Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 8449908" data-attributes="member: 6915329">OK, let's go through some of the races.Aarakocra: +2 Dex. Why? In both 2e and 3e, their flight maneuverability was described as "average," and there's nothing in any edition that suggests that they are particularly agile or have good hand-eye coordination.Aasimar: +2 Cha/+1 Wis because they were specifically written to be paladins and clerics.Changeling: +2 Cha/+1 any because I guess all changelings are not only liars and fast-talkers, but are innately so.Dwarf: +2 Con, because the fact that they're poison resistant isn't enough to indicate that they're hardy.Elf: +2 Dex, because they're built to be rogues and monks apparently. Or, well, more likely because it was decided long ago that bows were Dex weapons.Firbolg: +2 Wis, because they were written to be druids and rangers (and fighters, I'll admit, which is why they get +1 Strength). So another race that's written with a specific combo in mind, rather than with biology or lore.Githyanki: +2 Str, because they're slender. I guess they think themselves into being muscle-y, but they only get +1 Int.Githzerai: +2 Wis/+1 Int, even though psionics has always been primarily Int-based. I guess it's because they're kinda zen even though they're on Limbo? But this suggests that this ASI is learned, not innate. Also, in 2e, they got +1 Int, +1 Dex. I guess they changed a lot of the editions. Ditto with the Wisdom-based, psionic kalashtar.Gnomes: +2 Int. I don't even get this. I guess at some point they decided it'd be better to not have yet another Small, Dex-based race, because gnomes are literally the only Small race that isn't Dex-based. Weirdly, gnomes were +2 Con in 3e, +1 Int in 2e, and had no bonuses in 1e.Goblins: +2 Dex, because all Small races except for gnomes are equally nimble, agile-fingered, and have good hand-eye coordination, because we really want to differentiate these races by making them all the same, right? +1 Con because goblins in the MM have Con 10, so that makes sense. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />Grung: 2 Dex again because Small. And +1 Con because they're so fragile that they have to immerse themselves in water 1/day or suffocate. At least VGM grung have an above-average Con to justify them getting a bonus in it, unlike the goblin... except that the VGM grung has a higher Con than it does Dex, so why doesn't the Grung have +2 Con/+1 Dex? You know, besides the fact that all Small races (except for gnomes!) are exactly alike and have +2 Dex.Half-Elf: Up until tieflings went mainstream, half-elves were one of the two pariah races of D&D (along with the uncharismatic half-orcs), torn between two cultures but truly part of neither, never fully accepted or trusted by either group. Which which why they naturally get +2 Charisma. And, of course, this bonus is despite them recieving no stat bonuses in 1e, 2e, or 3e. Ditto with the +2 Cha tieflings here, who used to be -2 Charisma. Hmm, could it be because warlocks are a Charisma class? I'd bet everything that if they had gone ahead and made warlocks Int-dependent, than Tiefs would have been an Int-based race. (I fully admit that I have no idea what stat warlocks relied on in 4e, but tieflings were Cha-based there, too.)Kenku: +2 Dex, which makes perfect sense for flightless birds whose main shtick is their mimicry and their ability to memorize new information. This is another case where the ASI was given for class reasons, because kenku are specced as rogues. Leonin: +2 Con. That rippling mass of pure feline muscle whose terrifying roars echo across the grasslands and whose razor-sharp claws drip with their opponent's blood is Con-based.And so forth. I'm tired and want to read my Level Up book, which has good heritages and no heritage-based ASIs.Sure. I want to play a weak orc. With stat array or point buy and a fixed ASI, I can't go below 10 in Strength. I want to play weak, not average. You know, the 98 pound weakling who got sand kicked in his face until he got the Charles Atlas strength-training regimen only to discover that Charles Atlas is actually the the head cultist of an eldritch being from another dimension and now the orc is a scrawny, 8 Strength warlock....BRB, gotta make that character.So why are these "many" players right but the other players "wrong"?Or maybe you just don't want to believe that we're telling the truth here.If a hill dwarf puts a +2 into Int, then they won't be putting it in Con, which means that their hp will likely be lower anyway, which means that it kind of evens out.  And they get those extra hp but they don't get an extra bit of magic--nor will they get advantage against being charmed or immune to being put to sleep, which you seem to have forgotten that elves get. All elves, not just one type of elf, whereas only one type of dwarf gets the extra hp. And while hill dwarfs get some weapon training, they're all Strength-based melee weapons, which means that the dwarf isn't likely to use them as a wizard--whereas an elf wizard can stand at the back of the party shooting either spells or arrows, and with the racial ASI, will be good at it.So, the hill dwarf wizard, with or without a bonus to Int, is at a slight disadvantage when compared to a high elf wizard, since two of the hill dwarf's primary abilities--the extra hp and the weapons--rely on stats that the hill dwarf will likely not have very high, and one relies on putting themselves directly in harm's way*. Whereas the high elf wizard with a racial ASI is going to be pretty good at their racial weapons and have extra magic. Stonecunning is a ribbon and can be ignored, but being proficient in a tool (of the type hill dwarfs get) is less useful for a wizard who regularly encounters supernatural threats than being resistant to charm and unconsciousness is. And a hill dwarf who doesn't put +2 in Con will equally as effective at maintaining concentration on spells as the high elf is. However, a hill dwarf wizard who is forced into the racial Con bonus will actually have an edge here, and will be better at things like buffs and illusions than an elf wizard is.If you're trying to claim that a dwarf wizard has an advantage over an elf wizard, you should probably try to be accurate about their abilities. As it is, I'd say they even out.---*a mountain dwarf, of course, has armor proficiency, but no extra hp and so will still be very silly to put their d6-hp selves up in melee range.So one of your arguments isn't even based on anything in reality.As I wrote, both of my warlocks have the same Charisma. Their other stats differ, but more importantly, their personalities differ because both players are good at RP. And only one of their stats actually define them as a person: the feylock with a 6 Wisdom, whose player does a really good (and fun) job of playing that. Their other stats have almost nothing to do with their personality.You said racial feats. I assumed you meant the racial feats from XGE: Bountiful Luck, Elven Accuracy, etc.</blockquote>

Verification