This is what the non-ASI side eventually boils down to. I don't think those on the other side ever really need to argue about how a thri-keen might have a different mind than a human. They do, and it is accepted.
But the non-ASI side, in the end and from my interpretation always boils down to - we want character attributes to be on even footing at the start of the game. (And there is nothing wrong with that.)
I’d say that’s an accurate assessment of the position, yeah.
I have seen it argued it literally ruins their game to see two fighters, one with an extra +5% (not you Charaquin).
Yeah, I don’t think it ruins the game, but I do think it’s meaningfully harmful to the gaming experience of the player who’s fighter is 5% less accurate, does 1 less damage on all of their attacks, can’t carry as much, etc. just because they wanted to play an elf.
To the ASI side this sounds like - I want it now.
Well, that’s silly. It’s not “I want more stuff now,” it’s “I want the game to be fair to everyone.”
It also seems to disregards any racial feats that the weaker fighter might get. Here is an example:
Two fighters. One dwarf, one elf. The dwarf gets to start with an extra +1 in strength via PHB point buy. It is an advantage, except the elven fighter can regain all their hit points in four hours as opposed to eight. That too is an advantage. I feel certain people could debate which advantage is better.
Sure. If it’s strongly felt that balance between races would need another pass if racial ASIs were to go away, I think there’s a much more productive discussion to be had about how best to do that, rather than whether or not to remove racial ASIs.
As for disregarding the level argument:
It is still valid, and should be even more valid to you, since most campaigns do not go past level 6. That means you should really be arguing to start everyone out with a 20.
No, because the point isn’t that everyone should be able to max out their primary stat during the course of the campaign. The point is that nobody should, as a result of their race choice, be forced to play an inferior member of their class for a significant portion of the campaign. That they can eventually catch up doesn’t make up for the time they had to spend being worse than everyone else.
Last one. I am confused by your comment. All classes that are the same get the same HP, correct. But we are discussing how different races start with different advantages. Therefore, I was making it analogous of how different classes start with different advantages. Different races, different classes.
Maybe I am missing something in your interpretation.
I think you are, yes. Different classes start with different HP and gain different amounts of HP on level up. That’s fine, because it’s solely dependent on your class choice. An elf barbarian doesn’t have less HP than a half-orc barbarian (unless they have lower constitution, but if they do, it’s because of an intentional choice the player made to put fewer points into con so they’d have more points to put into something else.) An elf barbarian
does, however, have less strength than a half-orc barbarian. Now, if that was a choice the elf’s player made in order to boost something else, that would be fine. But with fixed racial ASIs, the elf barbarian has no choice in the matter. They either have to live with having a weak barbarian or pick another race.
What the ASI crowd wants is equal opportunity. If you don’t mind playing a weak barbarian, fine. But if you want to play a barbarian who’s on par with other Barbarians, you shouldn’t be locked out of playing some races.
dnd.wizards.com
. We both don't have ultimate proof of our different idea so I suggest to close this topic.
