D&D 5E I think I prefer backgrounds in 2014

[GnomeWorks]

actually isn't the 'small species with giant weapon' a significantly popular archetype?

I don't think I've encountered that personally, but that's anecdotal so not relevant. I will point to FF7's Cloud, though, as being indicative of some kind of "person wielding a weapon they really shouldn't be able to" archetype being a thing.

At which point a feat that allows you to do that, or a class that gets features to allow them to do so and focus on that (bear in mind I don't believe in multiclassing and so whatever potential issues would arise from that are, in my mind, irrelevant), would seem to be the best answer. That I'm a proponent of "everyone gets a feat at 1st level" (and thus enabling the concept for everyone) is certainly coloring that answer, though -- but then 5e24 seems to have also gone that route, so that might not be a relevant concern.

personally i don't love the need to make the biologically disinclined species any worse at a thing than the baseline set by the other general species capability

Dogs are not giraffes.

i'm happy just having the goliaths have their thing that makes them exceptional at strength-y things (though i don't think that ought to take the form of ASI boosts), so long as the halfling also get their things that make them better at stealth and other halfling-y things.

Giving races features and access to feats and other mechanics that allow them to lean into their kind's strengths makes as much sense to me as having general-access feats that let characters lean into archetypes and abilities that aren't their kind's typical strengths, and as such is a sensible thing.

 

[abirdcall]

actually isn't the 'small species with giant weapon' a significantly popular archetype? i feel we would've seen many more martial halflings if their small trait hadn't directly worked against those who wanted to build into strength, as all the best STR weapons were Heavy meaning they couldn't realistically utilise them (as well as one of the best martial optimisation feats-GWM which also requires the heavy trait to activate)

I've never seen it. I'm sure it's popular among some people who are going for a certain sort of fantasy and more power to them. I'm happy we all get to play however we want.

personally i don't love the need to make the biologically disinclined species any worse at a thing than the baseline set by the other general species capability and then have to justify that that halfling weilding the greathammer has some quirk or boon that makes their concept possible, i'm happy just having the goliaths have their thing that makes them exceptional at strength-y things (though i don't think that ought to take the form of ASI boosts), so long as the halfling also get their things that make them better at stealth and other halfling-y things.

I'm really not sure what you're saying here.

You're free to do whatever and I'm free to do whatever and to me that's a good thing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think D&D has known for a while what the species are for. They exist due tradition, but they don't actually do much. Halflings are not allowed to actually feel small, they must be able to do anything that person twice as tall and eight times the mass could do. Goliaths are not allowed to feel large and strong, elves are not allowed to feel agile etc. It is just cosmetics without any impact.

To me the appeal of playing different species is that they are actually different. But the game has always been pretty bad at representing it, and it has just gotten worse. The species are just skins.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But if a score called "strength" doesn't actually represent how strong your character is, then that is crap design. Like a complete failure. We have mechanics that are disconnected from the fiction. I have no use for that in a roleplaying game. The game is about the fiction, the rules are there to help us to represent it mechanically. If they cannot do that, they don't need to exist.

The mechanics of the entire game are disconnected from the fiction. But people only see that in the parts they want to see it.

Hit points are not connected to a person's health. Three "death saves" are not connected to how every person is going to die-- IE it doesn't take 18 seconds for every single person to expire... some are faster, some are much much slower. Levels do not accurately represent a person getting better with age and experience because the gap between 1st level and 20th is way, way, way too great.

People who say they need X in the game to represent some thing do so while simultaneously ignoring the hundreds of other mechanics that are not connected to anything in the fiction. And the designers of the game know this... which is why they don't get nearly as hung up on these things as certain players do.

 

[GnomeWorks]

The mechanics of the entire game are disconnected from the fiction. But people only see that in the parts they want to see it.

Pointing this out is not a rebuttal, nor does it make the complaints raised invalid.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't think D&D has known for a while what the species are for. They exist due tradition, but they don't actually do much. Halflings are not allowed to actually feel small, they must be able to do anything that person twice as tall and eight times the mass could do. Goliaths are not allowed to feel large and strong, elves are not allowed to feel agile etc. It is just cosmetics without any impact.

To me the appeal of playing different species is that they are actually different. But the game has always been pretty bad at representing it, and it has just gotten worse. The species are just skins.

definitely, i want my species to feel distinct, i want them to have some set of traits that actually gives them a distinct feeling and playstyle that only they have, but Wizards is so afraid of making a species that's 'better' at any given role that all the current species end up as these nothingburger collections of low-impact and ribbon traits.

 

[GnomeWorks]

afraid of making a species that's 'better' at any given role

This is a double-edged sword: if you make a race "the best" at X, depending on how you go about that, it can lead to 3e-style optimization. And frankly leaving that firmly in the past is for the best.

Ideally, races would have benefits and drawbacks. Specialization leads to defects in other areas. Take goliaths, for instance: I don't know much about them beyond that they exist, they're big, and they're vaguely rock-like. To me that would imply high strength and/or con, but also probably lower dex and lower movement speed. Trade-offs make race a decision, not an obvious thing or an optimization problem.

Modern players seem to be really against the notion of drawbacks, though, which is unfortunate because that kind of thinking leads to ... well, this discussion.

The other problem we're suffering is the notion of subraces. If you have wood elves, high elves, and dark elves, you're necessarily diluting what it means to be an elf.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

this is another interesting thing - there was another character in the party who was a decently combat optimized fighter. GWM, 20 in the attack stat, the works. hit way more often then i did. and yes, the stat did matter.

One in 10 attacks he was hitting where you would not. He probably did way mored damage in melee due to gwm. And maybe attacked more often on top.*

A +2 bonus at least is notable in a normal fight. Could he cast area spells though?

...so your example of a character with suboptimal stats being the highest damage dealer is someone who could borderline ignore their low stats? that's. not an example in your favor, actually.

One example for how writing down helps you actually asess a build.

*18 str is about 20% more damage over 16 str. 20 str is about 45% more.

So i consider 20 str a notable difference.
On the other hand, in short combats, winning initative or getting out ranged attacks or a good area of effect can still make up that difference.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

definitely, i want my species to feel distinct, i want them to have some set of traits that actually gives them a distinct feeling and playstyle that only they have, but Wizards is so afraid of making a species that's 'better' at any given role that all the current species end up as these nothingburger collections of low-impact and ribbon traits.

They feel way more different than before 4e. They have actual traits.

In AD&D they were mostly distinct because of (multi-)class restrictions.

 

[Clint_L]

This is a double-edged sword: if you make a race "the best" at X, depending on how you go about that, it can lead to 3e-style optimization. And frankly leaving that firmly in the past is for the best.

Ideally, races would have benefits and drawbacks. Specialization leads to defects in other areas. Take goliaths, for instance: I don't know much about them beyond that they exist, they're big, and they're vaguely rock-like. To me that would imply high strength and/or con, but also probably lower dex and lower movement speed. Trade-offs make race a decision, not an obvious thing or an optimization problem.

They do make it an optimization problem, though. Mountain dwarves were WAY overrepresented in 2014 5e simply because that extra +1 ASI at level 1 made them slightly better for strength-based classes, for example.

When it comes to ability scores, trade-offs basically tell players, "if you want to play this class, then you should pick X,Y, or Z species." And then we wind up with a bunch of same old, same old. With your example above, you're basically telling players, "if you want to play a goliath monk, ranger, or rogue, you're going to start at a disadvantage." Because gamers will tend towards optimization, you will see much fewer goliaths in those classes.