D&D 5E Are there any races post-tashas that compare with mountain dwarf for casters?

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think it actually makes more sense to put the bulk of stat adjustments if not all there than race. Yes to some degree genetics plays a part in it, but things like the six attributes are things that develop with use & training moreso than genetics. Placing it in background also avoids some of the idiot savant feel that comes from completely silo'd characters with a background chosen for the skills/feature as the background makes a more significant impact on the character with soldiers, merchants, & nobles leaning towards certain classes with a particular flourishbregardless of what race they were born

That's exactly why I have my own homebrew system for doing so. Race/Subrace gives one ASI of your choice, Background gives another, and Class gives another. That makes everyone have an overall +3, as most races do now, and it also makes Orcs be good Wizards and Gnomes good Barbarians, it just takes a bit of training to get there.

 

[DammitVictor]

I disagree. Someone who was a soldier and did all of the training to become a soldier would still have the influences of their background.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but please bear with me:

The primary argument against racial ASIs is that mechanical representation of the obvious physiological differences between Elves and Dwarves is "biological essentialism" and-- at the very least-- dangerously close to implying agreement with assertions of biological essentialism between different human ethnic groups. It's not really my main concern, but I do agree with the goal.

But if they're going to tell us that Elves being statistically more DEX than Dwarves is unacceptably racist...

... I am not going to sit here and tolerate them telling me that it's less offensive that the wealthy (Nobles and Artisans) are more INT than the poor (Urchins and Criminals).

And... if we are not going to address the social implications, if we're just going to talk about realism, the idea that a character's childhood and education make more of a difference in their literal physical biology than their literal physical phenotype strikes me as deliberately ignoring the obvious.

 

[Don Durito]

I

That's exactly why I have my own homebrew system for doing so. Race/Subrace gives one ASI of your choice, Background gives another, and Class gives another. That makes everyone have an overall +3, as most races do now, and it also makes Orcs be good Wizards and Gnomes good Barbarians, it just takes a bit of training to get there.

I’d just put the stats in class. Class strongly implies background anyway.
It also has the advantage that you can stop pretending that all abilities are equal in value for all classes.

Melee classes are MAD in a way that casters aren’t. So give them more bonuses to account for that.

 

[DammitVictor]

And yeah... Classic D&D didn't have racial ASIs, and your race was your class. AD&D added racial bonuses and penalties because demihumans could now be members of the same class; they were (usually) balanced on a 1-for-1 basis.

They're really not necessary.

But if the system math really does assume everyone has those bonuses and will meaningfully break down without them-- balance the races without the ASIs and give everyone the same +2 to one and +1 to two. All this talk about Mountain Dwarves and Half-Elves is based on the exact same problems that the optional rules in Tasha's were intended to solve, meaning that the optional rules didn't solve them.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but please bear with me:

The primary argument against racial ASIs is that mechanical representation of the obvious physiological differences between Elves and Dwarves is "biological essentialism" and-- at the very least-- dangerously close to implying agreement with assertions of biological essentialism between different human ethnic groups. It's not really my main concern, but I do agree with the goal.

But if they're going to tell us that Elves being statistically more DEX than Dwarves is unacceptably racist...

... I am not going to sit here and tolerate them telling me that it's less offensive that the wealthy (Nobles and Artisans) are more INT than the poor (Urchins and Criminals).

And... if we are not going to address the social implications, if we're just going to talk about realism, the idea that a character's childhood and education make more of a difference in their literal physical biology than their literal physical phenotype strikes me as deliberately ignoring the obvious.

"biological essentialism" is fine in theory, but +1 or +2 here & there just doesn't make much difference to make the races feel any different. Things like the variant human's feat, the dwarf poison resist/+1hp/medium armor prof, tiefling fire resist/cantrip, dragonborn breath weapon, half orc drop to 1 instead of die, elf is all over the map so lets say thy learn a lot of skills in that century long childhood, nearly all of the stuff volos races get aside from attribute, so on & so forth. Not only that, they all tend to feel different... Unfortunately some are worth a full feat (or more) all the time while others are more like a ribbon riding on a poor half feat if that & only sometimes usable.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The primary argument against racial ASIs is that mechanical representation of the obvious physiological differences between Elves and Dwarves is "biological essentialism" and-- at the very least-- dangerously close to implying agreement with assertions of biological essentialism between different human ethnic groups. It's not really my main concern, but I do agree with the goal.

And I understand and agree with the goal, too. I don't think that it would be unacceptable to state that dwarves are more often healthier than the average human, and have a mechanic to show this.

But if they're going to tell us that Elves being statistically more DEX than Dwarves is unacceptably racist...

... I am not going to sit here and tolerate them telling me that it's less offensive that the wealthy (Nobles and Artisans) are more INT than the poor (Urchins and Criminals).

. . . There have been studies that show that IQ and SAT/ACT scores are strongly linked with wealth, as people with more money have more access to education. It makes sense for someone who was raised in the streets (Urchin) to be less educated than someone who had private tutors (Nobles).

And... if we are not going to address the social implications, if we're just going to talk about realism, the idea that a character's childhood and education make more of a difference in their literal physical biology than their literal physical phenotype strikes me as deliberately ignoring the obvious.

If you spend your life working out, eating healthily, and being fit, and then your job is as a personal trainer, you're going to have higher STR and CON than someone who was naturally born healthy but made no effort to be strong or healthy.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I’d just put the stats in class. Class strongly implies background anyway.

That's a fair viewpoint, but I respectfully disagree. Adventurers had a job before they became adventurers, and that should partially determine how strong, educated, or perceptive they are. A Rogue who was formerly a hunter would have a higher Wisdom score than one that was a noble.

It also has the advantage that you can stop pretending that all abilities are equal in value for all classes.

That's a problem that needs fixing, too.

Melee classes are MAD in a way that casters aren’t. So give them more bonuses to account for that.

There are other ways to fix that, but this could probably be a good way.

 

[FrogReaver]

. . . There have been studies that show that IQ and SAT/ACT scores are strongly linked with wealth, as people with more money have more access to education. It makes sense for someone who was raised in the streets (Urchin) to be less educated than someone who had private tutors (Nobles).

So have they ever proven if it's high IQ that causes high wealth or high wealth that causes high IQ?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So have they ever proven if it's high IQ that causes high wealth or high wealth that causes high IQ?

It's wealth that causes high IQ.

 

[prabe]

So have they ever proven if it's high IQ that causes high wealth or high wealth that causes high IQ?

It's not entirely my field, but I think they've determined that what IQ tests measure most accurately is one's ability to take IQ tests.