D&D 5E Convince me that the Ranger is a necessary Class.

[Maxperson]

And you're turning your 18 into at 16 and nerfing yourself to do so. The game is actively punishing you for your choice.

It is neither a punishment, nor a nerf to allow me to play a concept that I otherwise could not play

Plus doing the whole icksome 'some races are smarter than others' thing I'd rather not touch with a million fool pole wrapped in plastic and covered in antiseptic.

It's a game, not real life. And really, different species having different stat bonuses is how it works. Does it bother you that humans are smarter than turtles? Or that chimpanzees are stronger than humans?

Representing that in the game is not only realistic, but the way that they do it means that no race is better or worse than any other. Your elf is smarter and quicker than my orc, but my orc is stronger and hardier than your elf.

Since no stat is objectively better or worse than any other, they are all balanced. And yet different. As different species should be.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

It's a game, not real life. And really, different species having different stat bonuses is how it works. Does it bother you that humans are smarter than turtles? Or that chimpanzees are stronger than humans?

Representing that in the game is not only realistic, but the way that they do it means that no race is better or worse than any other. Your elf is smarter and quicker than my orc, but my orc is stronger and hardier than your elf.

Since no stat is objectively better or worse than any other, they are all balanced. And yet different. As different species should be.

Except they aren't different. +2 to STR is the same regardless of anything else that you try to add to diffirentiate different species and it will always pidgeonhole a species to specific classes and roles, discouraging and punishing going agaisnt the type. It's creatively bankrupt way of diffirentiating the species.

Look at it this way:

Scenario a:
Orcs get following abilities: Can dash as a bonus action but only towards the enemy and when reduced to zero hit points they can once a day get reduced to 1 instead. This represents them as predisposed to meele and surviving agaisnt all the odds.
Goliaths can lift twice as much as another creature of similair strength and are resistant to cold. This suggests they have dense musculature, suggesting connection to giants, and live in cold climates.
Dwarves ignore strength requirements for armor and take half damage from poison. This suggests they're militaristic, used to working with metals and built resistance from dealing with poisonous and toxic substances as well as alcohol.

Scenario b:
As a but now each race gets +2 STR +1 CON, showing they are all fundamentally race for strength-based meele types, preferably using two-handed weapon and dumping dexterity. This fact overshadows previous ones and makes Goliath, Orc and Dwarf of the same class feel the same.

 

[ezo]

Hot take: Racial ASI are bad game design. Two races with ASI in the same stat are identical and less interesting because of it. if you cannot represent a race is better at something without slappinng a +2 to an ability score, that race is not ready to be playable.

LOL LOL LOL!!!

did anyone say species ASI were the only way species were being differentiated from each other?

Exactly. No, no one ever did that I am aware of...

Doesn't matter, having them at all undermines all other ways. If Orcs and Dwarves both get +2 STR, it makes them feel samey because it is such big factor it overshadows all oter features. Remove it and then the other abilities become what makes them more unique.

So, does the fact that Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Rangers, and Bladesingers, College of Valor Bards, and others who all have Extra Attack make them feel "samey". Boy, I certainly hope not.

Finally, to be perfectly clear, I don't think there should be any ASIs, racial or floating. Being "stronger" should be represented by things like Powerful Build, but even giving that to two, three, or more races might make them feel samey to you.

 

[Maxperson]

I remember 3.5, which made it impossiblew to play against the type with that horible design you're defending. You needed to optimize to maximum to offset the penalties and curveballs the game threw at you in character creation to punish you for not doing "optimal choice", and you were always only mediocre and never as good as the "optimal choice", which always ended defeating entire point because your charater could never prove Orcs are as capable of being wizards as humans - you obiectively never could be as good wizard as a human.

I remember 3.5 as well, and not only did I play several characters against type very successfully, but other did so as well. The difference between a 16 and an 18 is +1, and that really didn't matter much with the stat books and stat items, and stat increases while leveling. You're very much overexaggerating the impact of the -2 stat penalty.

 

[Maxperson]

Except they aren't different. +2 to STR is the same regardless of anything else that you try to add to diffirentiate different species and it will always pidgeonhole a species to specific classes and roles, discouraging and punishing going agaisnt the type. It's creatively bankrupt way of diffirentiating the species.

No. Any pidgeonholing is 100% voluntary and doesn't actually exist in practice. The extra +1 is a minor help, but if you view it as necessary to play a class that uses the +2 as the main stat, that's a misperception on your part.

