I definitely am not trying to gaslight you. But, I think I see the problem.
I look at having a halfling start with 15 strength instead of 16 is reasonable. I do think it promotes tropes. I have said floating ASIs could lead to more homogeny. But those are different things than using the word "horror" or using the floating ASI as an optional rule. I just don't see how the first set equals horror.
From my reading, the fixed-ASI'ers seem truly horrified at the idea of letting even so much as a single player make a halfling that specializes in anything other than Dex.
And I don't see how the first set negates ASI as an optional rule.
Sorry, I am not trying to be obtuse. And, as far as the halfling thing, I have never said they can't be as strong. All I said is if the two are developing the strength skill, the Goliath will reach max four levels before the halfling. That's it. They both end at 20. And I have no problem with that.
No, it's not a big deal. Except for two things: one, this isn't a choice the player can make; it's an arbitrary rule that can be changed without actually affecting game balance, and two, it also prevents--as I keep saying--that halfling from being having a high Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma as well.
Seriously, I think I must have asked this question at least a half a dozen times and nobody I have asked it of has answered it. You want to say there's no way a halfling can ever be as physically strong as a goliath? Fine. Then why can't they choose to put a +2 bonus into Con, Int, Wis, or Cha?
Give me one reason.
If your answer is "it encourages minmaxing" that's
not a good answer, because right now there are
still minmaxers. Only instead of playing a super-smart halfling wizard they play a super-smart gnome wizard, because gnomes get +2 Int. Instead of playing a super-appealing halfling, they play a super-appealing tiefling, because tieflings get +2 Cha. It's exactly the same end result as if a player decided that their halfling was going to be smart instead of agile, only requiring less imagination because you don't have to figure out why a gnome is particularly intelligent or why a tiefling is particularly charismatic.
This is correct. We have said make floating ASIs an optional rule.
Which it's not going to be, if the sidebar in the UA is correct.
"The people that prefer the ASIs think it adds to the world. It separates the races and cultures instead of homogenizing them.
And just as you seem to think it limits the race/class combinations."
You think having floating ASIs opens race/class combos (and other parts of the game). The opposite of that would be having racial ASIs limits race/class combos.
Having fixed ASIs means that the halflings' Hat is going to be rogue. It means that the goliaths' and orc's Hat is going to be smashy martials. It means that the gnomes' Hat is going to be wizardry. And as some people in this thread have said, the fixed ASIs actively restrict people from being anything
else--only many of them think that's a good thing.
And in my opinion, Campaign Setting of Hats is
boring. And that playing a halfling rogue is as much minmaxing as playing a halfling druid after putting the +2 in Wisdom is. So if you, or other fixed ASI'ers, think that letting a player put the ASI in the stat of their choice is somehow bad, then discouraging people from playing anything other than what their race's fixed ASI points them towards is equally as bad.
It just so happens that for your table, I agree that it will open things up. For other tables, it will homogenize the races. And in my humble opinion, for certain groups of players, it will stunt their growth. It is (god I hate analogies
) the musician that is forced to play the acoustic guitar in front of them, instead of always having their electric guitar. It forces the mind to adapt. This is definitely not true for all players, but a good many will be just this.
That's not a good analogy because limiting a person to only fixed ASIs is
not the equivalent of taking away one instrument; it's the equivalent of taking away every instrument
but one and then saying that sure, they can use their guitar as a drum or a zither or something, but it's not going to be as good, and that's their fault for not playing the guitar like a guitar.
I see. Sorry about misinterpreting your statement.
Actually, a while back ago I argued for halflings to have other stat bonuses. I just think they should be subraces. Make the lonepalm halflings stranded on an island with nothing but the sea to provide for generations.
In my opinion, that's even
worse. That's literally saying that a race can't do anything but what they're made to. It's biological determinism at it's absolute
worst. And to top that off, it's
also completely unnecessary race bloat.
For my table, I go the absolute opposite. Here are elves. Was your elf particularly magical growing up? Use high elf stats. Or did your elf decide to study woodlore instead? Use wood elf stats. Or were they touched by the light of the moon(s) and stars? Use dark elf stats. Now, let's talk about the culture your elf grew up in. Here's a couple of options--the elves of the Deep Dark Forest, the elves of the Silver Lakes--but if you have an idea for a different culture, let's talk about it.
