I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[TiQuinn]

Ok? The point was that no one was thinking of dwarf sorcerers when the CHA penalty was introduced. Multiple people said that was wrong...but it is clearly correct.

And the CHA penalty is no longer a thing, and hasn't been for a long time.

 

[The Firebird]

And the CHA penalty is no longer a thing, and hasn't been for a long time.

Also yes?

 

[Micah Sweet]

The key takeaway is that Tolkien had no problem whatsoever imagining a terrifyingly strong hobbit. The story is literally from first chapter of The Hobbit, note, it's not tucked away somewhere. One of the first things we learn about hobbits, in fact, they can be mighty warriors capable of almost single-handedly stopping a goblin invasion (goblins who are quite capable of killing humans one-on-one, note). It's obviously embellished in the sense that that's probably not how golf was invented, but at the same time, he's only a few generations back, and no-one seemingly disbelieves the basic claim that a really strong hobbit existed. Indeed, it seems like the Took family history has a fair number of warrior-hobbits in it.

That's the key take-away from your point of view, certainly. But it's also a semi-historical legend from the perspective of the setting that appeared in a book that wasn't even a part of Tolkien’s Legendarium until years after publication. From my point of view, those are relevant factors.

 

[TiQuinn]

Also yes?

Yes. It's irrelevant. Okay?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, you can't really have it both ways.

The PCs simply, factually, are treated differently in every edition of D&D, because in no edition of D&D do NPCs/monsters reliably and consistently abide by the same rules as PCs, for both better and worse, advantage and disadvantage. D&D is fundamentally an asymmetrical game and always has been, all the way back to OD&D. It was arguably least-asymmetrical in late 1E (not early) and perhaps again in 3E, but it was still asymmetrical.

If you want a "everyone is playing by the same rules" RPG they exist (Marvel FASERIP maybe?). D&D is not one of them.

A PC dwarf is not treated as a different order of being as a dwarf NPC in setting, so neither should IMO have capabilities the other cannot, and each should be recognizable as a version of the other. The mechanics don't have to be the same, but they should produce similar results. You can accomplish this in most versions of D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How do you measure, exactly, "really care". Is there a chart? Do you have to strap someone into a machine? Is a Voight-Kampff kind of thing? What's your exact determinance point? How did you scientifically work this out?

Otherwise that's kind of nonsense mate and you know it!

I mean, I actually semi-agree in the sense that I don't think that dislike of the creepiness (and it's not really "morality" it's creepiness - there's a difference - some really creepy and not-nice people love that stuff and it makes it seem... blech more generally as a result) that was the sole motivating factor, but also I think you need to be real that a lot of people were kind of "squicked" by or just felt gross about some (not all) of the racial modifiers. Particularly negative mental modifiers. Particularly on races which lined up with other racist-trope traits.

And that combined with the fact that they obviously weren't serving much purpose, meant that it was easy for people to move away from them, and people in general were happier when they did.

Racial stats weren't helped by two other factors aside from creepiness and lack of flexibility:

1) A lot of racial stats were obviously bollocks. Loads and loads of races it was clearly a case of "Uhhhh we need to put the bonuses/penalties somewhere". Including major ones like Wood Elves as I pointed out earlier. People can scrabble for justifications, but we could scrabble for justifications for, say, giving humans say +2 CHA and +2 INT, it wouldn't make it not bollocks.

2) Some concepts/races were wildly, ridiculously better-supported than others, in that either they had much more generally favourable stat combos, or they had tons of subraces with various stat combos, or they had flexible or semi-flexible stats with no real drawback (5E Half-Elves for example).

And I guess also

3) Races in all editions of D&D, including 5E are clearly NOT well-balanced with each other at all, and stats bonuses just made this worse.

Both of which kind of show up how these aren't very interesting, well-considered or convincing, or even important to have. And hell, most of us played in the Tashas to 2024 period when a huge proportion of D&D games just had no restrictions (just a +2 and a +1 place as you wish), and clearly the world didn't end. Games weren't less immersive or w/e.

I never used Tasha's. Moved to Level Up right after that book came out. It was for me the line-crpssing moment in terms of official product.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's no reason to believe it's any more or less apocryphal than the countless other stories told in those books.

In fact if anything, the general message of The Hobbit and LotR is that most of these "old stories" either have a significant grain of truth in them, or, wild and implausible as they might seem, are in fact wholly and completely true (c.f. giants in the mountains etc.). Why should this differ? Because you don't personally like it as much?

Incorrect.

Race limits were dropped at the same time as Sorcerers appeared. Weird mistake to make.

I wasn't referring to race limits, but rather to the idea of stat bonuses tied to race (which long pre-dates sorcerers). Maybe stop making assumptions that assume the other person is grossly ill-informed?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t recall Dwarfs being barred from the Sorcerer class in 3e.

See my reply to @Ruin Explorer above.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because, as noted: always having the same combinations gets repetitive and boring.

But that's up to the player. They decide what character they want to play from the available options.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So if it reduces the frequency, it simulates the rarity of that concept in the world lore, as expected?

Not for or against per se...its a complicated thing...but working as intended?

That argument requires the belief that PCs follow the same patterns and statistics as NPCs, which I don't subscribe to. I understand that others do.