Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8515288" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, the problem is, how granular is the system?&nbsp; The difference between an 20 and a 10 stat in 5e isn't actually all that large.&nbsp; Going from 0 - +5 isn't enough of a range to build in stat differences based on race.&nbsp; The argument that you can have a really strong halfling vs a weak orc isn't a bad one.&nbsp; It's perfectly plausible.&nbsp; And, let's not forget, that the archetypes of given races will likely result, at the table, in enough difference to make it work.At my particular table, for example, I have 5 PC's.&nbsp; The war forged cleric is the strongest.&nbsp; The owl folk artificer is about the weakest and the tiefling bard splits the difference.&nbsp; Well, that's pretty plausible isn't it?&nbsp; Yeah, people go on and on about the 20 strength halfling, but, outside of the hypothetical, how often do you actually see this at your table?&nbsp; How often have you had a small character at your table with a 20 strength?&nbsp; Is it an outlier or is it typical?&nbsp; IME, it's very much the outlier.&nbsp; If I want to play a 20 strength character, I'm going to pick a race where that fits because, &quot;big strong guy&quot; is the general archetype that people will follow.I really wonder how much of this issue is just people theory crafting about what players &quot;could&quot; do vs what players actually do.I mean, hell, considering practically no one ever plays halflings anyway, who cares?&nbsp; (I kid, I kid.&nbsp; Please put that stick down.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> )</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8515288, member: 22779"] But, the problem is, how granular is the system? The difference between an 20 and a 10 stat in 5e isn't actually all that large. Going from 0 - +5 isn't enough of a range to build in stat differences based on race. The argument that you can have a really strong halfling vs a weak orc isn't a bad one. It's perfectly plausible. And, let's not forget, that the archetypes of given races will likely result, at the table, in enough difference to make it work. At my particular table, for example, I have 5 PC's. The war forged cleric is the strongest. The owl folk artificer is about the weakest and the tiefling bard splits the difference. Well, that's pretty plausible isn't it? Yeah, people go on and on about the 20 strength halfling, but, outside of the hypothetical, how often do you actually see this at your table? How often have you had a small character at your table with a 20 strength? Is it an outlier or is it typical? IME, it's very much the outlier. If I want to play a 20 strength character, I'm going to pick a race where that fits because, "big strong guy" is the general archetype that people will follow. I really wonder how much of this issue is just people theory crafting about what players "could" do vs what players actually do. I mean, hell, considering practically no one ever plays halflings anyway, who cares? (I kid, I kid. Please put that stick down. :D :p ) [/QUOTE]

Verification