D&D 5E Halflings are the 7th most popular 5e race

[Neonchameleon]

5e can handle mixed-level parties far better than either of the previous two editions. It's a strong mark in its favour IMO.

Can it?

Then why could oD&D handle mixed-level parties so much better than 4e? What other factors caused this?

The XP track and XP for GP. In oD&D you are going to catch up to basically a level behind the rest of the party in the time it takes them to level up once. And that's without the XP for GP rules also enabling power levelling.

 

[CleverNickName]

It really is, and the fig-leaf excuse that it's theoretically possible but mostly not worth doing is exactly the problem.

I think we fundamentally disagree on what "excuse," "possible," "worth," "exactly," and "problem" all mean.

This argument has gotten too semantic to hold my interest.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The thing is that 5e benchmarks your primary stat at 16. Not being able to make the benchmark feels a whole lot worse than not being able to go above and beyond. And on point buy/standard array you can't meet the benchmark without a +1, meaning 5e feels as if you don't have the one -2 of 3.x but four of them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think we fundamentally disagree on what "excuse," "possible," "worth," "exactly," and "problem" all mean.

This argument has gotten too semantic to hold my interest.

Okay, then if I may, I will attempt to dodge semantics and state things plainly.

The benefit of TTRPGs is that they let you do what you want. You aren't bound by what someone thought to program into a game. Mixing and matching elements you can choose to combine is one of the key draws of play. Giving players a reason to pursue this--to be creative, to mix things in unexpected ways, to try actions that weren't predicted in advance--is thus a very important goal when making such a game. Conversely, curtailing player creativity, whether by actually punishing unexpected combinations, or by only giving rewards to expected combinations, runs against that core proposal of letting players do what they want without it needing to be pre-established first.

This is why I have always found these arguments baffling and frustrating--doubly so because they come from folks who (explicitly!) want the game to be more open-ended, to be more supportive (or to at least get out of the way of) spontaneous, creative player choices even if they don't conform to received wisdom.

Enforcing archetypes is exactly the opposite of the creative impulse that gives TTRPGs their value. If I want a game that will punish (or at least deny incentive to) unexpected combinations, I can just go play a computer game. It's cheaper, and far easier to boot. No need to deal with schedules and finding a good group and all that nonsense. And cooperative stuff has become quite popular as well, such as Divinity: Original Sin 2.

 

[Hussar]

Ah see, I consider "whack-a-mole" healing to be the whole "let them drop, we'll just heal them from 0 more efficiently".

That would explain it. Do no dms ever attack downed pcs? And the fact that you come back prone means you’re losing mobility as well.

I suppose the fact that I allow potions as a bonus action might be a contributor here as well.

I’ll admit that I just haven’t really seen this.

 

[Lanefan]

And yet a halfling can achieve literally precisely identical strength to a human, even without racial ability bonuses.

Indeed, which is why some abilities should hard-cap at different points for different species rather than 20 across the board.

 

[Scribe]

P1: Players choose not to play Dwarf Wizards because they're below par compared to other options.
P2: Players ought to be able to play what interests them, rather than what is mathematically best.
C: Therefore, Dwarves (and all races) ought not be below par compared to other options.

P1 may be true, but it ultimately is player choice. Plenty of folks DO play these combos, before Tashas ruined it.
P2, IS true, players can, but they choose not to because they feel the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. In other words, they need to optimize.
C: Leads to bland and shallow player options.

Your argument does not even actually describe a fictitious alternate 5e that actively tries to enforce the kind of thing you claim matters, let alone the game that actually came out in 2014 and which was not railed against for diluting player-character ancestry to nothingness.

I'm not even making an argument here. 5e doesnt come close to reflecting actual differences, because the math is so incredibly stale and/or sterile.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Indeed, which is why some abilities should hard-cap at different points for different species rather than 20 across the board.

As Halflings are the size of 2-year olds, anything above Str 4 is always going to be unrealistically strong for them. Setting the limit at, say, Str 16 would cripple them for certain classes but do nothing to make them more believable.

It's a magical world. The usual roles that use Str are already hindered by their Small size, so it doesn't come up that often. Some Halfling may pop up with Str 20 in PC circles, okay, he fell into the local druid's cauldron of strength potion when he was younger, I'm sure it happens.

 

[Lanefan]

Then why doesn't it limit humans too?

Because something has to be the baseline against which all others are compared. Humans - likely due to the fact we're all pretty familiar with them - are it.

Then what you will actually see is almost no one ever playing that. Which was the whole point.

Exactly. It's my whole point too, only from the reverse direction: playing an against-type class-species combo is going to be unusual, and will present a whole new set of challenges to that character's player.

And, as noted in my post above, it is completely possible to support everyone being Basically Competent at every class, while still preserving the physiological distinctiveness of dwarves vs elves vs whatever. You just have to be willing to allow that there are solutions other than the facile one.

How? Either you make those physical differences mechanically invisible (so why bother with physical differences) or you make the classes not dependent on abilities (so why bother with classes).

Except that that is simply not true--the individual variation within populations of sapient beings would almost surely be greater than the difference between their central tendencies. The bell curves almost surely will overlap. And if they do overlap, then there's no validity to the claim that physiology completely and totally determines what a species is capable of doing. It can have influence, yes--but not be ironclad destiny.

Of course the bell curves will overlap. That said, that a Strength-10 Human is average among its people while a Strength-10 Dwarf is a weakling among Dwarves.

Because there are other solutions besides the facile one. Your dichotomy is false: We can avoid nerfing anything, by instead forcing players to choose between benefits.

So are you saying I should power up everything else to the level of what now stands out as overpowered?

Because when something like Dwarven Wizards stands out as overpowered there's only four solutions:

1. Ban that specific combination
2. Nerf ALL Wizards and-or ALL Dwarves such that the combo is no longer overpowered (and then have to fix loads of knock-on effects elsewhere)
3. Power up ALL other classes and-or ALL other species such that combos involving them are on par with this one
4. Do nothing and just accept the problem as part of the game.

The reason for the ALL in those is that I simply can't justify saying, for example, that only Dwarves who become Wizards don't get anything from high Con; and if I nerf those Dwarves then in the name of setting consistency I have to nerf all Dwarves equally. (thinking on it further I think I'd have the same problem with the idea of 13th-Age Necromancers not getting the same benefits from high Con that everyone else gets)

Of the above, IMO 4 isn't even worth considering; neither is 3 as I'm specifically trying to fight against power creep rather than add to it. 2 does nobody any favours. But you seem to be arguing for 3, and yet how can 3 happen without up-powering the whole game?

 

[Scribe]

And as Halflings are the size of 2-year olds, anything above Str 4 is always going to be unrealistically strong for them.

Finally, someone coming to the correct conclusion.