D&D General elf definition semantic shenanigans

[Yaarel]

just because there's mass variation in a species it doesn't also mean that there isn't also trends and strengths that appear in that species, especially when in comparason between one species and another, so sure you can have the dwarven species that on average varies between 8-17 CON but next to elves or halflings who's species averages around 6-15 CON that's still a relative +2 higher average, even if you are that dwarf with 8 CON.

As @EzekielRaiden is already pointing out,

Even if, on average, a population of Dwarves has a higher Constitution than a population of Elves, it is still untrue to say that every individual Dwarf has a Constitution score +2. Rather, the Dwarf population has a higher frequency of individuals with a high Constitution. Therefore these individuals increase the average of the rest of the population. But there are still some individual Dwarves who have a Constitution score of 6. And there are still some individual Elves who have a Constitution score of 20.

This goes back to the background. What are these individuals doing that makes them relatively tougher than others of the population? Perhaps these Dwarves are miners, smiths, or mason construction workers − jobs that require extensive endurance.

 

[Mind of tempest]

The main point is, the "D&D Elf" can be any kind with any abilities.

It is actually unhelpful to fixate on any ability, when describing the D&D Elf species.

Some Elves have a Dexterity improvement, some Elves dont.
Some Elves have a Charisma improvement, some Elves dont.

The cultural background is actually the highly relevant consideration to understand the stats of any Elf.

what are the most consistent stats that come up?

As @EzekielRaiden is already pointing out,

Even if, on average, a population of Dwarves has a higher Constitution than a population of Elves, it is still untrue to say that every individual Dwarf has a Constitution score +2. Rather, the Dwarf population has a higher frequency of individuals with a high Constitution. Therefore these individuals increase the average of the rest of the population. But there are still some individual Dwarves who have a Constitution score of 6. And there are still some individual Elves who have a Constitution score of 20.

This goes back to the background. What are these individuals doing that makes them relatively tougher than others of the population? Perhaps these Dwarves are miners, smiths, or mason construction workers − jobs that require extensive endurance.

would it not be a equivalency?
A sickly elf has a start of four a very sickly dwarf has a stat of four.
all will eventually produce more or less andy stat combo that will result in an individual living to a age where they are recorded but what a culture thinks as baseline might be really different.

 

[CreamCloud0]

But you are turning trends into ironclad, permanent patterns. Every dwarf starts out always the precise same amount more hardy than every halfling. But that is simply not how trends work. Instead, there will be some genuinely, deeply sickly dwarves--as sickly as the sickliest halfling--and there will be some halflings who are as hardy as the hardiest dwarf, because real variation within species is HUGE, far bigger than a "effects happen 5% more often" could ever account for.

My point is that the real variation in real populations means there should be 6 Con Dwarves (albeit rare ones) and 17 Con Halflings (albeit rare ones). We, as creators and players, do not hew to the average man (who, in general, doesn't even exist to begin with--everyone is far away from the norm on at least some measures). We hew to the outliers, the weirdos, the folks who willingly dive into murder-holes for money, who risk life and limb for foolish causes, who dare to defy fate. Adventurers are necessarily bucking trends in one form or another, that's why their lives are full of adventure and not comfortable monotony.

but what's stopping any halfling from having the same affliction that that 6 CON dwarf did that put them below the average threshold? would that not make them a 4 CON halfling? all things being equal the dwarven biology is on average fundamentally more enduring than the next species', i don't see why you're putting this mutual equal cap on how high or low both species stats can go despite having literally different biological makeups,

 

[Yaarel]

what are the most consistent stats that come up?

There isnt a consistent ability score improvement, because each improvement depends on the specific Elf concept. To force the "wrong" ability improvement on a concept is ... wrong.

For example, the 4e Sun Elf has score improvements of Charisma +2 and Intelligence +2. The 2e Grey Elf has Intelligence +2. When 5e 2014 forced EVERY Sun Elf and every Grey Elf to be Dexterity +2 and Intelligence +1, it contradicted over 20 years of D&D tradition.

Plus, there is Grugach Strength, Athasian Constitution, 4e Wood Elf Wisdom, etcetera.

The Elf, especially, requires floating ability improvements, that the player decides.


In 2024, those Elves who grow up learning wizardry and politics in an Eladrin Fey Court political culture, will often develop Arcana and Persuasion, along with Intelligence +2 or Charisma +2.

would it not be a equivalency?
A sickly elf has a start of four a very sickly dwarf has a stat of four.
all will eventually produce more or less andy stat combo that will result in an individual living to a age where they are recorded but what a culture thinks as baseline might be really different.

Assuming there are bell curves, the outliers of these two populations overlap. It might be the individual with Constitution score 1 is a Dwarf. It might be the individual with Constitution score 30 is an Elf. At the same time, the population of Dwarves might still have more individuals with a high Constitution score.

 

[Yaarel]

Because the ability scores of the Elf species are all over the place,

the Halfling is the go-to species for "graceful" and "dexterous" character concepts. Everything from daggers and other finesse weapons to slings and other missile weapons to Stealth to Slight, are aspects of Halfling cultures.

