D&D General No More "Humans in Funny Hats": Racial Mechanics Should Determine Racial Cultures

[Scribe]

Again, your logic needs to be reviewed.

Treat required, as a keyword.

If you are rolling stats, you threw balance out the window with the first die cast.

There is NO requirement for a +3. Zero, no expectation, absolutely none, within the math of the game. At all.

 

[Bolares]

Incorrect. Many tables still roll for stats. Mine does, even though I find I prefer point buy.

Well, if you roll for stats balance was thrown out of the windown from the start.... There is no requirement for a 16 in one stat. 14 Main stats won't break anything. You will still be a competent adventurer. That's what Scribe has been saying. Feeling like you need, wanting it to be more efficient... all that is perfectly valid, and I chose to give floating ASI's before tasha came out because the 16 was important to my players, but none of that make the 16 a requirement.

 

[Faolyn]

Again, your logic needs to be reviewed.

Treat required, as a keyword.

If you are rolling stats, you threw balance out the window with the first die cast.

There is NO requirement for a +3. Zero, no expectation, absolutely none, within the math of the game. At all.

According to you. You are not all gamers. You do not know how all gamers think. You do not know how all games are played.

And even if it's not required, there is still no reason to deny people the ability to put a +2 in a stat that they want to.

 

[Scribe]

According to you. You are not all gamers. You do not know how all gamers think. You do not know how all games are played.

And even if it's not required, there is still no reason to deny people the ability to put a +2 in a stat that they want to.

No, according to math, and Wizards own encounter design guidelines.

Unless the only acceptable answer it 'maximum stats benefits' then no, there is no mathematically required stat allocation.

The game does not expect, or demand, a +3. That is fact.

Just say these words. "I do not need a +3 in my Primary Stat, I just want it."

Thats all, just say that.

 

[Minigiant]

Not to go through that again much.

There is no requirement for a 16 in a player characters primary ability score in 5th edition.

There is an expectation of a 16 in a large percentage of the 5th edition fan base due to how Wizards of the Coast presents characters to players, the basic assumption of an default presentation of the game as heroic fantasy, and the adventuring day gameplay of 5th edition interacts with the time constraints of a session.

This interacts with the humans in funny hats expect because before Tasha's only characters who fully wore one of their funny hats and played completely to a stereotype were seen as desirable to a large percentage of the fanbase (especially newer fans) unless player what is optimizing in some other area outside of ability score.

 

[Scribe]

There is an expectation of a 16 in a large percentage of the 5th edition fan base....

Expectation
Large Percentage

Perhaps, perhaps.

Requirement? Absolutely not.

That's all. If people want to just accept that, then angels will sing, devils will close up shop, and Halflings will go on to win Gold in the 15kg bracket of their local olympics weightlifting competition.

 

[Minigiant]

Expectation
Large Percentage

Perhaps, perhaps.

Requirement? Absolutely not.

That's all. If people want to just accept that, then angels will sing, devils will close up shop, and Halflings will go on to win Gold in the 15kg bracket of their local olympics weightlifting competition.

Of course

Really it comes down to a noticeably large amount of 5th edition fans don't play characters, create worlds, or run campaigns and adventures as the 5th edition design and development teams do nor how the team expected them to.

 

[Scribe]

Of course

Really it comes down to a noticeably large amount of 5th edition fans don't play characters, create worlds, or run campaigns and adventures as the 5th edition design and development teams do nor how the team expected them to.

And thats 100% fine! Make no mistake. Do whatever.

As long as we can be honest about the actual motivations and requirements then absolutely, go nuts.

 

[Faolyn]

No, according to math, and Wizards own encounter design guidelines.

And as I said earlier, not everyone follows the encounter design guidelines. Which are, in fact, not guidelines; they're actually a note that says a typical party can get through 6-8 medium encounters between rests. Or more easy encounters or fewer hard encounters.

Unless the only acceptable answer it 'maximum stats benefits' then no, there is no mathematically required stat allocation.

The game does not expect, or demand, a +3. That is fact.

By that logic, you should be fine with +0s in all of your stats, because there no requirement for higher stats. You just have to be OK with having crappy rolls all the time. My rogue has Int 10 and isn't proficient in in Investigation and can't pick locks or find traps to save her life. Damn near almost killed me when I messed up a roll on a lock that had explosive runes on it (thank goodness for fire resistance). That was a fun day. Got to start a riot.

Also: the game is not a sentient being. It is incapable of expecting or demanding anything. An individual DM may actually expect +3 in a stat and build all of their encounters around that expectation. These are facts.

Just say these words. "I do not need a +3 in my Primary Stat, I just want it."

Again: you know what you need and want for your games. You don't know what everyone else needs or wants for theirs.

But again, this has nothing to do with floating ASIs... other than you don't want people to put the +2/+1 in anything other than the stats you approve of.

Say these words: "I want to police the way other people play their game based on my interpretation of what the races are like."

 

[Scribe]

And as I said earlier, not everyone follows the encounter design guidelines. Which are, in fact, not guidelines; they're actually a note that says a typical party can get through 6-8 medium encounters between rests. Or more easy encounters or fewer hard encounters.

If you do not follow the encounter design guidelines, you are already not following Wizards own math. Rolling for stats just exaggerates more fully the fact you are not even playing with 'Wizards balance' in mind.

An individual DM may actually expect +3 in a stat and build all of their encounters around that expectation. These are facts.

They certainly could, good thing I'm talking about Wizards published guidelines, and the math underlying those assumptions.

Say these words: "I want to police the way other people play their game based on my interpretation of what the races are like."

Why would I say what isnt true? I dont care, because I cannot police your game, its utterly irrelevant. I mean you roll for stats. Balance evaporated already.

1. 3 > 2
2. 5e math does not require a +3 in your primary stat.

Both of THOSE statements are true.