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

[Azzy]

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

Yes, because having Powerful Build and being able to lift more makes a species a beast of burden. How very logical.

 

[Geoff Thirlwell]

Strength is a weird stat. It‘s used to see how far someone can jump. The top tier of the strongest men in real life make pretty poor long jumpers

 

[Minigiant]

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.

The STR 10 character with Powerful Build inst stronger that the STR 16 Character.

He or she just lifts more.

It's just like the paladin might have high Charisma but the bard is better at diplomatic relations due to skill expertise.

Ability scores are just your general ability.
Race and class can alter that.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Yes, because having Powerful Build and being able to lift more makes a species a beast of burden. How very logical.

It's more the specific choice to give the ability to lift without combat benefits specifically to the anthropomorphic cow that's the issue. Instead of the stereotype of "minotaur makes good fighter," you get the far worse stereotype of "cow man makes a good pack mule."

 

[Azzy]

It's more the specific choice to give the ability to lift without combat benefits specifically to the anthropomorphic cow that's the issue. Instead of the stereotype of "minotaur makes good fighter," you get the far worse stereotype of "cow man makes a good pack mule."

That's not a leap of logic, that's a pole vault of silliness.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The STR 10 character with Powerful Build inst stronger that the STR 16 Character.

He or she just lifts more.

It's just like the paladin might have high Charisma but the bard is better at diplomatic relations due to skill expertise.

Ability scores are just your general ability.
Race and class can alter that.

I would say lifting stuff is about the most general use of strength there is.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Yeah. If ability score called 'strength' doesn't measure how strong a creature is, something has gone wrong.

Though I have to wonder why we even have ability scores at this point. It has been demonstrated that a large portion of playrbase just wants to have the best possible score in their main stat. So every wizard will have same int, every barbarian same strength etc. And there usually is pretty clear expectations for other scores as well. Everyone needs decent con, melee classes even more so. And many classes have required secondary scores. So at the point your class is chosen, most of your ability scores are de facto locked. You can fiddle with some 'does my fighter have int 8 and cha 10 or vice versa' but that's not really terribly meaningful. So why even pretend it is a choice? Remove ability scores and tie bonuses directly to the class. This is not really something I want, but I think it would be more honest and logical than have this sort of illusion of choice.

 

[Scribe]

This is not really something I want, but I think it would be more honest and logical than have this sort of illusion of choice.

Despite what some may think, it's not an illusion.

The problem I think (not yet looked fully on my part) is that 5e by default is just really simple, and so the ASI side, is solved.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

I didn't know that WotC goons were going to break into your home and forcibly replace your 5.0 books with updated ones. Maybe you need better locks?

It's still optional. All of it is. Even the edition you choose is optional--there are people who still only play Basic or AD&D, or only 3e or 4e and refuse to update for whatever reason. There is no requirement for you to change to 5.5. There is no requirement for you to allow Fizan's races when you DM. There's also no rule that says you can't assign racial ASIs to the races from Fizan's or VGR or VBtWL.

My gods! Did you make this much of a fuss when they decided that all classes should be available to any race? I'm guessing no, since you talk fondly of your tiefling paladin instead of complaining that it made things more the same when nonhumans could be paladins.

Stop acting like you're being persecuted when all it means is that you have to make a choice: a choice about your ASI, a choice about what books you'll allow at your table when you DM, a choice about what edition you'll play, a choice about what game you'll play.

(Or maybe, just maybe, you'll find that you'll like being able to assign your ASIs in the exact same way that you liked your tiefling paladin.)

 

[Scribe]

I didn't know that WotC goons were going to break into your home and forcibly replace your 5.0 books with updated ones. Maybe you need better locks?

Did I say they would or is this just you making things up again?

Stop acting like you're being persecuted when all it means is that you have to make a choice: a choice about your ASI, a choice about what books you'll allow at your table when you DM, a choice about what edition you'll play, a choice about what game you'll play.

I'm not being persecuted. Of course we all have choices to use or change the rules. Did that stop people from commenting on Alignment, or the (apparent) need to remove ASI from races? Simply reverse the statement and you'll hopefully see the (repeated) irony.

(Or maybe, just maybe, you'll find that you'll like being able to assign your ASIs in the exact same way that you liked your tiefling paladin.)

Zero chance, as it utterly misses the difference.