 

[Remathilis]

but what's stopping any halfling from having the same affliction that that 6 CON dwarf did that put them below the average threshold? would that not make them a 4 CON halfling? all things being equal the dwarven biology is on average fundamentally more enduring than the next species', i don't see why you're putting this mutual equal cap on how high or low both species stats can go despite having literally different biological makeups,

So you might be able to make that argument for physicality, and for sake of argument let's say you can measure and compare average strength agility and stamina deviation. How are you measuring Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma? Are Orcs biologically stupider than elves? Are gnomes biologically more intelligent than dwarves? Are tieflings inherently more Charismatic than halflings?

It might be easy to say a halfling should be weaker than a Goliath, but is it as easy to say they should be smarter than a Goliath?

 

[TwoSix]

just because there's mass variation in a species it doesn't also mean that there isn't also trends and strengths that appear in that species, especially when in comparason between one species and another, so sure you can have the dwarven species that on average varies between 8-17 CON but next to elves or halflings who's species averages around 6-15 CON that's still a relative +2 higher average, even if you are that dwarf with 8 CON.

I don't think anyone is arguing that an aggregate population can't demonstrate strengths and weaknesses (at least I don't think anyone is arguing that).

The difference in opinion comes with whether or not you feel those distinctions needed to be embedded in the character creation rules to be meaningful within the fiction.

For me personally, I have no problem saying "Dwarves are tougher than most humanoids, are martially inclined, and excellent at all sorts of crafts involving earth and stone." And as a DM, I can represent that by the stats I give my dwarven NPCs (most will have between 14-16 Con), and giving those NPCS a diversity of martial abilities, as well as some excellent craftspeople.

But, I don't think the toughest dwarf is obviously tougher than the toughest human, or that the frailest dwarf is still more robust than the frailest human. I just think dwarven Con scores aren't a classic bell curve, instead, they have a bias towards scores in the 12-16 range. Giving a "+X" bonus is a poor model for their actual narrative in the setting (as I envision it.)

So for me, modeling a population within the setting is a function of how I build NPCs, not the character creation rules. I don't need the rules providing me a template as to what dwarves (or elves, or gnomes) act like. Just provide me the narrative, and have the character creation rules make a light nod to that narrative, mostly letting the racial features be a selection from a menu of options.

 

[CreamCloud0]

So you might be able to make that argument for physicality, and for sake of argument let's say you can measure and compare average strength agility and stamina deviation. How are you measuring Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma? Are Orcs biologically stupider than elves? Are gnomes biologically more intelligent than dwarves? Are tieflings inherently more Charismatic than halflings?

It might be easy to say a halfling should be weaker than a Goliath, but is it as easy to say they should be smarter than a Goliath?

i mean, people don't like to hear it but yes, there can be difference between the fundamental cognitive ability of different species, even if they're all humaniod their brains can still be wired differently with different areas priortised, we're not comparing ethnicities here, we need to get past the assumption that these are just humans that look slightly different, the parts of our brains that is saying an elf is just a 'tall human' or an orc a 'buff human', a dog, a tiger, a rabbit and an otter might all have fur, claws, and a tail but that doesn't make a tiger a 'bigger dog' or an otter a rabbit that lives in water.

maybe elves have better development in the area of the brain that stores and recalls information, tieflings have more developed areas that deal with social interactions, and given that this is 5e the edition of 'no penalties' no species is less inteligent than a human, only potentially smarter.

 

[Remathilis]

i mean, people don't like to hear it but yes, there can be difference between the fundamental cognitive ability of different species, even if they're all humaniod their brains can still be wired differently with different areas priortised, we're not comparing ethnicities here, we need to get past the assumption that these are just humans that look slightly different, the parts of our brains that is saying an elf is just a 'tall human' or an orc a 'buff human', a dog, a tiger, a rabbit and an otter might all have fur, claws, and a tail but that doesn't make a tiger a 'bigger dog' or an otter a rabbit that lives in water.

maybe elves have better development in the area of the brain that stores and recalls information, tieflings have more developed areas that deal with social interactions, and given that this is 5e the edition of 'no penalties' no species is less inteligent than a human, only potentially smarter.

IDK man, mental ability scores are kinda hard to justify anyway (I mean, what is the functional difference between a 12 and a 14 Wisdom in the fiction?) but by saying some races have an innate predisposition towards Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma feels icky. Ickier than physical scores which already felt rough.

I'm beginning to understand why so many games which started off as d20 hacks have moved away from scores in favor of just using the bonus mod.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you might be able to make that argument for physicality, and for sake of argument let's say you can measure and compare average strength agility and stamina deviation. How are you measuring Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma? Are Orcs biologically stupider than elves? Are gnomes biologically more intelligent than dwarves? Are tieflings inherently more Charismatic than halflings?

It might be easy to say a halfling should be weaker than a Goliath, but is it as easy to say they should be smarter than a Goliath?

It certainly is not as easy, no. Mental stats are largely mapped as types and degrees of education, which doesn't have a biological basis. You could play with that mechanically in the culture or background axis, but not in heritage really.

I suppose a variant could be done such that physical stats are affected by heritage, and mental ones by culture or background.