Scenario a:
Orcs get following abilities: Can dash as a bonus action but only towards the enemy and when reduced to zero hit points they can once a day get reduced to 1 instead. This represents them as predisposed to meele and surviving agaisnt all the odds.
Goliaths can lift twice as much as another creature of similair strength and are resistant to cold. This suggests they have dense musculature, suggesting connection to giants, and live in cold climates.
Dwarves ignore strength requirements for armor and take half damage from poison. This suggests they're militaristic, used to working with metals and built resistance from dealing with poisonous and toxic substances as well as alcohol.

Scenario b:
As a but now each race gets +2 STR +1 CON, showing they are all fundamentally race for strength-based meele types, preferably using two-handed weapon and dumping dexterity. This fact overshadows previous ones and makes Goliath, Orc and Dwarf of the same class feel the same.

If we're talkin 5e, stat bonuses are fairly irrelevant. My above response was for 3.5, but also applies to 5e. A +1 extra to hit, with an average combat of 4 rounds, means that you will hit one extra time every 20 swings or 5 combats. With the randomness of rolling, you won't ever notice when you get that extra hit. And with 5e monsters being massive bags of hit points, that extra hit along with the +1 per hit in damage aren't noticeable, either. Even +2 difference isn't somethin you will notice. One extra hit every 2.5 combats.

Once you get to your extra attack, that drops to 2.5 combats and 1.25 combats for +1 and +2 difference. You might sometimes, maybe notice the extra hit every 1.25 combats, but it won't make a big difference when fighting the bigger bags of hit points higher level monsters are.

 

[ECMO3]

WRT racial bonus I don't like penalties and I do like being able to move them around. Adventurers are unique so while most Orcs might be strong and dumb in your game world and maybe NPCs even align with that stereotype to a fault, but your PC is unique and could be an outlier that was weak and smart.

If we really want to open a can of worms; should we go back to gender-specific bonuses and caps like in 1E? I mean it is all about Verisimilitude right?

 

[Vaalingrade]

It is neither a punishment, nor a nerf to allow me to play a concept that I otherwise could not play

You are objectively mechanically worse off for going off the beaten path.

And really, different species having different stat bonuses is how it works.

Not no more it doesn't. And thank god for that.

Does it bother you that humans are smarter than turtles? Or that chimpanzees are stronger than humans?

Turtles aren't people. Nor are chimps.

Representing that in the game is not only realistic,

So strike one against it...

but the way that they do it means that no race is better or worse than any other.

It is literally saying they're better or worse than the others.

Your elf is smarter and quicker than my orc, but my orc is stronger and hardier than your elf.

Where have I heard this before... The guys everyone is allowed to dump on being caller 'strong' and hearty'... hmm...

Since no stat is objectively better or worse than any other

Intelligence. Constitution.

Dexterity the God Stat.

 

[Maxperson]

You are objectively mechanically worse off for going off the beaten path.

Mechanics aren't inherently superior. Player goals are. If my goal is to play off type, failing to have a mechanical penalty is inferior to having one. My goal is mechanically worse off for that failure to have stat penalties.

Not no more it doesn't. And thank god for that.

Yes. Homogenization and blandness are superior.

Turtles aren't people. Nor are chimps.

But they are in fact different species from humans. As are elves, dwarves, tortles, etc. in D&D. Species have variety in statistical make-up and there's no good reason for D&D to get rid of those differences.

So strike one against it...

Then I assume you are also against having swords in D&D, because swords are realistic. And grass. And air. And earth. And fire. All of those things and much more have to go because of the realism strikes against them.

Or realism isn't a strike at all, since the game is rife with realism.

It is literally saying they're better or worse than the others.

It literally can't be. Whether strength is superior to intelligence is subjective interpretation. Same with dexterity over constitution. Dexterity over intelligence. And ever other combination. No stat is inherently superior or inferior to any other, so having +2 strength and -2 Int is not better or worse than having +2 dex and -2 con.

That fact makes it so that ever race is equal, no matter which stat has a bonus and which has a penalty, so long as the numbers are equal.

Where have I heard this before... The guys everyone is allowed to dump on being caller 'strong' and hearty'... hmm...

Not in D&D to my knowledge. Hell, even in real life people who do things like that are wrong for a reason.

Intelligence. Constitution.

Dexterity the God Stat.

I disagree. I'd much rather have a high int than a high dex. Knowledge is king. You can be as dexterous as you want, but if I use my intellect to arrange it so that your dex doesn't come into play and you die, my int can be considered superior to your dex.

