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

[Maxperson]

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.

Well, that's factually incorrect. The strength number is expressly how you determine how much you can lift and carry.

"Your carrying capacity is your Strength score multiplied by 15. This is the weight (in pounds) that you can carry, which is high enough that most characters don't usually have to worry about it." If you can carry more, it's appropriate to reflect that in a strength bonus.

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.

Yep. Strength in powerful muscles like stone is also a way, and the mountain dwarven +2 reflects that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Well, that's factually incorrect. The strength number is expressly how you determine how much you can lift and carry.

"Your carrying capacity is your Strength score multiplied by 15. This is the weight (in pounds) that you can carry, which is high enough that most characters don't usually have to worry about it." If you can carry more, it's appropriate to reflect that in a strength bonus.

Yep. Strength in powerful muscles like stone is also a way, and the mountain dwarven +2 reflects that.

In 3.x there was a trait for quadrupedals that lets you double your strength capacity. Small creatures had it multiplied by 3/4 so there are already a lot of precedents where a trait actually corrects strength score by other factors.
If you think a +2 bonus is sufficient to represent giant strength, then you are factually wrong.
It is just 30 pounds more carrying capacity which by far does not suffice to represent strength of giants.
Giants however can be more or less strong, so in comparison, str for giants reflects their comparative strength, but not the absolute value.

Giants multiply their strength score by 30... So even the weakest giants (those with str 8) are still much stronger than humans.

Edit: I actually want the rule from 3.x back, where size had multipliers to carrying capacity, even though in usual games it plays no role other than making me feel better, that gnomes can't carry as much as humans.
Then the goliath rule would just be (I think as it was in 3.x) that they are treated as one size larger for carrying capacity.

 

[Maxperson]

In 3.x there was a trait for quadrupedals that lets you double your strength capacity. Small creatures had it multiplied by 3/4 so there are already a lot of precedents where a trait actually corrects strength score by other factors.

Those same creatures had +4s, +6s and +8s for strength bonuses, though. The increase in strength matched the increase in lifting power. 3e didn't try to give those creatures the lifting ability and then no strength bonus.

Goliaths had +4 str, centaurs had +8, and so on.

If you think a +2 bonus is sufficient to represent giant strength, then you are factually wrong.

Never claimed it did. But it's at least something more than the utter nonsense that no bonus at all is. The +2 is just for balance reasons. It should really be +4 like it was in 3e.

Edit: I actually want the rule from 3.x back, where size had multipliers to carrying capacity, even though in usual games it plays no role other than making me feel better, that gnomes can't carry as much as humans.
Then the goliath rule would just be (I think as it was in 3.x) that they are treated as one size larger for carrying capacity.

They would also have their strength bonus of +4 and +2 to constitution.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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's not true. Goliaths with higher-than-10 Strength can carry more than Halflings can, even if the Halfling has the same Strength score. How the hell does "being able to lift twice more than usual" not have anything to do with "actual strength"? Powerful Build is boring and doesn't come up in campaigns that don't track Encumbrance that much (if at all), however, a feature like the Giff's Hippo Build, or Harengon's Lucky Footwork feature could be used to show that.

Goliaths are also known for being tough. This is shown in the mechanics even without a racial +1 to CON through their damage-reduction feature. Half-Orcs do this, too, through their Relentless Endurance feature.

There are absolutely ways for races to show their biological affinities through the mechanics without racial ASIs. IMO, these ways are even better than Racial ASIs, because they don't push you towards a certain class, are good for everybody, and aren't as situational as Powerful Build.

Harengon are typically Dexterous, and this comes through the racial mechanics even though they don't have Racial ASIs, due to their Hare-Trigger, Rabbit Hop, and Lucky Footwork features. Giff are shown to be big and strong in their UA Racial Stats, even if they don't get Racial ASIs. Reborn are shown to be hard to kill even without a Racial bonus to Constitution due to their advantage on Death Saving Throws feature and poison resistance. You can absolutely show a race's typical affinities through racial stats in a way not tied to Racial ASIs or pushing the race towards certain classes.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Those same creatures had +4s, +6s and +8s for strength bonuses, though. The increase in strength matched the increase in lifting power. 3e didn't try to give those creatures the lifting ability and then no strength bonus.

Goliaths had +4 str, centaurs had +8, and so on.

Never claimed it did. But it's at least something more than the utter nonsense that no bonus at all is. The +2 is just for balance reasons. It should really be +4 like it was in 3e.

They would also have their strength bonus of +4 and +2 to constitution.

Hiw is giving a menaingless bonus of +2 suddenly coherent?

Either you give a substancial bonus or just leave it be.
As I said before: 3.x had size modifiers. It also had level penalties to counteract the increased attack and damage bonus.
I think 5e does a better job by not giving absurd bonuses in a sytem where str detemines attack bonus.

You could theoretically shift all attack bonuses to class and just do away with str to to hit. Then you can give out bonuses like candy and even penalties.
Because you don't mess up your game.
3.x messes up the game by giving those big numbers.

 

[Scribe]

You can absolutely show a race's typical affinities through racial stats in a way not tied to Racial ASIs

Is someone saying you cannot?

 

[Maxperson]

Hiw is giving a menaingless bonus of +2 suddenly coherent?

It's not meaningless. It makes the race stronger on average than any race that doesn't have a bonus. That's something that has meaning.

Either you give a substancial bonus or just leave it be.

False Dichotomies are false. The closer you can get to where it should be, the better. So while +4 is where it should be for a medium race that is as strong as they are supposed to be, +2 is loads better than nothing.

 

[Maxperson]

. . . That's not true. Goliaths with higher-than-10 Strength can carry more than Halflings can, even if the Halfling has the same Strength score. How the hell does "being able to lift twice more than usual" not have anything to do with "actual strength"? Powerful Build is boring and doesn't come up in campaigns that don't track Encumbrance that much (if at all), however, a feature like the Giff's Hippo Build, or Harengon's Lucky Footwork feature could be used to show that.

Goliaths are also known for being tough. This is shown in the mechanics even without a racial +1 to CON through their damage-reduction feature. Half-Orcs do this, too, through their Relentless Endurance feature.

Giving these features without a corresponding stat bonuses causes schrodinger's stats. You are stronger than other races and also not stronger at the same time.

There are absolutely ways for races to show their biological affinities through the mechanics without racial ASIs. IMO, these ways are even better than Racial ASIs, because they don't push you towards a certain class, are good for everybody, and aren't as situational as Powerful Build.

Yes those ways exist, but without the corresponding racial stat bonuses they and up with the schrodinger's stats nonsense above.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It's not meaningless. It makes the race stronger on average than any race that doesn't have a bonus. That's something that has meaning.

False Dichotomies are false. The closer you can get to where it should be, the better. So while +4 is where it should be for a medium race that is as strong as they are supposed to be, +2 is loads better than nothing.

I think it is meaningless. What you call getting closer is what I call a distraction.
I think giving advantage to strength related ability checks in addition to carrying capacity increase will benefit thw goliath more.
Strength in 5e represents more than raw strength. We are not in 3.x anymore.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Giving these features without a corresponding stat bonuses causes schrodinger's stats. You are stronger than other races and also not stronger at the same time.

Yes those ways exist, but without the corresponding racial stat bonuses they and up with the schrodinger's stats nonsense above.

I don't think you know what "shroedinger" means.