" then... humans, Hobgoblins, Gith, Warforged, Changelings, Tieflings, Fire Genasi... I mean, there is a big list here for +1 INT. All of them are well established and traditionally known for their study of Arcane Magic?
Exactly my point. You want to play against tradition? Go ahead and play with what life gave you. You want to be strength base paladin high elf? Go ahead. Put highest score in strength and so on. But you still get a cantrip, one 1st level wizard spell to use and a nice bonus in dexterity and intel. Now that is playing against type. And yes, we had one of these too. With twelve players, it is not hard to see a lot of unusual character types/concepts.
No, you said these stats came from traditions within those races. That isn't working with what life gives you. That is following tradition.
And, I could totally have rolled stats, and rolled an 17 or 16 for Strength, and made my Int and Dex dump stats. How is this different from simply taking the +1 from Int and moving it to Strength? How is one playing against type, but the other not if the end result was the same?
Are we trying to say that there are actual traditional numerical values, so that an Elf with a 16 Strength and 10 Dex is non-traditional but one with a 16 Dex and 10 strength is completely traditional? What if they were both 12's am I traditional or non-traditional?
(Also, side tangent, per RAW High Elves do not get a 1st level spell. Only the cantrip)
Just as I said above. Plus, the elves from Athas are not necessarily PHB Elves. It depends on the setting too. I would expect Qualinesty to be different from the Kagonesti and the Dimernesti of Dragon lance. Some of these elves could be paladins even in 1st edition! The setting overrule the PHB. I fail to see what you don't see there.
Okay, hold onto that thought that the PHB Elf might be different than the elves from specific settings.
We could have more printed versions of the elf, with other stat combos.
OR
We could use the Tasha's rules to move those stats around.
I mean, if the Athasian Elves are swift, but con artists, then maybe they get a +2 Dex and +1 Cha. And Maybe the Kagonesti have a +2 Con and +1 Wisdom. I can now represent multiple different types of elves, with a single rule, instead of needing to wait for them to release new stat lives that say it.
So, your "strong tradition" of elves getting a +2 Dex could easily be subverted by simply moving to a different setting. A setting we can now represent via Tasha's rules without having to get official products that tell us "this elf has different ASIs"
Nope. You fail (again) to understand. Playing against type because the system forces you to is not the same thing as willingly gimping your character. There is a whole level of difference that you do not seem (or want) to understand here. Choosing to play a dwarven wizard when you know that your bonuses normally push you toward fighting classes is rewarding. Doing it when there is not costs associated with that choice is just pointless and almost downright stupid. Playing against type, to prove that you can do it is good. Willingly gimping your character by making poor choices voluntarily is exactly a stupid thing to do.
Why do mountain climbers take the hardest mountain? Because it is hard. But if the same hard mountain has an easy path, it is not the same. Saying I played a dwarven wizard before Tasha will not bear the same accomplishment when played after. The first one will be way more rewarding as the second.
Then you have some very specific hang ups and I cannot help you.
There is an easy path up Everest. Well trod with heated tents along the way. Climbing everest without those things and that path is still an accomplishment.
Heck, I can travel over a hundred miles in my car, and all I have to worry about is stiffness and boredom. It is easy. I'd still be impressed if someone walked a hundred miles.
If choosing your race because the bonuses don't match up is admirable, but choosing not to match up your bonuses when you could isn't... then you guys have trapped yourselves in some sort of strange contest. I can't understand why having a 14 INT as a Dwarven Wizard now is admirable and rewarding, pushing the envelope, but if you had the option to instead make a choice, and chose to play a 14 INT Dwarven Wizard instead of a 16 INT Dwarven wizard.. it is suddenly meaningless and stupid. You've ended up in the exact same place.
And, to take this a step further. I have often been blasted by people because I don't want to play a Dwarven Wizard, because I can't get a 16 INT by going that route. I see it as... how did you phrase it again? "Willingly gimping your character by making poor choices voluntarily is exactly a stupid thing to do."
And yet, I've been told that a "really clever player" with "proper mastery of the game" can have "just as much fun and fulfillment" by doing so. In fact, you just said it was rewarding to do so.
I guess choice is only choice if it is the type of choice you don't like.