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

[Faolyn]

You don't have to care.

The example was to illustrate a point.

Even in a large randomized population, the racial modifiers would bear out to a statistical truth.

Yes, you are absolutely free to care about your PC, and nothing else.

That PC which is a member of a species.

That species, with unique attributes reflected in a population.

Which while you don't care about, others do.

You keep ignoring what I'm saying, which is those unique attributes are reflected in a population through racial traits.

"+2 Strength" is not a unique attribute. In fact, nine races and three subraces get +2 Strength (bugbear, centaur, dragonborn, dwarf (mountain), gith (githyanki), goliath, half-orc, locathah, minotaur, orc, shifter (longtooth), tortle). And that's not including newer races with floating ASIs or Tasha's variants. But only a single race has the traits Natural Athlete, Stone's Endurance, Powerful Build, and Mountain Born: the goliath. And every single goliath will have that unique combination of traits regardless of what their Strength score is or where they put their ASIs.

Giving goliaths a +2 Strength does not make them more unique. It just discourages many people from using goliaths for non-Strength-based martial builds and prevents people from creating goliaths who are innately gifted in other stats.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What if instead of "appease" you use the term "agree with?"

WotC agrees with these critiques and has made changes due to it.

Some of the people there might very well agree with these critiques, but the changes are still appeasement.

 

[Umbran]

The fact that things have changed recently doesnt tell us that it's better, only that loud people are demanding the game change. Now to be fair, it doesnt tell us that it's worse either. I just refuse to accept "new stuff is always better" as an axiom.

Please quote who in this thread has explicitly put forth "new is better" as a rationale. Otherwise, this is a strawman.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Some of the people there might very well agree with these critiques, but the changes are still appeasement.

Aren't there also many loud voices with very different desires for the game? Why would WotC feel pressured to "appease" one group and not another?

 

[Faolyn]

They can, just like a PC goliath can have a 24 strength. You'd need a mechanical reason like Primal Champion explaining the 24, in order to explain how they are so weak, though.

A PC goliath can only have a 24 Strength by being a high-level barbarian or having certain epic boons. Also, a kobold can end up with a 24 Strength using the same rules.

The mechanical reason for having a Strength of 3 is: the player rolled 4d6 in chargen, rolled 1,1,1,1, and, thinking of Raistlin but with Strength instead of Con, decided that playing the weakest goliath EVAR might be fun and so didn't reroll. There's your mechanics right there.

Players aren't entitled to just have whatever stat scores they want, though. That's why rolling, point buy and arrays exist in the forms that they do.

Since this wasn't my argument, I have no idea why you're bringing it up.

And you still didn't answer my question: why can't a goliath have a 3 in Strength? Give me one in-game reason why a goliath (or orc, or tortle, or any other +2 Strength) can have a Strength of 3?

There is no answer as to why not, beyond you having some idea that all goliaths have to be marginally stronger than every other race because it otherwise it doesn't match up for you (you never explained why, either), even though all races have the exact same limit (20) to their stats anyway and the only way to avoid that is to come up with homebrew limitations.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Aren't there also many loud voices with very different desires for the game? Why would WotC feel pressured to "appease" one group and not another?

I dont know how to explain why this group is being appeased without going into areas we aren't supposed to discuss. Suffice to say, the social zeitgeist has shifted in the last few years, and some people are demanding WotC shift with it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Please quote who in this thread has explicitly put forth "new is better" as a rationale. Otherwise, this is a strawman.

Fair enough. I haven't seen that expressed explicitly in the thread. But I am detecting that sentiment loudly expressed implicitly all over the gaming world.

 

[Maxperson]

A PC goliath can only have a 24 Strength by being a high-level barbarian or having certain epic boons. Also, a kobold can end up with a 24 Strength using the same rules.

That's my point. You need extenuating circumstances to go below racial minimums or above maximums.

The mechanical reason for having a Strength of 3 is: the player rolled 4d6 in chargen, rolled 1,1,1,1, and, thinking of Raistlin but with Strength instead of Con, decided that playing the weakest goliath EVAR might be fun and so didn't reroll. There's your mechanics right there.

That's not a reason for a strong race to have a 3.

Since this wasn't my argument, I have no idea why you're bringing it up.

You seem to think players are entitled to 3's in a stat no matter what the race. I'm saying that just picking your stats isn't something players are entitled to.

And you still didn't answer my question: why can't a goliath have a 3 in Strength? Give me one in-game reason why a goliath (or orc, or tortle, or any other +2 Strength) can have a Strength of 3?

The race is stronger than that.

There is no answer as to why not, beyond you having some idea that all goliaths have to be marginally stronger than every other race because it otherwise it doesn't match up for you (you never explained why, either), even though all races have the exact same limit (20) to their stats anyway and the only way to avoid that is to come up with homebrew limitations.

That's like saying that there's no reason why $5 can't be $3 other than having some idea that it's more money. Well, yes, yes that's exactly it. 5 is higher than 3 and Goliaths get +2.

 

[Faolyn]

That's my point. You need extenuating circumstances to go below racial minimums or above maximums.

Since this is no longer 1st or 2nd edition, racial minimum is 3 and maximum is 20.

That's not a reason for a strong race to have a 3.

Sure it is! You rolled badly, you decided to keep the score.

You seem to think players are entitled to 3's in a stat no matter what the race. I'm saying that just picking your stats isn't something players are entitled to.

I think you aren't understanding what I'm writing. So again: There is no reason to insist that a goliath PC must put their ASI into Strength anymore.

The race is stronger than that.

Yes, and that is shown by their Powerful Build trait, not by a +2 Strength. You keep ignoring the racial traits.

That's like saying that there's no reason why $5 can't be $3 other than having some idea that it's more money. Well, yes, yes that's exactly it. 5 is higher than 3 and Goliaths get +2.

I wasn't aware that money and fictional characters built out of dice rolls and player-created backgrounds were the same thing. Gosh. I have a lot of characters. Does this mean I'm rich?

 

[Scribe]

You keep ignoring what I'm saying, which is those unique attributes are reflected in a population through racial traits.

"+2 Strength" is not a unique attribute. In fact, nine races and three subraces get +2 Strength (bugbear, centaur, dragonborn, dwarf (mountain), gith (githyanki), goliath, half-orc, locathah, minotaur, orc, shifter (longtooth), tortle). And that's not including newer races with floating ASIs or Tasha's variants. But only a single race has the traits Natural Athlete, Stone's Endurance, Powerful Build, and Mountain Born: the goliath. And every single goliath will have that unique combination of traits regardless of what their Strength score is or where they put their ASIs.

Giving goliaths a +2 Strength does not make them more unique. It just discourages many people from using goliaths for non-Strength-based martial builds and prevents people from creating goliaths who are innately gifted in other stats.

I dont think I am ignoring what you are saying.

You want rules which describe what a race is. You dont want what boils down to a +1, to be part of what what defines a race. I want both.

I'm not saying it should be the ONLY thing. In fact I've said multiple times, it should be in addition to, other things.

1. Racial ASI Stats
2. Racial Rules
3. Paragon Rules
4. Racial Feats.

Do it all!