D&D 5E The Fate of the Smol

[Hussar]

I think it’s more generous to view it from the position of ‘wants the STR races to be noticeably stronger than an ‘average STR’ race’, particularly once the STR cap has been reached by both, meanwhile the halflings should be getting an equivalent advantage in DEX so they’re better at the things they’re meant to be better at, and so on with all the things each race is meant to be good at

But, who decides what race is "meant to be better at"?

Never minding that "meant to be better at" seems rather selective. After all, why all this focus on how halflings are too strong, but, dwarves, which are about half the size of goliaths, are just as strong as goliaths, and have never suffered any sorts of penalties. Or elves, which also have no Str penalty, but, are about 1/4 the size of a goliath.

Why are dwarves better swimmers than humans, for example. We've been over all this before. It's cherry picking bits and pieces and then making claims about how it's not "believable".

 

[Hussar]

How is this forcing happening? Have you seen me in your gamming sessions, ripping any character sheets of halflings with unreasonably high strength? Because I'm relatively sure that I haven't done that.

I am expressing my preference for game design that supports verisimilitude, coherence and niche protection. And these are the things the game is build on (granted, sometimes with mixed-success.) And the game is literally is made of rules that 'force' things on you. They 'force' your halflings to not have dark vision or wings, they 'force' your paladins to be unable to cast fireballs, and countless other things. Your position that me wishing rules to have some limitations is somehow forcing things on you is utterly nonsensical. A desire to have any rules at all would be similarly be 'forcing' things to others, as the mere existence of rules means setting some limits. That's what rules literally are: things that say what can and cannot be done in the game.

No, you are expressing your preference for game design that supports YOUR notion of verisimitude. It does nothing to address anyone else's. After all, you are absolutely 100% supported playing a low strength high dex halfling in the new rules. Absolutely nothing stops you from doing that.

But, if we go with your preferences, you get what you want, but, everyone else can go pound salt. All because of your preferences.

Hey, I believe that halfligns should never be able to cast spells. After all, who ever heard of a halfling warlock? Doesn't make any sense that halflings are anything other than rogues. After all, there is a large swath of the history of the game where that was true.

See, if you were arguing based on how the game was, then you'd actually be taking this argument a lot further. But, you're not. You're only arguing for your own preference, but trying to dress it up as "game design that supports verisimilitude, coherence and niche protection".

 

[MGibster]

Why do you get to force your preferences on other people?

This is a bad argument. D&D contains a codified set of rules making it easier for people to sit down at a table and play the game with strangers. You might as well rail against being forced to have elves at your table with dark vision or complain about being forced to allow Barbarians to rage.

But, who decides what race is "meant to be better at"?

I guess whoever writes the rules. And right now at least, the trend is to make each "race" more bland. To take away anything that makes them unique. While I don't particularly care for that choice, nobody is "forcing" me to do anything.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, you are expressing your preference for game design that supports YOUR notion of verisimitude. It does nothing to address anyone else's. After all, you are absolutely 100% supported playing a low strength high dex halfling in the new rules. Absolutely nothing stops you from doing that.

But, if we go with your preferences, you get what you want, but, everyone else can go pound salt. All because of your preferences.

Hey, I believe that halfligns should never be able to cast spells. After all, who ever heard of a halfling warlock? Doesn't make any sense that halflings are anything other than rogues. After all, there is a large swath of the history of the game where that was true.

See, if you were arguing based on how the game was, then you'd actually be taking this argument a lot further. But, you're not. You're only arguing for your own preference, but trying to dress it up as "game design that supports verisimilitude, coherence and niche protection".

Of course I am expressing my preference. But your argument is completely incoherent. We may disagree on what exact things the rules should limit, but rules always limit something! Do you want there to be no rules at all? Is saying that I'd prefer there to be rules in the game forcing things on you?

 

[Vaalingrade]

How is this forcing happening? Have you seen me in your gamming sessions, ripping any character sheets of halflings with unreasonably high strength?

Yes.

Though I have just gotten over a fever.

But you are arguing for future game design to effectively do that; basically making the game more restrictive and less fun for your verisimilitude. Which again has become the point of verisimilitude in D&D discussions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes.

Though I have just gotten over a fever.

But you are arguing for future game design to effectively do that; basically making the game more restrictive and less fun for your verisimilitude. Which again has become the point of verisimilitude in D&D discussions.

But for some verisimilitude is fun. And in any case as long as there are any rules, there will be some restrictions. So we are really just disagreeing about where exactly to draw the line.

 

[Baron Opal II]

But, if we go with your preferences, you get what you want, but, everyone else can go pound salt. All because of your preferences.

But you are arguing for future game design to effectively do that; basically making the game more restrictive and less fun for your verisimilitude. Which again has become the point of verisimilitude in D&D discussions.

Less fun for you, perhaps. Not for me. Your preferences are not superior to mine. Nor are mine superior to yours.

As this is a matter of style and taste, there should be accommodations for both.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Your preferences are not superior to mine.

I don't know, I like my preferences way more.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I don't know, I like my preferences way more.

Naturally. And I like mine more than yours.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But for some verisimilitude is fun. And in any case as long as there are any rules, there will be some restrictions. So we are really just disagreeing about where exactly to draw the line.

Here's the thing though:

One way allows you to still build a sad halfling that sucks at melee and feel real versimiltuinous about it while I can still build a halfling that is good at the concept I built them for.

The other way I get nothing.

One way everyone can make what they want. The other, only the simulaitonist wins.