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

[Faolyn]

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.

You have no right to say that I misinterpret you when you continuously and deliberately strawman the actual argument.

A small number of PCs, out of all the PCs made in all the games of 5e played, will be halflings with +2s in Strength. Other halfling PCs will put +2 in other attributes, including Dexterity--and probably especially Dexterity, considering that nearly every shred of lore in LotR and The Hobbit were published supports halflings as being nimble. But all halfling NPCs are made by the DM, who will most likely continue to ignore the +2 and simply give their NPC halflings whatever Dex they want to. Just like it's always been.

Nobody is trying to make every single halfling super-strong. Nobody even wants many strong halflings. What people want is the ability to make their one character into a strong halfling with +2 in Strength instead of Dexterity.

 

[Scribe]

You have no right to say that I misinterpret you when you continuously and deliberately strawman the actual argument.

I certainly do, when you make statements that are utterly false.

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

Both of THOSE statements are true.

Repeat after me.

"I do not require a 16, but I desire it."

 

[Vaalingrade]

Nobody is trying to make every single halfling super-strong. Nobody even wants many strong halflings.

At this point, I might out of spite.

Look out for my new book Shortstack Supermen coming 2023.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

 

[Lyxen]

Repeat after me.

"I do not require a 16, but I desire it."

... Because I'm a powergamer...

 

[Faolyn]

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.

There is no Wizard's math. There's just two sentences about what can be expected.

And rolling for stats is the first option giving for generating stats in the PHB. Stat array is the second option. Point buy is the third. Wizard's math, if it exists, is based on rolling dice.

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

This is the entirety of the guidelines:

Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer.

Such math, much wow.

The "math" you are talking about is determining the XP total for a single encounter--but we all know that D&D monsters are not actually calculated very well, and depending on the race/class/archetype combo, player tactics, DM willingness to play their monsters intelligently, atypical conditions, and atypical luck,, a "typical party" can get murdered by an easy encounter or wipe the floor with a hard one.

I used to calculate the XP value exactly for encounters, until I realized that it was a complete waste of time because it had no bearing on what actually happened in game.

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.

Then you should have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people having a floating ASI, because even if there's no requirement, the player still wants it.

But you continuously have problems with it. That proves you care about it. If you didn't care, you wouldn't engage in these discussions. You wouldn't do math to "prove" that +3 isn't needed. You'd just shrug and move on to a topic you actually care about.

So you care, and you care enough to continuously harp about how races should have not only fixed ASIs but attribute limitations as well, and you care enough to continuously harp on the word "required" as if to say that people shouldn't get something just because they want it, and you care enough to do this for pages rather than explore other ideas, like coming up with new racial traits to prevent nonhumans from being just humans in funny hats.

 

[Scribe]

There is no Wizard's math. There's just two sentences about what can be expected.

I'm going to assume you haven't looked into it. There is a lot more than 2 sentences.

Enjoy your characters, have fun with your rolling stats, and drop those floating ASI into whatever you want.

There is underlying math, and there is encounter design.

A +3 modifier from your Primary Stat has no place as a requirement within those area's as provided by 5e.

 

[Scribe]

Well, if you roll for stats balance was thrown out of the window (sp) 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.

This is all it boils down to, unless someone can show me the math that indicates otherwise, I know where the facts sit.

Sorry for messing up your thread recovery @AcererakTriple6 !

Peace!

 

[Scott Christian]

Or it means you want to be effective in your chosen class. "Being effective" and "being a powergamer" are not the same thing at all.

Sorry Faolyn, but just admit it is to be stronger. Forget the semantics of "powergamer." He got you. If you can't play a character that has one less + than another character, the only reason to need the extra +, is to be stronger. Not effective. I have never seen a table boil down to one characters extra +1 being needed in order for the group to survive. That's silly. The game is way too swingy to believe it actually matters.

 

[Scott Christian]

If having a 16 or 17 in a stat isn't needed to be effective, then that means there's no logical reason to disallow it by forbidding a floating ASI.

And you are absolutely correct. In fact, they have disallowed it. The game mechanics and effectiveness of the characters will not change if everyone at the table has a 16s or 17s vs a mixture of 14s, 15s, 16s, and 17s. The only thing that changes is races are now more similar because one dial was removed that added to their list of "what makes this race different than others."

Note, I am not saying there are no differences. What I am saying is that if you want races different from one another, you should use all the knobs and dials. If you don't, then make all the racial feats universal as well. Just let people pick and choose. But the more universal you go, the further away from the "feel" of D&D you travel.