D&D (2024) Which races would YOU put into the 50th anniversary Players Handbook?

[Lanefan]

No edition of D&D has ever modelled this. Ever. Literally 100% of editions have not represented this, or anything remotely like it.

Because 12 Strength isn't, and has never been, a meaningful ceiling for halfling strength. Even in 1e, when ability score limits actually existed.

A moderately strong Human is IMO in the 14-15 range. That getting way up there for our little Halflings who in 1e would cap right out at 16.

Why should they? PCs do not behave like those populations. They do things that most members of those populations would consider completely insane. They take incredible risks, reach stupidly high heights, etc. They should not be like normal people--because normal people don't adventure. “We...have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner!”

Indeed; and in saying it this way you've almost made my point for me.

Adventurers are different because of what they DO, not because of what they ARE.

What they ARE, ideally, is a random (and thus, reflective) sampling of their species' population other than they each happen to be particularly adept at...something, whatever it may be. They each have a special talent for something, and otherwise are mostly ordinary people.

What then sets them apart in their world is what they DO: they take that talent and put it to use in the very risky field of adventuring.

Okay. D&D has never done that though, and it seems odd to demand that it start doing so, at least in the way you've described. It is trivially easy for a halfling to be stronger than an ordinary goliath, and always has been. Even back in Ye Olden Dayse this was true. Only noticeably above-average goliaths (or equivalents, since I know goliaths don't exist in 1e) could ever be beyond a halfling's reach.

A Halfling, yes. An exceptional, unusual, one-in-a-generation Halfling.

But if the Halfling strength range is 3-16 and the Goliath strength range is 8-22 (which is probably about where I'd put them were they in my game) then the very strongest of Halflings (at 16) would be only just above the average for Goliaths (at 15). More importantly, the average Halfling would be significantly less strong than the average Goliath.

With a simple +2 bonus, 5e never separated them to that degree at any point; but at least they waved at the concept as it went by. Not any more.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Adventurers are different because of what they DO, not because of what they ARE.

The two cannot be separated in a game where what you are--your ability scores--is often more than half of how well you do things.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What they ARE, ideally, is a random (and thus, reflective) sampling of their species' population other than they each happen to be particularly adept at...something, whatever it may be. They each have a special talent for something, and otherwise are mostly ordinary people.

I mean, that doesn't make a lick of sense. That's like saying the same about sportspeople or scientists, it's obviously false.

 

[Yaarel]

When correlating size and Strength, I suggest the following prereqs. A smaller creature can be strong. But larger creature is to some degree inherently stronger relative to other creatures. (In my preference to avoid negative numbers, 12 is average, and 10 is below average.)

Minimum Requirements for Both Strength and Constitution: Size
27-30: Gargantuan+
23-26: Huge
19-22: Large
15-18: Medium (Heavyweight) (Powerful Build)
11-14: Medium (Lightweight)
7-10: Small
3-6: Tiny−

For example, a player character that has 20 Strength and 19 Constitution can be Large, if the player wishes. A Heavyweight has at least a 15 in both Strength and Constitution.

In this way, a halfling can be any Strength. But larger creatures tend to be stronger.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

When correlating size and Strength, I suggest the following prereqs. A smaller creature can be strong. But larger creature is to some degree inherently stronger relative to other creatures. (In my preference to avoid negative numbers, 12 is average, and 10 is below average.)

Minimum Requirements for Both Strength and Constitution: Size
27-30: Gargantuan+
23-26: Huge
19-22: Large
15-18: Medium (Heavyweight) (Powerful Build)
11-14: Medium (Lightweight)
7-10: Small
3-6: Tiny−

For example, a player character that has 20 Strength and 19 Constitution can be Large, if the player wishes. A Heavyweight has at least a 15 in both Strength and Constitution.

In this way, a halfling can be any Strength. But larger creatures tend to be stronger.

Makes absolutely zero sense to tie CON to size.

 

[Yaarel]

Makes absolutely zero sense to tie CON to size.

Being "Large" is more than being tall. It implies mass and toughness. Consider "Heavyweight" in the muscular sense, in contradistinction to the obese sense. There is fitness as well as mass.

Generally, in the Monster Manual and elsewhere, there is a statistically strong correlation between Strength and Constitution, especially with regard to larger size creatures. The larger brutes are tougher.

Moreover, "Large" humans who are over 8 feet tall, but are also athletically fit, do exist but are exceedingly rare. Many height outliers involve cancer to the pituitary gland or other illness, with overall results that are not effectively "large" in the D&D sense, and are often not high strength, requiring a walking stick to support their own weight and similar. The double prereq keeps the largest human fit sizes less frequent.

The prereqs requiring both Strength and Constitution have all of the above considerations in mind.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The larger brutes are tougher.

In real life? No. They are not. They tend to be horrifically vulnerable, actually.

 

[Yaarel]

In real life? No. They are not. They tend to be horrifically vulnerable, actually.

If suffering from an illness, that relates to their height, yes.

But some 8 feet and above are fit and healthy.

Constitution is an important consideration.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If suffering from an illness, that relates to their height, yes.

But some 8 and above are fit and healthy.

No I'm talking about animals as well as people. An elephant is not less likely to die from an infected wound or poison than a human is. But by saying larger = higher CON you are saying it is. Nor is it likely to be better at holding its breath or running long distance (indeed, I'm pretty sure elephants are significantly worse than humans at the latter).

If you want higher HP, which makes some sense, for larger creatures, use HD, not CON.

 

[Yaarel]

No I'm talking about animals as well as people. An elephant is not less likely to die from an infected wound or poison than a human is. But by saying larger = higher CON you are saying it is.

In the sense that a larger creature often requires a larger dosage to be affected by a venom, the larger creatures is more resistant to poison.

God-forbid: punching an elephant versus punching a cat. The elephant has more "hit points".