D&D General No More "Humans in Funny Hats": Racial Mechanics Should Determine Racial Cultures

[Vaalingrade]

Except it doesn't have to be either/or. You can have a minotaur with horns, a charge attack, and increased strength. You can have elves that have magic affinity and a bonus to dexterity. And so on. Adding more points of distinction seems better to me than replacing one with another.

And that increased strength can come from something other than ASIs.

My minotaurs get increased carrying, a power that lets them re-roll strength checks to lift or break objects, and the ability to wield weapons as if they were one handedness smaller.

But in my game, you place your +2 wherever, so the minotaur isn't yoked to martial classes if they want to be competent and NONE of my races get into the skeeviness of being racially more intelligent.

More points of disctinction are great. Species ASIS are garbage.

 

[Faolyn]

It doesn't. Minotaurs aren't strong if an unaugmented halfling has the exact same potential. Now, you could go further and argue about gradients of strength, but D&D isn't quite granular enough to mess with that within the scope of playable races.

Of course they're strong. It only means there's someone else who's just as strong as the minotaur. Especially since the halfling can't lift as much as a minotaur.

There are other ways to approach the issue. With multiple ASIs as a factor, you could have race dependent ability score ceilings instead bonuses. Some people wouldn't like that either, but it would let people build the starting character as they wished while making an ability score matter more at higher levels for races with an affinity for it if the player wishes.

Either way, races with no differences in ability scores fall afoul of Syndrome's Law

Which is dumb, because if everyone is special, then everyone is special. It doesn't mean that nobody is. That's just plain old jealousy talking: jealousy that other people are also good at something.

 

[Faolyn]

We dont, because I want it defined by the book.

Ideal, would be Tasha's as an option, and defined ASI as an option.

Tasha's is an option. The only books that are canon are the PHB, DMG, and MM. There's no rule saying that you have to use it.

Now, if more people at your table wanted to use Tasha's than didn't want to use it, that's a different thing. But Tasha's is still optional.

 

[Scars Unseen]

What if Minotaur are good at lifting but move slower so their added muscle is cancelled out when attacking.

So your solution to ASI enforced stereotypes is to make the minotaur into a beast of burden?

 

[Scribe]

Tasha's is an option. The only books that are canon are the PHB, DMG, and MM. There's no rule saying that you have to use it.

Now, if more people at your table wanted to use Tasha's than didn't want to use it, that's a different thing. But Tasha's is still optional.

You honestly think the PHB wont be errata/updated with 5.5?

Look, I was right with the Spooky UA, I've been right since. Fizban's is how all races will look, once reprinted.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So your solution to ASI enforced stereotypes is to make the minotaur into a beast of burden?

Is Arnold Swartzenegger (sp) a beast of burden?

 

[Minigiant]

So your solution to ASI enforced stereotypes is to make the minotaur into a beast of burden?

I was thinking, they are part bull. They are strong. Lots of force but inaccurate. Powerful Build. Charge.

Whereas a Leonman or Dogman might be accurate but have less force. Swift swipe.

Or a Deerman might be strong but only in the legs. Deer Leap.

And a Goliath/HalfGiant would be most balance strength all around. Powerful Build.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Is Arnold Swartzenegger (sp) a beast of burden?

Arnold isn't literally a walking cow.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Only if Strength score is literally the only measure of strength.

Which is isn't anymore. Strength has muliple aspects with multiple was to modify and differentiate it.

This is why the ability scores should be renamed. I'm sorry, but when I see two characters, one with a Strength of 10 and another with a Strength of 16, I feel the one with the higher Strength should actually be stronger. As it is, if the Strength 10 guy has powerful build, he is literally stronger than the other character. It would be easier if they just gave the ability scores different names, or no names at all.

 

[Aldarc]

It's actually the worst one.

Strength is

1. Melee attack rolls
2. Melee damage rolls
3. Lift and carry capacity
4. Strength checks
5. Strength saving throw

What if Minotaur are good at lifting but move slower so their added muscle is cancelled out when attacking.

Whereas a Dogman's bigger muscle is faster for better attacks but doesn't allow for better powerlifting.

I agree. This is where I would again point out how Hill Dwarfs getting +1 bonus HP per level or advantage on saves against poison is more interesting and informative for me than a flat +2 Constitution.