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

[Maxperson]

I just don't get how you don't still have this with floating ASIs.

Because floating ASIs are explicitly not racial bonuses.

Why does it bother you that not all members of a race have the exact same bonuses and abilities?

Because we like racial bonuses, because they make sense to have given the lore of the various races.

Why do you need that +1 to help define a race for you? How is it better for you?

It's not about the +1 defining the race. It's about representing how the lore defines the race appropriately.

 

[Faolyn]

Because floating ASIs are explicitly not racial bonuses.

Because we like racial bonuses, because they make sense to have given the lore of the various races.

It's not about the +1 defining the race. It's about representing how the lore defines the race appropriately.

How does the +1 bonus represent the lore? Specifically, if you also have racial traits, how does a fixed +1 bonus enhance those racial traits?

 

[Maxperson]

How does the +1 bonus represent the lore? Specifically, if you also have racial traits, how does a fixed +1 bonus enhance those racial traits?

If the lore says the race is strong, it should have a strength bonus. If it says highly intelligence, then an int bonus. And so on. The bonus is to represent the lore mechanically, so an absence of that mechanical representation when you have those mechanical stats present would not make sense. The bonus is not to define the race. That's a misrepresentation of our position that a lot of people like to use.

 

[HammerMan]

It is ok. But it is a bit dramatic.
At level 1, fights are so short that if failing once by 1 means early death, that was not the only problem. The damage part of the missing +1 bonus is actually more important. A fighter with duelling fighting style or a two handed weapon can actually mitigate it well enough.
A ranged fighter has a natural +2 bonus to attack. But I actually think for a fighter, one of your two stats will be a 16 anyway. Some subrace will provide you with the relevant stats. If not, there will be a feature that helps you.

yup, lots more can go into this, there is math I don't even understand... like with letters and symbols and junk...

 

[HammerMan]

If the lore says the race is strong, it should have a strength bonus. If it says highly intelligence, then an int bonus. And so on. The bonus is to represent the lore mechanically, so an absence of that mechanical representation when you have those mechanical stats present would not make sense. The bonus is not to define the race. That's a misrepresentation of our position that a lot of people like to use.

so if we changed out +2 str for the 'count as next size for carrying' and the +2 dex for +5/10ft of speed, and +2 Con into resist X Y and Z under A or B condition.... isn't that just as good and more flavor full?

10 elves (Maybe there are even enough subraces for no two to be alike but hey maybe not) each get +2 dex, they roll for stats and all generate numbers that some place highish stats in dex but none place the highest roll in dex, they all get +2 dex though... and they end up with 13-15 for 9 of them and 16 for one of them... that is "More dexterous" unless the 11th player is playing a brute half orc that put an 18 in dex... in whitch case the "more dexterous elves" are less dexterous then the half orc. if on the other hand all elves get +5ft of speed and 'nimble advantage' that allows them to add +1d3 to a dex (skill/initative/save) 1/ short rest, then even those with 13 dexs can claim "elves are more dexterous"

I think if dwarves got poison resistance, and 1/sr spend a HD to heal as a bonus action with some sub what evers getting +1 hp per level it is WAY more flavorful then +2 con.

 

[Scribe]

I just don't get how you don't still have this with floating ASIs. Why does it bother you that not all members of a race have the exact same bonuses and abilities? Why do you need that +1 to help define a race for you? How is it better for you?

You know why, the answer won't change no matter how many times you ask.

Stats are a mechanism.
Races should be reflected by their tropes and lore.
Elves are agile, Dwarves are not.
Therefore, Elves should get a bonus Dex, and Dwarves should not.

It's not complicated, and I have said the same thing for however long it's been since the spooky UA.

PCs are part of a race. Those races have attributes. The attributes differ between some of the races.

That's it.

 

[Maxperson]

so if we changed out +2 str for the 'count as next size for carrying' and the +2 dex for +5/10ft of speed, and +2 Con into resist X Y and Z under A or B condition.... isn't that just as good and more flavor full?

No. It's not just as good. It works in addition to the stat bonus, but not as a replacement.

10 elves (Maybe there are even enough subraces for no two to be alike but hey maybe not) each get +2 dex, they roll for stats and all generate numbers that some place highish stats in dex but none place the highest roll in dex, they all get +2 dex though... and they end up with 13-15 for 9 of them and 16 for one of them... that is "More dexterous" unless the 11th player is playing a brute half orc that put an 18 in dex... in whitch case the "more dexterous elves" are less dexterous then the half orc. if on the other hand all elves get +5ft of speed and 'nimble advantage' that allows them to add +1d3 to a dex (skill/initative/save) 1/ short rest, then even those with 13 dexs can claim "elves are more dexterous"

It's not called Individual Bonus. It's called Racial Bonus for a reason. 10 elves and that 1 orc only prove that some orcs are very fast. As races, though, the orcs will average higher strengths, despite some elves having 18's, and elves will average higher dexterity, despite some orcs having 18's.

Pointing to individuals like it disproves anything is a failed argument.

I think if dwarves got poison resistance, and 1/sr spend a HD to heal as a bonus action with some sub what evers getting +1 hp per level it is WAY more flavorful then +2 con.

Cool. And they should have both. Because describing them in ways that indicate a higher con bonus and then not giving it to them creates a disconnect between the lore and the mechanics.

 

[HammerMan]

It's not called Individual Bonus. It's called Racial Bonus for a reason. 10 elves and that 1 orc only prove that some orcs are very fast. As races, though, the orcs will average higher strengths, despite some elves having 18's, and elves will average higher dexterity, despite some orcs having 18's.

except you can say "90% of Dwarves put there +2 in Con" and get that... PCs are generic they are individuals.

Pointing to individuals like it disproves anything is a failed argument.

except that is what the other side is saying... our PCs are exceptional, they are individuals...
going off the above 90% idea, what if you had under stats "Dwarves get +2 con, but when making your character you can as an indvisual dwarf swap that for +2 any stat"

Cool. And they should have both. Because describing them in ways that indicate a higher con bonus and then not giving it to them creates a disconnect between the lore and the mechanics.

OKay, what if we just remove any flavor text about constitution and replace it with 'tougher' (I actually don't know of any flavor text for constitution to be honest)

 

[Faolyn]

You know why, the answer won't change no matter how many times you ask.

Stats are a mechanism.
Races should be reflected by their tropes and lore.
Elves are agile, Dwarves are not.
Therefore, Elves should get a bonus Dex, and Dwarves should not.

Or, elves should get a racial trait that dwarfs don't, which would perform the same function and also be more flavorful, fun to play, is mechanically more useful no matter the character's class*, and won't become meaningless should another PC have a higher Dex that your elf does.

(*People think of elves as wizards, maybe rangers. With their +2 Dex, though, they're actually built to be rogues and monks. This is a huge disconnect between the lore and the stats.)

What's more interesting: having a bonus that you use once (when creating your character) and never think of again, or a trait that you can actively use all the time?

 

[Scribe]

What's more interesting: having a bonus that you use once (when creating your character) and never think of again, or a trait that you can actively use all the time

Why the false binary?

Just have both.