D&D 5E The Fate of the Smol

[jmartkdr2]

Another way to phrase the question: should a goliath barbarian be meaningfully stronger than a halfling barbarian?

If no - then race can't meaningfully impact strength. And if race can't do it, size (which flows from race) can't either. If you think the goliath should be stronger, than you need to allow for halfling barbarians to be a meaningfully weaker choice - which means not all race/class combos can be balanced.

I don't think there's a wrong answer, but I do think WotC have made their choice and that's what it's going to be for the foreseeable.

 

[James Gasik]

I'll be frank- yes, I want strong races to be stronger than weaker races, agile races to be quicker than non agile races, and so on. But 5e isn't about that. All a race gives you is a leg up towards an eventual goal, thanks to the cap of 20 on ability scores. Already proficiency bonus is more impactful to a character than their ability score modifier by the highest levels of the game, and I can totally see some future edition just doing away with ability score numbers entirely, and just having modifiers.

Derived attributes from ability scores are almost nonexistent outside of Strength, with carry capacity and jump distance. I wouldn't be surprised to see carry capacity go away in future editions as well, instead being relegated to optional rules.'

The future I am seeing is that all choices will one day be equally valid, but in the least interesting way possible.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I wouldn't be surprised to see carry capacity go away in future editions as well, instead being relegated to optional rules.'

Don't tease me like this.

 

[James Gasik]

I mean, it really should be an optional rules system. A lot of groups I've seen don't even track it!

 

[Hussar]

This is a bad argument. D&D contains a codified set of rules making it easier for people to sit down at a table and play the game with strangers. You might as well rail against being forced to have elves at your table with dark vision or complain about being forced to allow Barbarians to rage.

I guess whoever writes the rules. And right now at least, the trend is to make each "race" more bland. To take away anything that makes them unique. While I don't particularly care for that choice, nobody is "forcing" me to do anything.

I disagree. What is being done now is to shift the choice of what makes your character unique onto the player. You can go traditional or not. It’s 100% up to you.

If we insist that all of a race must be good/bad then we just have cookie cutter characters. How is that not more bland? Every halflings is a Dex based fighter. People choose the race based on how that race fits with their class.

After the third archer elf it gets pretty repetitive.

 

[Hussar]

Less fun for you, perhaps. Not for me. Your preferences are not superior to mine. Nor are mine superior to yours.

As this is a matter of style and taste, there should be accommodations for both.

How is leaving it up to individual tables not accommodating both of us.

 

[Hussar]

Then take this design principle and apply it logically. The current rules still restrict what sort of character you can create. If a halfling can be as strong as a half-orc, why cant they have dark vision or wings? Why classes limit what sort of spells you can cast, what sort of features you get? Why you want to force these limitations on me? If we do away with races and classes altogether, then people who don't want their orcs to have wings can just not choose the wings feature, and people who don't want their paladins to cast fireballs, can just not choose the fireball spell and so forth.

Wow. The slippery slope argument here is a ski jump.

 

[Baron Opal II]

How is leaving it up to individual tables not accommodating both of us.

It is, as long as the rules are there in the first place for me to use and you to ignore.

 

[Charlaquin]

Here's the thing though:

One way allows you to still build a sad halfling that sucks at melee and feel real versimiltuinous about it while I can still build a halfling that is good at the concept I built them for.

The other way I get nothing.

One way everyone can make what they want. The other, only the simulaitonist wins.

Yep, same as the difficulty in video games argument (which has cropped back up lately due to the recent release of Elden Ring.) If a game has multiple difficulty modes, different people can play at the difficulty mode they enjoy. If a game has only one difficulty mode, only people who like that level of difficulty can enjoy it. Adding more modes takes nothing away from people who are happy with the default difficulty, while making the game more enjoyable for everyone else.

 

[Hussar]

It is, as long as the rules are there in the first place for me to use and you to ignore.

That’s just bizarre.

Currently you can absolutely play what you want and so can I.

In the old system I cannot without changing the rules.

But the old system is better?