I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Micah Sweet]

If you get loose with the word "optimal", I guess. But more typically, there's only one absolute best, really optimal build per type.

All I can tell you is I've seen more than one human fighter in my day, and they were all different.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A PC dwarf is not treated as a different order of being as a dwarf NPC in setting, so neither should IMO have capabilities the other cannot, and each should be recognizable as a version of the other. The mechanics don't have to be the same, but they should produce similar results. You can accomplish this in most versions of D&D.

Big stretch, we both know there are plenty of NPCs/monster "versions" of PC races and classes that possess totally different capabilities to PC ones in pretty much every edition.

Fundamentally D&D is asymmetrical, and weasel words and phrases like "recognizable" and "you can accomplish that" aren't going to change that, they just serve to illustrate that it is. D&D just isn't very focused on the point of concern you have here, whereas other games are. That tells me either you don't actually care about that point very much, or have separate reasons for choosing D&D (or similar) that are more compelling still than that point.

But it's also a semi-historical legend from the perspective of the setting that appeared in a book that wasn't even a part of Tolkien’s Legendarium until years after publication.

You have to be joking. "I don't think The Hobbit really counts as Tolkien" is pretty next level. Special pleading of the most extreme and unconvincing kind, which I don't believe even you believe lol.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Big stretch, we both know there are plenty of NPCs/monster "versions" of PC races and classes that possess totally different capabilities to PC ones in pretty much every edition.

Fundamentally D&D is asymmetrical, and weasel words and phrases like "recognizable" and "you can accomplish that" aren't going to change that, they just serve to illustrate that it is. D&D just isn't very focused on the point of concern you have here, whereas other games are. That tells me either you don't actually care about that point very much, or have separate reasons for choosing D&D (or similar) that are more compelling still than that point.


You have to be joking. "I don't think The Hobbit really counts as Tolkien" is pretty next level. Special pleading of the most extreme and unconvincing kind, which I don't believe even you believe lol.

You are misreading me. The Legardarium is a subset of Tolkien’s work, consisting of those writings associated with the world of Arda as depicted in the material later collected and published (mostly) as the Silmarillion. The Hobbit was originally a completely independent story, intended for his children, that borrowed some elements from his other work but which Tolkien did not consider part of that world. I never said it wasn't Tolkien.

For another example, the Adventures of Tom Bombadil features the title character that also appears in the Lord of the Rings, but Tolkien did not consider it part of his Legendarium.

 

[TwoSix]

I think it's a pretty core premise for modern-day D&D that PCs are not some representative sample drawn randomly from a generated pool of NPCs.

PCs are intended to be more like the BG3 Origin characters; they're going to have special, comic-book style backstories that explain their combination of background, species, and class powers.

Likewise, as a player, you should also understand that an 18 Strength halfling is a little odd and more out of place than an 18 Strength human or orc or centaur, and probably has some kind of supernatural rationale as opposed to "I really like to hit the gym".

 

[The Firebird]

Likewise, as a player, you should also understand that an 18 Strength halfling is a little odd and more out of place than an 18 Strength human or orc or centaur, and probably has some kind of supernatural rationale as opposed to "I really like to hit the gym".

Is there any text in 5e24 that supports this interpretation? Or 5e14?

It seems to me most of the posters here have reference to older material that did have these differences, and so read that in to the new material. But I'm not so sure that a new reader will reach the same conclusion.

 

[TwoSix]

Is there any text in 5e24 that supports this interpretation? Or 5e14?

It seems to me most of the posters here have reference to older material that did have these differences, and so read that in to the new material. But I'm not so sure that a new reader will reach the same conclusion.

No. But, to my mind, it's a natural outgrowth of PCs being "special backstory characters" and the fact that the PC building rules for races have no control over depiction of those races for NPCs.

It's simply obvious (again, to me) that a bog-standard halfling NPC would have a 6-7 Strength, whereas your average orc NPC is probably a 13-14. It's a required function of the DM to model the capabilities of displayed NPCs with appropriate mechanics. You don't need PC building rules to tell you the average halfling can't bench what the average orc does.

 

[Distracted DM]

I think it's a pretty core premise for modern-day D&D that PCs are not some representative sample drawn randomly from a generated pool of NPCs.

PCs are intended to be more like the BG3 Origin characters; they're going to have special, comic-book style backstories that explain their combination of background, species, and class powers.

Likewise, as a player, you should also understand that an 18 Strength halfling is a little odd and more out of place than an 18 Strength human or orc or centaur, and probably has some kind of supernatural rationale as opposed to "I really like to hit the gym".

Does it say this anywhere in the book? It should. Other games do say explicitly that your character is special.

 

[Corinnguard]

Likewise, as a player, you should also understand that an 18 Strength halfling is a little odd

Why is it odd for a Halfling to have an 18 Strength? If I was playing a Halfling with an 18 Strength, I would be doing a Strength (Deception) check to fool my opponent into thinking that I couldn't be stronger than him. Actually, no, I wouldn't need to do one at all because they would have passively failed their Insight check upon seeing my character before the fight even began.

 

[The Firebird]

It's simply obvious (again, to me) that a bog-standard halfling NPC would have a 6-7 Strength, whereas your average orc NPC is probably a 13-14. It's a required function of the DM to model the capabilities of displayed NPCs with appropriate mechanics. You don't need PC building rules to tell you the average halfling can't bench what the average orc does.

This is explicitly contradicted by the text of 5e24. In that edition, the commoner statblock is used for bog-standard NPCs, is used for all species, and has 10s across the board.

 

[TwoSix]

Does it say this anywhere in the book? It should. Other games do say explicitly that your character is special.

No idea. What defines D&D conventions (and D&D-like games) is transmitted by media exposure and cultural osmosis from various tables even more so than a few paragraphs in a PHB or DMG.

Outside of some grimdark stuff, fantasy in general is defined by characters with special birthrights and special destinies. D&D has just accepted that basic assumption.