D&D General elf definition semantic shenanigans

[Minigiant]

It is weird how +2 is too little to make a difference, yet not having it seems to be such a dealbreaker.

+2 only matters for your class primary ability score.

+2 Dex for a cleric.
+2 Dex fora rogue

That's why it typecasts players and people end up demanding it.

 

[Minigiant]

I have in 5e with Kobold Press’ Minotaurs. It was mad fun!

I said 3e

+8 Strength, +4 Constitution, -4 Intelligence (minimum 3), -2 Charisma.

 

[Scribe]

It is weird how +2 is too little to make a difference, yet not having it seems to be such a dealbreaker.

Puzzling indeed.

 

[Divine2021]

I said 3e

+8 Strength, +4 Constitution, -4 Intelligence (minimum 3), -2 Charisma.

That could be fun! You’d be a strong wizard!

Edit cause I don’t want to make another post, cause I’m not arguing with you. I just think it’s ok to acknowledge that people have different preferences and don’t all play the same. I would totally have played a 3e Minotaur wizard with those attribute bonuses/minuses. It would totally be my own, and I would have loved it. The story telling would have been so much fun for me.

 

[Minigiant]

This is absolutely the problem of D&D since AD&D marrying class competency to ability scores. Sever that link so that your ability scores do not have as much impact on class function, and you'll see barbarians with different strengths or wizards with different Int.

but that would require classes having a strong base competency or balancing ability score but having more inherent traits.

But 5 years I was yelled at here for merely suggesting that a fighter attack with Intelligence or Charisma by attacking with wit and feints.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

+2 only matters for your class primary ability score.

+2 Dex for a cleric.
+2 Dex fora rogue

That's why it typecasts players and people end up demanding it.

It obviously matters more if it is your primary score, but I think it has impact otherwise too. And it actually might lead the boosted score to be more than that two points better. Like is I was playing an elf cleric and got that +2 to dex, I would be more inclined to put at least 12 to dex for a free 14, and might be more willing to choose a cleric subclass without heavy armour. And as I now have that +2 dex modifier, I might be interested in getting some dex skills. I would also then use dex based weapons (granted, in 5e clerics are sadly poor weapon users.)

In the end, there would be a good chance that we end up with a cleric that comes across as more agile than average; fitting for an elf.

 

[Remathilis]

It obviously matters more if it is your primary score, but I think it has impact otherwise too. And it actually might lead the boosted score to be more than that two points better. Like is I was playing an elf cleric and got that +2 to dex, I would be more inclined to put at least 12 to dex for a free 14, and might be more willing to choose a cleric subclass without heavy armour. And as I now have that +2 dex modifier, I might be interested in getting some dex skills. I would also then use dex based weapons (granted, in 5e clerics are sadly poor weapon users.)

In the end, there would be a good chance that we end up with a cleric that comes across as more agile than average; fitting for an elf.

The issue, of course, is that all the other rules of the game conspire to make that a poor choice. All your spells and cleric features key off Wisdom, including several subclass uses per day. It is very easy as a cleric to get heavy armor which makes having Dex much less important. Medium armor is notoriously crap too, as most of the best ones interfere with your Stealth skill (the best Dex skill for non-thieves). Its almost always a worse choice to go 15 Wis/14 Dex than it is 17 Wis/10 Dex.

 

[Minigiant]

It obviously matters more if it is your primary score, but I think it has impact otherwise too. And it actually might lead the boosted score to be more than that two points better. Like is I was playing an elf cleric and got that +2 to dex, I would be more inclined to put at least 12 to dex for a free 14, and might be more willing to choose a cleric subclass without heavy armour. And as I now have that +2 dex modifier, I might be interested in getting some dex skills. I would also then use dex based weapons (granted, in 5e clerics are sadly poor weapon users.)

In the end, there would be a good chance that we end up with a cleric that comes across as more agile than average; fitting for an elf.

Sure

But the power and utility you get for +2 DEX as a cleric pales in comparison from what youget from +1 WIS by a large mount.

So the mechanic would nudge you to a +2DEX, +1 WIS wood elf.
It would take +4 or +6 to make a nonprimary score to matter equally a +2 to a primary score. But if races had +4s and +6s, people will....

...want to put them in their class primary scores.

 

[Remathilis]

but that would require classes having a strong base competency or balancing ability score but having more inherent traits.

But 5 years I was yelled at here for merely suggesting that a fighter attack with Intelligence or Charisma by attacking with wit and feints.

See, I don't want Intelligence or Charisma replacing Strength as an attacking stat. I was Strength to matter LESS to a fighter so they don't feel that putting a higher score in Int or Cha instead of Strength won't be as detrimental.

Basic D&D kinda accomplished this. Strength was important to fighters, but a max +3 to hit/damage wasn't as big a draw as it would be later. Dex helped AC and ranged attacks, but it provided no bonus to Thief Skills. Intelligence and Wisdom did not affect spellcasting in the least. All having a high score really granted was a 5% or 10% boost to XP. All the other bonus's ability scores provided (melee, ranged, AC, Hp, skills/languages, etc) are universally useful to all characters.

Sadly, AD&D broke this and it's been broken ever since.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But if culture mechanics are not consistently representing a culture, why are we having them? It seems like a meaningless complication. We already have the background. One might logically infer that an outlander would be a rather common background in a hunter-gatherer culture, without needing to assume that everyone from such culture has that background.

Essentialist culture mechanics are problematic and non-essentialist ones are already covered by backgrounds.

You're welcome not to like culture mechanics. I do and find them quite useful; Level Up's origin system is one of my favorite things about it. I object to you referring to it as racist.