D&D (2024) D&D 6th edition - What do you want to see?

[Man in the Funny Hat]

What is the point in playing a race if your character doesn't reflect that race?

Just play a human if you want to be human.

Assume the average ability score roll is 12. An average human has a 13 Con (12+1 for being human). The average dwarf then has a 14 Con (12+2 for being a dwarf). I CHOOSE to create a dwarf PC with a 12 Con because I want any higher score used elsewhere. My character doesn't reflect his race. I clearly just want to play a human and I should crumple up my dwarf's character sheet and create a human.

Player characters do not need to statistically reflect their race in their attribute scores.

[edit: correcting typo]

 

[Lanefan]

Assume the average ability score roll is 12. An average human has a 13 Con (12+1 for being human). The average dwarf then has a 14 Con (12+1 for being a dwarf). I CHOOSE to create a dwarf PC with a 12 Con because I want any higher score used elsewhere. My character doesn't reflect his race. I clearly just want to play a human and I should crumple up my dwarf's character sheet and create a human.

Player characters do not need to statistically reflect their race in their attribute scores.

(I bolded a glitch in your post - you have 12+1 coming to two different amounts; I think for the Dwarf you meant 12+2)

Nothing anywhere saying you can't play a Con 12 Dwarf...all it means is that you stuck a 10 in its Con slot. It's a slightly spindly Dwarf, by Dwarf standards, but still as tough as the average non-adventuring Human. Carry on! All is good!

What you can't play is a Con 4 Dwarf, as the lowest they go [3 + 2] is 5.

But none of that is reason to suggest the +2 shouldn't be there at all, which is how I'm reading your position here..

 

[S'mon]

BX style minimum stats by race (CON 9 Dwarf, DEX 9 Elf) work just as well as 1e+ style attribute mods by race, IMO. And it can give more flexibility if players want to avoid unoptimised PCs.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

It seems like you could move saving proficiency out of class and into race. The dwarf will make good con saves because dwarves have proficiency with con saves, and elves can have proficiency with dex saves.

The subrace could get the dud save (str, int, cha). I would like all races to have subraces.

You could move the +2 to the class and the +1 to the subclasses. You would only get this on your first class, unless you had a racial power that lets you get this when you multiclass (I think this should be the main racial power for humans).

 

[Lord of Nessus]

What is the point in playing a race if your character doesn't reflect that race?

Just play a human if you want to be human.

.... seriously? You actually think it's the ability score adjustments that make a member of a Race an Elf, Dwarf, or whatever rather than being a Human? For starters, ability score adjustments for the various Races and Sub-Races haven't been consistent and identical across editions - Humans used to receive no ability score bonuses or penalties, and now they do (+1 to all ability scores), so I guess either 5th Edition doesn't have any "real" Humans by your definition, or else prior editions did not! (And that's before mentioning the option of variant Humans which get +1 to two ability scores, proficiency in one skill, and one feat. As far as the rulebooks are concerned, both groups are equally Human, even though they don't match.) Likewise with Elves, who have only positive score adjustments in 5e but which used to have penalties as well. What makes an Elf an Elf is not a +2 to Dexterity (If my Human PC raises his Dex so it matches an Elf's, does he become a Elf?) but biology. Of course, most Elves are raised by two Elven parents in an Elven society and pick up the language, culture, etc. but an Elf that was raised by two Dwarves (because, say, the parents were killed by Orcs and the Dwarves rescued the baby) and only learned the Dwarven language would still be a Elf, because it was born to an Elven mother and had an Elven father. Said individual would still have the physical traits that would identify him/her as an Elf (i.e. pointy ears) and nobody would confuse them for a Dwarf.

 

[Lord of Nessus]

Because there's no precedent for any (pseduo-)Medieval European civilization to mandate bow practice for all able-bodied adults

Umm, that was in Medieval England... it didn't apply to all Medieval Humans, and even then didn't literally apply to every single English person (i.e. women were not so required). If you want to argue that it's reasonable for one specific group of Elves to almost all be trained in the use of a particular weapon, that would be one thing - but all Elves everywhere is another. All Human cultures are not identical, why would every Elven culture be identical?

 

[ad_hoc]

.... seriously? You actually think it's the ability score adjustments that make a member of a Race an Elf, Dwarf, or whatever rather than being a Human?

It's differences that make them different.

Strip those away and you just end up with a mush of theme and a bunch of numbers for a game.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Humans used to receive no ability score bonuses or penalties, and now they do (+1 to all ability scores), so I guess either 5th Edition doesn't have any "real" Humans by your definition, or else prior editions did not!

Numbers don't mean the same things between editions. Strength 25 does not mean the same thing in AD&D that it did in 3E.

As far as the reality defined by 5E is concerned, the average human has like a 14 in all stats (between 4d6 drop low, and the +1 racial bonus), and elves average +1 to Dex and -1 to Con in comparison.

And that's before mentioning the option of variant Humans

If you want to ruin your game with non-sensical variant rules, than that's on you. There's a reason why the variant rules require explicit permission from the DM.

 

[Lord of Nessus]

It's differences that make them different.

Strip those away and you just end up with a mush of theme and a bunch of numbers for a game.

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Your mention of "theme" makes me think you are disagreeing, but then you mentioned "a bunch of numbers" which sounds like ability scores! Please clarify...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Umm, that was in Medieval England... it didn't apply to all Medieval Humans, and even then didn't literally apply to every single English person (i.e. women were not so required). If you want to argue that it's reasonable for one specific group of Elves to almost all be trained in the use of a particular weapon, that would be one thing - but all Elves everywhere is another. All Human cultures are not identical, why would every Elven culture be identical?

Why do you assume that all elves within a given setting should necessarily form a broader group than all Medieval English people? If we want to assume that all elves are from one culturally-homogeneous region, then that's a perfectly reasonable assumption for any given game world.

It's weird enough that there are multiple intelligent species on one planet. It would be significantly more unusual if every species showed up in multiple regions independently.