In the setting I'm working on now, I have goblins as one of the races. All goblins start out with sort of a toothy "larval" stage (inspired by, of all things, a What's New? with Phil and Dixie strip) when they're young, and when they grow up, they all look quite different but are still the same people. If I were using D&D for the system (I'm leaning towards Cypher, because of Reasons), you would get to choose from goblin, hobgoblin, bugbear, orc, and half-orc stats. And my table has decided that tabaxi and leonin are just two ethnicities of a single people.
Give them a +1 to wisdom. Make the skyhall halflings and give them a +1 intelligence. Make the bruteheart halflings that do nothing but fight and give them a +1 strength. I like it. Just give them a description and some lore. (And in the end, with point buy, a +1 is all you need to achieve the coveted 16.) I am not opposed to that. Just don't change the halflings that already have their lore in place.
Except which lore is that? Your lore? My lore? Why should I have to create an
entirely new subrace--or really, many subraces, because surely there's going to the "bruteheart" halflings and the "mountainrunner" halflings and the "elephantwrestler" halflings who all get a +2 to Strength for completely different reasons, when I can just take a pre-existing halfling and perform a single action of switching an ASI.
And you avoid having dull races. "Meet the brutehearts!" "What's their culture like?" "They like to fight with strength-based weapons." "And...?" "That's it, really."
Of course I don't. I mean, with that tone, what is the point of trying to have a discussion with you.
You insisted players need to feel safe and happy.
Again, you missed the point, which is that the fixed ASI'ers apparently don't feel safe and happy if there's a
gasp! overly smart halfling on the loose. Even a single, solitary halfling in the entire world that's as strong as a goliath seems to seriously upset some people.
And you are correct. The rules are for everyone. I am glad you see that. So you should be fine with the floating ASI as an optional rule because that would be inclusive of everyone. The racial ASI people and the floating ASI people.
Except that the racial ASI is automatically part of the floating ASI. If you think all halflings should be dexterous,
guess what? You can do that! You have that option! You lose literally nothing by having a floating ASI
and you gain additional options! You can even say that
at your table while you are running, all halflings have to put their +2 in Dex.
But if there's a fixed ASI, then
everybody loses all those additional options, and nobody gains anything but the status quo.
Oh my gosh. I see where you are coming from. Seriously. Please please please, take my words to heart.
You are only considering the player creating the character. You are dismissing the DM. You are also dismissing all the other players.
You see. D&D is a group endeavor. (I know you know that. Not being patronizing.) But that sense of fantasy realism has to co-exist within many different minds at the table. This includes the DM who may have put in a ton of work in creating their fantasy-reality that they want to share with the players. And since some tables are more group decision than single DM decision, that halfling has the potential to obstruct that realist bubble for several other players or the DM.
OK, one, that's what a session 0 is for; it's also knowing the people you've been playing with. I've gamed with the people at my table for anywhere from a couple of years to over twenty years.
Two, see above: a realist player has the option of putting their ASI in whatever stat feels the most realistic to them.
Three, as long as the other players didn't mysteriously roll all of their stats in the upper teens, then where they put their stats doesn't actually affect you in any way.
Four, having floating ASIs isn't dismissing anyone, since unless you have actually said "I want to play the strongest person ever!" and I ignore that to make my super-strong halfling, I'm not actually stepping on your toes or dismissing your feelings.
Like, when I decided to multiclass my duelist (Swashbuckler rogue) into fighter because I wanted to focus on her fighting, the person playing the fighter said "I would prefer you didn't make a Battlemaster because that's my character's thing" and I said "sure; if my character actually gets to 3rd level as a fighter, I'm thinking going Champion for that sweet sweet extended crit range which would be super-helpful for her sneak attacks." Which brings up...
Five, if it's not wrecking the game or doing more than annoying you--i.e., it's not actually causing you emotional distress to be in the same group--then have a mature discussion about it with the other player (as per above). And finally,
Six, if you
can't have a mature discussion, then just learn to deal with it. Accept that other players have fun in other ways. I'm a very immersive gamer, but I've learned to accept that another player at my table has fun always playing tabaxi named things like "Perfloof McMeow." Even though joke names annoy
me, it's how
she has fun with goofily named characters. It wouldn't do either of us any good if I demanded that she give her characters serious "real" tabaxi names. It would make her upset and me petty.
But it is the system D&D has.
But it's a system that's always changing. It's why we don't require paladins to be lawful good humans anymore. It's why we allow dwarf wizards. It's why #NotAllDrow. It's why we don't lose XP for changing alignment. It's why I can play a female character who is as strong as any male character.
dnd.wizards.com