It's all opinion based. Mechanics don't play a part in it. Only preference does. If you prefer the mechanics that dex gives, that's the king stat. If you prefer the survivability that con gives, that's the king stat. If you prefer the knowledge that int gives, that's the king stat. And so on.

Your claim that dex is the god stat only shows your personal preference, not any sort of objective superiority of dex over any other stat.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Mechanics aren't inherently superior. Player goals are. If my goal is to play off type, failing to have a mechanical penalty is inferior to having one. My goal is mechanically worse off for that failure to have stat penalties.

Nothing about playing off type requires you to be mechanically worse off. A mechanical penalty doesn't enable you to play off type, all it does is mechanically punish you for doing so and discourage others from doing so in the process.

Yes. Homogenization and blandness are superior.

People keep saying this about not having two numbers change, but never actually prove that something like having... I don't know actual species abilities ... in place of those two flavorless numbers is bland.

But they are in fact different species from humans. As are elves, dwarves, tortles, etc. in D&D. Species have variety in statistical make-up and there's no good reason for D&D to get rid of those differences.

I'm going to assume you didn't miss the point on purpose,

And explain that the assertion that some people are born inherently worse as a people than others is kind of terrible.

~fast forwarding through boring reality lecture~

It literally can't be. Whether strength is superior to intelligence is subjective interpretation. Same with dexterity over constitution. Dexterity over intelligence. And ever other combination. No stat is inherently superior or inferior to any other, so having +2 strength and -2 Int is not better or worse than having +2 dex and -2 con.

No no. As part of the game, there are stats that are straight up more useful and better to have higher numbers in than others. You might like Intelligence more, but that doesn't make it a good or useful ability.

That fact makes it so that ever race is equal, no matter which stat has a bonus and which has a penalty, so long as the numbers are equal.

Species A is literally dumber than Species B is not equal. The math balances out, but that's no equality that matters.

Not in D&D to my knowledge. Hell, even in real life people who do things like that are wrong for a reason.

Then why joyfully endorse doing it? That's what this is. This is going 'well these good and pretty folk are inherently smarter than these big dumb brutes who would be put to the fields'

Frosting on the cake being that the elves canonically took the living spaces from the orcs in many of their mutual backstories.

 

[Maxperson]

Nothing about playing off type requires you to be mechanically worse off. A mechanical penalty doesn't enable you to play off type, all it does is mechanically punish you for doing so and discourage others from doing so in the process.

You cannot play off type without there being a type and off type to begin with. You can pretend, but you won't actually be doing it. The mechanical penalty and mechanical bonuses together create a type and off type.

People keep saying this about not having two numbers change, but never actually prove that something like having... I don't know actual species abilities ... in place of those two flavorless numbers is bland.

If every race has floating bonuses, every race becomes identical in that regard. That's a move towards blandness and homogenization. You've gone from distinct differences to sameness in a category.

And explain that the assertion that some people are born inherently worse as a people than others is kind of terrible.

Then it's a good thing I never did that. I made no assertion about real world people and those are the only people that exist. Different pretend species are not people at all. They are figments of imagination.

No no. As part of the game, there are stats that are straight up more useful and better to have higher numbers in than others. You might like Intelligence more, but that doesn't make it a good or useful ability.

No there aren't. There are stats that are more useful to your subjective preferences. If you value higher AC, dex saves, etc. over knowledge, then dex is the god stat. If you value knowledge over higher AC, dex saves, etc., then int is the god stat. If you value higher hit points and con saves over those two, con is the god stat.

Dex being called the god stat only applies to people who subjectively value those things dex modifies.

Species A is literally dumber than Species B is not equal. The math balances out, but that's no equality that matters.

And species A is stronger than species B. It equals out. If both species are simultaneous superior and inferior to one another equally, then it's.........................equal.

Unless you can prove that intelligence is objectively superior to strength or strength is objectively superior to intelligence(and you cannot), then equality exists.

Then why joyfully endorse doing it? That's what this is. This is going 'well these good and pretty folk are inherently smarter than these big dumb brutes who would be put to the fields'

You misunderstand. In real life it's wrong because it's all subjective here as well. Some value strength over smarts, and others smarts over strength? Who is right? Objectively no one. Just like in the game.

The primary difference is that here in the real world there are people. In the game there are not.

Frosting on the cake being that the elves canonically took the living spaces from the orcs in many of their mutual backstories.

Okay. So change the lore. The core books have dozens of mentions of slavery? If you're okay with that, keep it. If you aren't, remove it. It's just lore.