Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8515337" data-attributes="member: 18">Couldn't you say the same about most characters, though?Looking back through D&D, I'd say about 60-70% of "great characters" didn't have a lot to do with their class, and some of the absolute worst "Ugh this guy" characters were basically "I AM CLERICMAN MY LIFE IS CLERIC MY THOUGHTS ARE CLERIC" or the like (let's not even start on some Paladins). Yeah there's room in-between but I'm skeptical that this is really a problem - and you could always just y'know, talk to the player if you're concerned re: toe-stepping.I think you're maybe not seeing the whole picture - you're missing the forest for the trees.It's not that you're wrong to think that's okay, or ask questions about why other games aren't having the same pushback, but you're not really looking at the reasons behind why D&D, specifically, has issues here. Lemme list some for you, maybe it'll help.1) D&D isn't science fiction - I know that sounds facile, but it matters. D&D isn't Star Wars. There aren't these well-defined, consistent species we've seen on-screen, who have fairly obvious characteristics. These are something much more malleable.2) D&D hasn't been consistent on making characters conform to "science-y" standards. I.e., over the editions, it's wildly varied as to what stats you can have on what race, and whether there's a limit or just a penalty. Furthermore, in no edition, has anything approach what you're asking for actually been done. That includes 1E. Halflings in 1E are limited to 17 STR. That's obviously already far outside the bounds of what is plausible if we're talking something attempting realism.3) D&D has a long history of problematic stuff with races that other games do not (or at least are not widely known to have). This means it is, rightly I think, subject to more scrutiny on this than some other games.4) D&D hasn't been consistent on what stats represent, either, but if we're down to brass tacks, what gets particularly questionable is the mental stats, as they particularly tie in to the insulting/problematic depictions D&D (specifically) has engaged in.5) As you correctly point out, D&D leans extremely heavily on stats to make characters functional, so this issue is particularly discussed in D&D as opposed to other games. In a lot of games you can simply work around this kind of thing.As for "represented mechanically", I don't think any cases has been made that ASIs are the "right tool for the job". If Halflings, say, had a a reduced weight limit, or a penalty to STR checks or something, I don't think that would be a problem, nor would people be mad about it. I'd go as far as to say the vast majority of things people point to ASIs for would actually be better off as racial features or the like. It's not like physiology isn't featured in the new approach - c.f. the Elven "Trance" feature for something that physiological and mechanical.As an aside, essentially the new approach is "self-enforcement", which honestly, I expect to work. Do you think we're going to see bunches of "LOL STR20 HALFLING LOLORAMA!!!!" characters? I don't. On the contrary, I think as things open up a bit, choice-wise, we'll see people voluntarily self-limiting on this kind of this. I think we'll actually see few high-STR Halflings or the like.All in all, ASIs used the way D&D uses them, just don't do well for what you're asking for, which is sci-fi-esque "species". They're not extreme enough, and stats are both too vague, and too important to a functional character for them to be a good mechanism. Again, racial features are where most of this should be (also possibly a return of "Small" being a trade-off as per 3E).</blockquote>

Verification