I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[TwoSix]

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.

That's dumb. Don't do that.

 

[The Firebird]

That's dumb. Don't do that.

Agreed

 

[Cadence]

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.

Personally, it really feels to me that a species described as being of a size "similar to that of a human child" should have it called out as being "but as strong as an adult human" if it were the case.

Given that the "carrying capacity" section is the one about "maximum weight in pounds you can carry" and is explicitly determined by size and strength, it kind of feels like simply renaming "Strength" as "Athleticism" or something like that would solve a lot of the disconnect people have.

But then we're still left with the potential strangeness of Small and Medium being lumped together in terms of the affect of size on carrying capacity, while all of the other sizes are separated. It feels easiest to me to gloss it as an obvious gameism to avoid discouraging the playing of smaller species and other complications arising from it. Personally, taking the rules as literally reflecting the way of the world (everyone between 2 and classes because heights and usual weights between 2' and 8' tall are totally disassociated from combat prowess so there is no need of weight classes in combat sports or bigger (but not larger) beings to haul things seems a bit too odd to me. (I wonder if the size not mattering being flaunted too much would make me have to fight down some inner contrariness and not go out of my way to find goofy examples - or if I would buy into the fantasy enough to just let it go).

 

[TwoSix]

It would also probably help if the character creation rules let you make a Small character with a more realistic Strength size. The standard array doesn't let you have a Strength lower than 8, so any halfling or gnome or other Small race has to be stronger than we would expect the average halfling to be.

 

[TiQuinn]

It would also probably help if the character creation rules let you make a Small character with a more realistic Strength size. The standard array doesn't let you have a Strength lower than 8, so any halfling or gnome or other Small race has to be stronger than we would expect the average halfling to be.

You can always elect to take a lower strength than the 8 if you really want to have a weaker character.

 

[TwoSix]

You can always elect to take a lower strength than the 8 if you really want to have a weaker character.

Yea. I've done that in the past when I've had a strong character vision. It would be nice if it arose a little more organically, but the competing concerns around stat min-maxing probably makes that an unsolvable problem.

 

[The Firebird]

Personally, it really feels to me that a species described as being of a size "similar to that of a human child" should have it called out as being "but as strong as an adult human" if it were the case.

Given that the "carrying capacity" section is the one about "maximum weight in pounds you can carry" and is explicitly determined by size and strength, it kind of feels like simply renaming "Strength" as "Athleticism" or something like that would solve a lot of the disconnect people have.

Yeah, it seems to me a case of concept creep. There are a few areas of bioessentialism that are genuinely issues--primarily orcs, and more generally anything with a modification to INT, and to a lesser extent CHA and WIS.

And then there are the physical things, which are relatively minor in comparison, and do a lot to make things feel realistic; we all know the 7 foot tall species will have a STR advantage vs a halfling. Getting rid of all such modifications results in a system that feels bland and doesn't accurately reflect the world.

I like your change to athleticism. We'd have to do something with carrying capacity, but that is tracked much less often and not as big a deal.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

You know perfectly well that although Tolkien felt that way for a few years, he soon changed his mind, and literally re-wrote bits of The Hobbit to "fix" it, so pretending the text we have now is not the same "world" as LotR etc. is pure shenanigans of the silliest kind. You certainly didn't read The Hobbit before it was revised, unless you're 70-something (maybe 80-something at this point) and I know you aren't, so let's stop being silly and be respectful to what Tolkien himself actually considered to be in the Legendarium, which as you know, includes the revised Hobbit (which is likely the only version anyone here ever read, if they're not an actual Tolkien scholar). Certainly he kept the bit about ol' Bullroarer!

I feel like Gandalf lecturing some naughty halfling here!

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.

That's not "another example".

That's "an example of Tolkien doing things differently"! In fact, it serves to support my point extremely well, because Tolkien had over a decade to revise that or to change his mind on that, but didn't (I mean, for the very obvious reason that those poems don't fit with Middle-Earth), whereas he he changed his mind in, what, single-digit years with The Hobbit (or close to that), and revised it to make it fit with LotR!

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I think you do, especially because these species no longer appear in the MM. Where is general information about them supposed to go if not in the PC rules?

 

[Corinnguard]

I think you do, especially because these species no longer appear in the MM. Where is general information about them supposed to go if not in the PC rules?

In previous editions of D&D, the general information for a given species would have wound up in a Complete Book of X for 2e or a Races of X book for 3e. As for the MM2024, NPC info is something of a one-size-fits-all.