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

[Scribe]

I mean this whole change is happening because players ask to break tropes so much now.

Nothing was stopping them. Especially post Tasha's.

 

[Maxperson]

Humans don't have dwarven biology ever unless they are half dwarf.

So a pure Human can never ever get a dwarven trait.

So now we're back to needing the +2 con for dwarves. I mean, either they get their con abilities due to their physical size and toughness or it's innate and biological to dwarves, which would appropriately be represented by a con increase as well. Which is it? You argued earlier that goliaths get their ability to carry based solely on size, not unique biology. You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth right now.

 

[Minigiant]

Nothing was stopping them. Especially post Tasha's.

To me, it's better to offer options at the start than the middle.

A roadblock is still a roadblock even if it's a weak obstacle.

So now we're back to needing the +2 con for dwarves. I mean, either they get their con abilities due to their physical size and toughness or it's innate and biological to dwarves, which would appropriately be represented by a con increase as well. Which is it? You argued earlier that goliaths get their ability to carry based solely on size, not unique biology. You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth right now.

I didnt say we need +Con to dwarves.

Dwarves should get bonus HP per level,X proficiencies, poison resist, and slow speed. That displays that all dwarves are older and tougher than normal than +2 CON.

 

[Scribe]

To me, it's better to offer options at the start than the middle.

A roadblock is still a roadblock even if it's a weak obstacle.

Post Tasha's, you had no roadblock beyond any you (or the DM) imposed.

 

[Azzy]

Just a friendly reminder, OD&D didn't have ASIs.

 

[Maxperson]

I didnt say we need +Con to dwarves.

Dwarves should get bonus HP per level,X proficiencies, poison resist, and slow speed. That displays that all dwarves are older and tougher than normal than +2 CON.

Once you start making endurance, strength, intelligence, etc. biological abilities, you need to have corresponding stat bonuses or you have created Schrodingers abilities. You're stronger and not stronger as a race simultaneously, smarter and not smarter as a race simultaneously and so on. You might be happy with nonsensical abilities like that, but I'm not.

 

[Scribe]

Just a friendly reminder, OD&D didn't have ASIs.

When were they added? 2e in their original form?

 

[Azzy]

When were they added? 2e in their original form?

1e AD&D was their first appearance.

 

[Scribe]

1e AD&D was their first appearance.

A good run then.

RIP Racial ASI
Born - 1978
Deceased - 2021

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The goliath design is nonsensical if it doesn't come with a strength bonus.

Goliath: "My people are big and strong. We can carry more than anyone else."

Human: "So are you actually any stronger than a halfling can be?

Goliath: "Well, no. But despite not being any stronger, we can carry more.....................................for some reason that apparently has nothing to do with actual strength"

That reasoning is backwards.
They can carry more, because they have a trait to carry twice as much...

Strength is just a number that determines how precise you can hit with heavy melee weapons.
Of course you can do it like it was in 3e, where you add strength, but then distact size modificators so the strength bonus is lessened.
If you want creatures to be big and strong, just add a trait to carry more.

Also, if you look it up, a mountain dwarf is actually as steong and even tougher as a goliath. So much for strength representing big things.