Every edition starts with different races having different capabilities. Then after a while people starts asking for removing differences, maybe some of them get bored with playing/seeing the same stereotypes too often, but I also think for many is just due to too much theorycrafting and powergaming.
was that always true? I was too new to know in 1e, I don;t remember (unless you count skills and power build your own race/class) it happening in 2e or 3e?
For example, ability scores modifiers are IMHO overrated. You don't need to maximise your primary score to be effective. Your "effectiveness" in the game depends on many factors, first and foremost how good of a player YOU are. But there is a number of gamers who insist that not having that +2 bonus is a limitation, and it is those players which at every edition push towards changing the rules to flatten the options so that they can maximise more.
yes and no and I am going to break this up a bit so bare with me.
with bounded accuracy (that I think went to far but that is another discusion) every +1 to hit or save DC is a HUGE boon.
if you run the same adventure (same monsters, automate PC choices) with a fighter with a 15 str, one with a 17 str and one with a 20 str you will find hands down that the higher str does better. Not in any 1 fight per say but over all. The same can be said with a 12 con 14 con and 16 con (and if you link them a 15 str 12 con fighter will do WAY worse than a 20str 16 con fighter)
now having say a 15 Int and 16 cha is nice, and may in corner situations help, 7 out of 10 times a 15 str 12 con 15 int 16 cha fighter will do worse in any given adventure (maybe outside of the two new ones that I hear are VERY combat light) then a 17 str 14 con 8 int 12 cha fighter will.
and it only gets worse as you mix and match... if you build 4 pcs (fighter, Mage, Cleric, Theif) as
Level 3 champion fighter (str based melee) with 15 str 10 dex 12 con 15 Int 14 Wis 16 cha
Level 3 diviner wizard with 12 str 16 dex 14 con 15 int 10 wis 15 cha
level 3 cleric of light with 12 str 16 dex 14 con 16 int 15 wis 14 cha
Level 3 theif rogue with 10 str 15 dex 12 con 15 Int 16 Wis 14 cha
then run the same adventure with
Level 3 champion fighter (str based melee) with 16 str 10 dex 14 con 8 Int 12 Wis 11 cha
Level 3 diviner wizard with 8 str 12 dex 14 con 16 int 14 wis 11 cha
level 3 cleric of light with 12 str 16 dex 14 con 16 int 16 wis 14 cha
Level 3 theif rogue with 10 str 16 dex 13 con 8 Int 12 Wis 15 cha
even though the 2nd set have over all lower stats the +1 to prime makes them run it better.
in and of itself it is most likely not a HUGE diffrence, but it is one.
However each optimal/inoptimal choice compounds on it.
but remembrer I said I wanted to break this up:
the game depends on many factors, first and foremost how good of a player YOU are.
that is a HUGE issue. I (and many that agree with me) want the game to be about IN GAME skill not out of game skill as much as possible.
Beyond ability scores, they could do the same for everything else. Does it bother you that race X gets that juicy feature but you want to play race Y? Add an optional rule that allows the maximiser to pick whatever they want, but don't remove that feature of race X for everyone else!
sometimes. I often think "man I want to play an X fighter, but a Y fighter has a better ability.
I personally follow the "no three bad choices" and "no three optimal choices" path when I make PCs
when I make a character I come up with concept and personality and story as my first 3 ideas... then I go to work making the stats work What do I mean by no 3 though? well I will find an optimized idea that will work and a bad unoptimal idea that will work and make the two work somehow togather with the concept personality and story. then I flesh out details, but I am careful not to take more than 2 bad or 2 good choices after that so I don't bring the group down or over run anyone.
Example: My warlock that made it to over 20th level I started with a Maxed out Cha and some powerful spells... but I didn't take eldritch blast and I took a lower con and even put myself in melee by taking the magic adept feat for druid and taking the sheielighyl cantrip.
Again if you have an option in the DMG or wherever that says "your DM can let you play a character of race X but use the stats of race Y", or even a more granular "your DM can let you cherrypick racial features according to this point-buy table" then everyone stops complaining because any real or imaginary mechanical limitation is gone, without removing what makes default races distinct from each other for those who don't feel limited by them.
I have been pushing for a more point buy/ granular custom race option since tasha's came out.
I would love to play a character with no stat mods, a bonus cantrip (from high elf even if you add the restriction of no damage ones) and the halfing lucky ability that is a short race (so no heavy weapons and I will even take the 25 move) with a long life time and at 5th level a spell like ability...
www.enworld.org
