D&D 5E Wow! No more subraces. The Players Handbook races reformat to the new race format going forward.

[Micah Sweet]

When it was first suggested, I felt that removing ASIs from races would make them less diverse, but seeing them presented this way... I really like it. I can always make my Giff have a bump in strength and constitution if I want to play up that big ol' hippo, or I can put it in intelligence and wisdom for my wizened old (but still tough!) wise-guy hippo.

What, in this example, would denote that this character "tough"? The ability to carry more stuff? The slight chance to deal more consistent damage in melee? Toughness is a function of Constitution.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

What, in this example, would denote that this character "tough"? The ability to carry more stuff? The slight chance to deal more consistent damage in melee? Toughness is a function of Constitution.

I was using the word "tough" in it's everyday use. Outside of D&D people use it similarly to "mighty". So, yes. Carry more stuff. Bust heads. Tough.

 

[Campbell]

I do not usually have a specific concept in mind when I create characters. There are usually a fair number of races/ancestries/folk I could be interested in playing. I often will start with an idea of background and class after which I basically do a mental filter for workable ability scores. There's usual still going to be multiple compelling options flavor wise that appeal. The changes they are making are definitely going to open up the characters I could be interested in playing.

I think you could easily kind of get the best of both worlds by just giving a free floating +1 to one ability score that does not have a bonus from your race/ancestry. That way you still can always get a 16 in your primary ability score while preserving the flavor of dwarves being strong/tough and elves being smart/fast. Not opposed to their solution though.

 

[Minigiant]

What, in this example, would denote that this character "tough"? The ability to carry more stuff? The slight chance to deal more consistent damage in melee? Toughness is a function of Constitution.

Other way around.

Constitution gives a bonus to Toughness. It gives you more HP.

So How do you make dwarves tough? You give them bonus HP.

Then if you want to make a stereotypical dwarf to put the +1 or +2 to CON and go from a measly +1 HP a level to a meaningful +2 HP a level.

Or you make a Giff or Orc look strong with advantage to Strength checks which is worth a lot more than a +1 to a check.

Basically if D&D isn't doing +4 and +6 to stat races, it's no real point to using racial ability adjustments to demonstrate racial biology. And if you cut that and culture out, you need to shift racial features around and create new ones.

 

[Chaosmancer]

What, in this example, would denote that this character "tough"? The ability to carry more stuff? The slight chance to deal more consistent damage in melee? Toughness is a function of Constitution.

Fitz gave their own answer, but I had a thought as well.

One of the rules that gets brought up that rarely makes it into these particular discussions is that you only roll the dice when the outcome is in question. You don't need to roll dexterity to walk down the stairs. It just happens. So... do you need to roll dexterity to walk down the stairs gracefully? If you are playing a 7 ft tall, 800 lbs hippo man do you need to roll constitution to quaff a small barrel of alcohol with limited ill effects?

There is this push to sort of have the tail wag the dog in these conversations sometimes. Your constitution score is only rolled when the outcome is uncertain, yet we also get told that your default state of existence is determined by your score. No matter how big and thick and bad-ass you are, you can't just ignore a teenager punching you unless your con score is "higher". And I put that in quotes because the baseline average is 10... and nearly every adventurer is above a 10.

It just strikes me that you asked a rather odd question. Sort of like someone saying they run down the stairs and then you asking if they have a high enough dexterity score to be allowed to do that. Why wouldn't they? Why can't a hippo man with a 13 or 14 Con, significantly higher than the average, be tough?

 

[amethal]

This. PF2 does race really really well. The subraces are just an ability. In my game a player chooses which ancestry and heritage he is for RP (Gormdawi (Mountain Dwarf) or Bryndawi (Hill Dwarf) for example) but their stats are the same, and any one of the heritage abilities can be chosen. Their lore is different and this suffices for RP.

PF2 used Bryn for Hill? Everybody knows that Welsh is more akin to Draconic than it is to Dwarvish.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Other way around.

Constitution gives a bonus to Toughness. It gives you more HP.

So How do you make dwarves tough? You give them bonus HP.

Then if you want to make a stereotypical dwarf to put the +1 or +2 to CON and go from a measly +1 HP a level to a meaningful +2 HP a level.

Or you make a Giff or Orc look strong with advantage to Strength checks which is worth a lot more than a +1 to a check.

Basically if D&D isn't doing +4 and +6 to stat races, it's no real point to using racial ability adjustments to demonstrate racial biology. And if you cut that and culture out, you need to shift racial features around and create new ones.

Which is why the giff seemed so lackluster to me. Without the gunpowder stuff (which is culture), you just have a guy who looks like a hippopotamus.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Fitz gave their own answer, but I had a thought as well.

One of the rules that gets brought up that rarely makes it into these particular discussions is that you only roll the dice when the outcome is in question. You don't need to roll dexterity to walk down the stairs. It just happens. So... do you need to roll dexterity to walk down the stairs gracefully? If you are playing a 7 ft tall, 800 lbs hippo man do you need to roll constitution to quaff a small barrel of alcohol with limited ill effects?

There is this push to sort of have the tail wag the dog in these conversations sometimes. Your constitution score is only rolled when the outcome is uncertain, yet we also get told that your default state of existence is determined by your score. No matter how big and thick and bad-ass you are, you can't just ignore a teenager punching you unless your con score is "higher". And I put that in quotes because the baseline average is 10... and nearly every adventurer is above a 10.

It just strikes me that you asked a rather odd question. Sort of like someone saying they run down the stairs and then you asking if they have a high enough dexterity score to be allowed to do that. Why wouldn't they? Why can't a hippo man with a 13 or 14 Con, significantly higher than the average, be tough?

I was talking about hit points, which denote how much punishment you can take and are strongly influenced by your Con score. No on camera rolling required.

 

[Dragonsbane]

PF2 used Bryn for Hill? Everybody knows that Welsh is more akin to Draconic than it is to Dwarvish.

No no I did in my gameworld! Good to know on the prefix

 

[Ixal]

When it was first suggested, I felt that removing ASIs from races would make them less diverse, but seeing them presented this way... I really like it. I can always make my Giff have a bump in strength and constitution if I want to play up that big ol' hippo, or I can put it in intelligence and wisdom for my wizened old (but still tough!) wise-guy hippo.

And what would have prevented you from doing exactly that with fixed ASI and your ability array? When you put your two highest abilities into int and wis you would still have a old wise guy. Who would also still be a Giff with his racial ASI and thus different from an old wise dwarf/elf/halfling.