D&D 5E Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)

[Yaarel]

In any case, pretend fantasy racism is not real racism.

Except when it is.

Reallife racist propaganda is itself "fantasy racism" that dehumanizes other ethnicities as a monstrous caricature.

Some of these D&D assumptions come with a problematic history.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Heading toward thread lock now….

 

[Yaarel]

There was no requirement to follow that as a player. It just said to consider it, because the DM would probably be using it with NPCs and such. In any case, pretend fantasy racism is not real racism.

The 1e Players Handbook plainly instructs players to roleplay as a racist supremacist.

"The following table will serve as a guide in determining which races YOUR CHARACTER will like, be indifferent to, or dislike."

D&D originated as a game about racism.

 

[Yaarel]

To undestand your position, how do you feel about Xanatar's racial feats?

It is annoying that the Xanathars race feats are biologically essentialist, and other races are forbidden to take them.

There is even a recent ruling that a Custom Lineage version of a race cannot qualify to take them.

And even, about other mechanical differences in playable races?

Some "essences" are more problematic than others, like superior Intelligence, dehumanizing animistic cultures, and so on.

But even something as innocuous as elf Trance, I would rather be one of several options, that a player may or not choose. Also, I prefer if other races can choose it. For example, a Warforged also lacks sleep, because of a different narrative, but could use the same mechanics.

Because the reasoning that "if an orc can be 20 STR, then a halfling can, at the exact same point of their mechanical progression" may also apply to halfling luck (why should an orc wait level 4 to become lucky as well?)

As "fey" personifications of fate, I view elves as (good) luck and dwarves as (bad) luck (but useful against an enemy). There are reveral race concepts where a "lucky" trait can make sense. If a player wants to explore such a concept, the player can choose it, and the player and the DM can agree on a story that makes dense of the concept within a particular setting.

By the way, the Scandinavian gnomes (tomte, nisse) tend to be superhumanly strong, so I have no problem with small and strong. I feel the halfling is an echo of Tolkien without a clear D&D identity. But it can be whatever the concept will be.

 

[Garthanos]

That is the exact point, it shouldn't be. Honestly, all classes should not rely on only one major attribute, but on a combination of multiple attributes. More complex, but less optimizable.

If every class is designed with strong functional multi-attribute needs that really are needs that changes everything. We arent there though.

I have a problem with saying that Dwarves tend not to be wizards because of their intelligence, but I have no issue with ascribing it to tradition. So, yeah, a dwarven wizard is “against type”.

Something nobody remembers in the hobbit the Dwarves cast spells. (convenience magics when they made camp around Smaug's mountain)

 

[Maxperson]

The 1e Players Handbook plainly instructs players to roleplay as a racist supremacist.

No it doesn't. It says nothing about supremacy(a race being better than the others). Not one word.

It's just about likes and dislikes, which is not supremacy.

"The following table will serve as a guide in determining which races YOUR CHARACTER will like, be indifferent to, or dislike."

"The dealings which a character has with various races will be affected by racial preferences to some extent. Similarly, the acquisition of hirelings by racial type might prove difficult for some characters if they go outside a narrow field. Your Dungeon Master will certainly take racial preferences into account during interaction between your character and the various races which he or she will encounter."

And after that, the non-rule sentence mentioning a guide. Guides can be ignored. There was no requirement to act that way.

And just in case you missed this from page 8

"This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only."

Being a guide, that table is nothing but a guideline that can be ignored. No requirement to be pretend racist existed.

 

[Maxperson]

Except when it is.

Reallife racist propaganda is itself "fantasy racism" that dehumanizes other ethnicities as a monstrous caricature.

Some of these D&D assumptions come with a problematic history.

But this wasn't. It was just dwarves and elves.

 

[le Redoutable]

Again, with an assumption that 16 is the minimum. Which it is not. Its 15.

That is the baseline, upon which racial modifiers are then applied.

T)he game does not say Dwarves cannot be Bards, or that Tieflings cannot be fighters. 'Supposed' to be, is mnot a thing.

There are Attributes, Races, and Classes. The game was designed with archetypes in mind, but unlike prior editions, you are not explicitly forced to adhere to any combination Wizards deems acceptable. Feel free to roll that Orc wizard with the -2 Int, the game allows for it as it was designed to allow for it.

Euuh for me there's. Only attributes and races ( classes ? I call them Paths or Ways )

 

[Chaosmancer]

They should be encouraging it, thats the point of archetypes, and what allows for 'playing against'.

Okay, then following that...

No. 15 is the baseline, because its what one has prior to ASI being applied, if one chooses to synergize with those modifiers. 15 + the modifier is what amplifies the tropes/archetypes.

No. See, because the game is encouraging the archetypes. They expect you to do that. Therefore they expect you will have the ASI applied, and your character isn't complete at first level until after they do that. I'm not talking the 16 is the baseline before racial ASIs, I'm talking about 16 being the baseline for a completed 1st level character, which is after racial ASIs. Those +modifiers aren't "amplifying" the character, they are the baseline.

People dont have to play to the archetype, but they shouldnt expect to be as initially powerful as the archetypes which WotC designed the game to reinforce.

And why not. That is the fundamental question that led to Tashas and the boogieman of the change for 6e. Why is it that these archetypes should be more powerful and be the expected baseline? An Orc Druid as an orcish shaman is also a really solid fantasy trope, but it isn't an archetype the game was initially designed to enforce, and.. now it can be. How is there anything bad to that?

The old archetypes still exist, but now newer archetypes can also get a chance to shine. Orc Druids. Gnomish Clerics. Dragonborn Monks. Lizardfolk Warlocks. These archetypes deserve a chance to be just as initially powerful as the dwarven fighter and elvish ranger. Especially since Humans are already that powerful for every single class in the game. And human anything isn't even really "archetypical" in the same way.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The game is set by default, the DM has the choice to allow some options or not in his campaign. If, as a DM, I don't want to use options like grids or floating ASIs, they are not available in that game.

So, you don't want the players to have the choice of how to build their character. Why not allow it the same way you allow players to choose to roll or take point buy, or are you one of those DMs who doesn't allow their players that choice? I know there are many who insist on rolling and I've had friends walk from games because the DM refused to allow them any other choice in character creation.

Honestly, I just don't see how this even affects the DM. This changes nothing except makes certain things more likely, and why do you care if the elf has a 16 strength. I could happen because of a +2 strength, it could happen becuase they rolled dice, so what's the difference?