D&D 5E Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)

[Maxperson]

Okay, but that doesn't answer the question.

How does having evil human organizations not count as "complex real world angst"? What makes them immune to this effect?

In my experience humans are the exception.

Of course you don't fight the good guys. But you still encounter them. Unless that halfling village is full of evil cultists. Or the dwarven traders are secretly cannibals. You encounter the "good guys" all the time.

It seems you missed the part where I said that the good races are generally good when encountered, even though evil examples are out there.

So, again, if you have all the dwarves being good people who are trying to help you, and all the hobgoblins being evil people trying to hurt you... why would anyone go looking for evil dwarves or good hobgoblins?

Reasons. Who knows what the players might come up with. That's one of the great things about D&D.

Really? So what was the evil you were fighting against?

Murder? Real
Tyranny? Real
Genocide/Omnicide? Real
Thievery and covetousness? Real
War? Real

None of those things in the game was real.

What evils did your players confront in the game that aren't real evils of our world?

It doesn't matter. None of the game evils was ever in any way connected to any real world evil.

So why is it a problem to widen the type for others? Why is "I can't play against type" such a big concern if we have these races that don't have a type to begin with?

So, you want to take Dwarven wizards away from me, so that other people can feel cool by bucking the trend and playing a dwarven wizard?

First, dwarven wizards are still against type. Second, did you miss that I thought it was cool that there was a dwarven wizard in 2e? That edition didn't allow them at all, and I still thought it was a good idea. Why would you ask something that is again the opposite of what I have been saying? Do you want to shut down this conversation, too?

I didn't realize my Genasi was indistinguishable from a human. We aren't homogenizing anything,

You are. If every race gets the same racial bonuses, they are basically one race with varied looks and some differing abilities. Just like, you know, real world humans as you've pointed out.

 

[Malmuria]

You are. If every race gets the same racial bonuses, they are basically one race with varied looks and some differing abilities. Just like, you know, real world humans as you've pointed out.

differing abilities like fire resistance, breathing electricity, chatting with woodland animals, and creepily starting off into the distance for four hours instead of sleeping?

 

[Maxperson]

differing abilities like fire resistance, breathing electricity, chatting with woodland animals, and creepily starting off into the distance for four hours instead of sleeping?

Sure. It's a fantasy game. Why can't humans have those abilities with a roll on the chart of the fantastic? I've read many different fantasy novels with humans that had abilities like those.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Dwarves and Elves aren't going to become generic just because they lose the +2. Heck, WotC could remove all racial mechanics...and even the fluff, while they're at it...and just reduce the section on race to "Choose your race: human, elf, dwarf, or hobbit I mean halfling" and people would still create agile elves with bows and tough dwarves with axes.

I can't believe that people are arguing that our traditional image of these creatures is due to a +2 in Dungeons and Dragons, and that removing that +2 is going to magically negate the mountains and mountains of stories, movies, video games, comics, cosplay, all the other RPGs, and god knows what else.

I mean, Orlando Bloom alone probably has five orders of magnitude more influence on the popular conception of "elf" than D&D does.

Sleep easy. The "type" is in no danger.

 

[Malmuria]

Sure. It's a fantasy game. Why can't humans have those abilities with a roll on the chart of the fantastic? I've read many different fantasy novels with humans that had abilities like those.

Maybe I’m missing something from your discussion; I wasn’t following every post. My point is that those special abilities are actually what distinguish fantasy races because they are fantastical, unlike racial asi.

another reason why asi do a poor job of making different races feel different at the table: you roll 3d6 (basically) to generate them, thus creating a bell curve (if, say, you rolled 3d6 1000 times). But those stats are just used to derive bonuses, and then game uses the swingier d20 for its core mechanic. Overall, the number of times that the racial asi will mean the difference between success and failure is very low, especially for non class specific rolls (skill rolls).

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe I’m missing something from your discussion; I wasn’t following every post. My point is that those special abilities are actually what distinguish fantasy races because they are fantastical, unlike racial asi.

It's a combination of them both, but the "non-human" races are already played as humans with special abilities. Anything that makes them even more similar to one another, like all of them getting identical stat bonuses, just makes that more glaring.

 

[Argyle King]

Dwarves and Elves aren't going to become generic just because they lose the +2. Heck, WotC could remove all racial mechanics...and even the fluff, while they're at it...and just reduce the section on race to "Choose your race: human, elf, dwarf, or hobbit I mean halfling" and people would still create agile elves with bows and tough dwarves with axes.

I can't believe that people are arguing that our traditional image of these creatures is due to a +2 in Dungeons and Dragons, and that removing that +2 is going to magically negate the mountains and mountains of stories, movies, video games, comics, cosplay, all the other RPGs, and god knows what else.

I mean, Orlando Bloom alone probably has five orders of magnitude more influence on the popular conception of "elf" than D&D does.

Sleep easy. The "type" is in no danger.

Do the video games you've mentioned have racial traits for the different choices in those respective games?

 

[Scott Christian]

When asked about it, Crawford said that the case of the mountain dwarf swapping abilities and proficiencies had negligible impact on gaming balance. There is no problem.

I would add that balance and perspective of balance are two different things.

I agree with him, it does not make the game lopsided at all. It isn't going to throw the table's dynamics and play off.

But you have seen a reworking of rules, constant debates, and a literal outcry over not getting an extra +1 because someone chose to play a race that wasn't as superior when attached to a specific class. The half-orc wizard, wood elf barbarian, and halfling fighter are all three classic examples. Even though those races offer you things that are unique and beneficial to any campaign. But that +1, it MUST be had. If they don't have it, then it is unfair, makes them feel as though their character isn't as effective, and it has even gone so far as to have players describe their character as worthless.

So he is right. Balance of the game. It doesn't change it any more than having a half-orc wizard start with a 15 intelligence instead of 17. But perspective of balance...

 

[Scott Christian]

It doesn't really give myside its version. Picking a 20 dex or 20 whatever doesn't say anything about how the race as a whole is. Elves as a whole are more dexterous on average than humans. That's represented by the +2 dex. It's not represented by PCs just choosing stats.

No it doesn't. This negates the differences between the races. That is why I would still keep the other 3 options - as they are written in the PHB: roll if you like random fate, standard array if you want balance and race to influence scores, or point buy if you like to turn the knobs and allow for racial differences in attributes.

 

[Scott Christian]

(I also feel 6.0 will be different in a number of ways but will be heavily based on 5.0 and perhaps a major refinement or patch - in particular, I would hope weaker classes like Fighter get a boost, etc.)

This right here. This is the argument 90% of the time, be it races, classes or the race/class combo. (Not saying you do this @ReshiIRE .)

You also hear change the language, it doesn't belong there. In which, everyone agrees. But then directly after you hear, my half-orc can't start with a 17 intelligence, and that is racist. But the argument really was, I want to have a 17 and not a 15, so I can get an extra +1.

Massive amounts of armchair game-philosophy for a +1.

I will buy some separate the racial and race/class combo argument. Some do. But some don't.

And again, for the thousandth time, if anyone out there in their campaign uses all these layers of individualism and refrains from any stereotyping of a race, please videotape or record your sessions so I can watch/listen. I say this not to play gotchya or look for inherent wrong, but to learn. Because in all my years of gaming in many different states, running clubs, conventions, etc. I have never seen it. To me, it is a disturbing point where philosophy of gaming never meets the table.

(And for the record, individualism of species has always been in D&D. But settings require generalizations. That is my point. You can set up an encounter with a good misunderstood troll. The only reason it is unique though is because all the other trolls are trying to eat people.)