At first level you'll surely see (and at all ages, I am sure of that):
Why isn't my elf more agile than humans? Shouldn't my dwarf be sturdier than the elf? Shouldn't my half orc be stronger than this halfling? How come is my halfling less agile than the human Bob is playing? Why is my gnome... don't have any example with gnomes...
Most of the time, but not all the time (I give you that), ASI explains a lot and fills out a lot of expectations. But it does explain a lot. Whether you want it or not.
Nope. I have literally never seen that anywhere. And I doubt I ever would. Actually, on halflings, if people are expecting hobbits, then they wouldn't be shocked at all since most hobbits are.... rotund.
We've actually far more run into things like "Why isn't your ranger that strong" or "why doesn't your cleric know more about religion".
Well, fine, since you asked... Halflings have nimbleness and lucky (arguably one of the most powerful racial traits in the game). Lightfoot can hide behind other PCs, exposing themselves to less danger. Stout have better CON so better concentration checks and hit points potentially. And of course, the DEX +2 helps with AC, Initiative, etc.
Lucky is fine, but rerolling ones rarely comes up, especially for a class like wizard who forces saves instead of rolling to attack
Hiding behind people requires stealth, not a common proficiency for wizards. Also, it would take your action in combat (meaning you didn't do anything else, like cast a spell), and doesn't work if the other person moves away (which has come up for our halfling rogue)
Nice try in the better con for Stout, Rock Gnome does the same thing. So, equal concentration and HP, but worse INT.
Dex is a useful stat, but wizards honestly need it less than a lot of other classes, and Forest Gnome can cover their dex needs if they want to go that route.
So, not so much.
Dragonborn breath weapon is like another spell slot in many ways (not quite like a Burning Hands, but close), and resistance to a damage type can be no small thing. STR +2 can help in grapple situations (as you mention with goliath) but also in STR saves and keeping their feet.
You have the lowest AC and HP in the game, you never want to be in grapple situations. Keeping their feat I assume from being knocked prone, which sounds like being in melee, my wizard doesn't want that.
Also, damage resistance is nice. I can be a tiefling and have that, plus actual Intelligence bonuses. Breath Weapon is an extra Spell? So is having actual spells and a cantrip from Tielfings. And, if you use the Mordenkainen Tielfings, you have a lot of options to choose from including Baalzebul giving a free Crown of Madness and Ray of Sickness. Much better than the breath weapon.
So again, seems like it is just generally a bad choice.
With both of these, again feat selection and spell choice will help determine if the race works or not. I'm not saying such choices are optimal, but they can certainly make such Wizards competitive with races with INT +2 (or at least feel like they are still contributing to the game and fun to play)
Sure, feats and spell choice can make a lot of difference. But that is a "player skill" arena, and if you are making good choices, you would still be making them with a different INT score, except, you'd be better at all the wizard stuff you want to do.
Min-maxing will end when you either get rid of the min-maxers or when you get rid of any measurable mechanical differences. I'll rather do the former and I don't want the latter to be inflicted upon the game because some people take winning in their elf games too seriously. (Which in itself would't be a problem, but demanding the game to be changed because you are unable to resist the temptation to min-max kinda is.)
It indeed is a problem if people think that powergaming guides are instructions of making a fun character for make believe.
I fundamentally disagree with you. You seem to be acting like these people are some sort of problem than needs to be fixed. They aren't.
The game rewards optimization, if you want it to stop doing that, you have to change the game, not kick out everyone who optimizes. I mean, we aren't talking something crazy like Hexblade paladins or something. We are talking matching Racial bonus to class needs. This is basic basic stuff.
Their clerics and bards are different. Orc's strength and constitution is very valuable for clerics, elven dexterity for bards. Stop fixating on one aspect of the class.
You mean the most important stat for that class? The one the book calls out that you should probably put your highest number into? The one that determines how good they are at the main jobs of that class?
To make a car analogy, that's like saying to ignore the fact that you have threadbare tires and focus on the fact that you have a good AC unit. Sure, AC is important for a car, but the tires are kind of how I get where I'm going.
They do have those classes. Nothing is stopping you from making such a character. They get benefits other than the main stat bumb. And sure, that might not be quite as good, but that's not a big deal.
But, you never see those class amongst those races. I have never once seen someone play them. They aren't recommended, they aren't talked about, they only exist because, well, logically they have to.
But if I use RAW PHB creation to stat them out, they are weaker than they should be. And, maybe for an NPC, that is fine. I can do whatever I want for NPCs, but why are players being shown that these are not the choices they should be making?
And to bring this back to the original start of our dicussion, you want to stop "cookie cutter" builds. But you are focusing on "I don't want all wizards to have 16 INT at level 1, I want some to have 15 or 14" which is a boring mechanical difference that will fade away from people's minds, and ignoring that racial ASIs mean that you aren't seeing wizards with different racial traits, which would be noticeable and dynamic differences between them.
I am confused. If you come across a creature you have never fought before, say something out of a splat book, and ask your DM if you can roll nature to determine if it has a weakness or immunity, he would say no? Or did I accidentally imply rolling nature would increase our damage. If I did write it that way, sorry.
You did imply that.
He would also say no. He would tell us it is something we have never seen before and we don't know what it can do. He also despises the insight skill and tells people constantly that if we use it, we won't learn anything, because we can't logically figure things out about people we've only known for a few hours.
And good points about every player rolling combat. As far as classes go, yes you are right. But it falls back on the DM. I mean, the mayor or captain of te guards might choose to speak to a specific character because of their class or race. I think it would be quite awkward to suddenly have a big fighter suddenly be quiet so his younger brother bard can speak. In fact, the captain of the guards would probably lose respect for him, and in the end, the roll may be more difficult. I know it is one example, but I feel like there are many like that: from traps to travelling to scouting. But, I may just have great DM's too. I've played at tables where it is monolithic. Still fun, but not as fun.
See the problem with that fighter example is you've now put him in a catch-22
If he stays quite and lets the Bard talk, he loses the respect of the captain. But, the Bard's concept is talking to people and using the persuasion skill.
If he talks, since he has a total mod of +0 (low charisma and no prof is not uncommon for a fighter) if the DM calls for a roll, he likely fails and ruins the party's chances.
So, the party and the fighter want him to be quiet, and not risk a roll he is likely to fail (even a DC 10 is a 50/50 shot with a +0) but the DM is penalizing him for playing smart at the meta level.
Now, I'm sure we can talk about all sorts of things the DM can do, advantage for being a fighter, not calling for a roll if the fighter is clever OOC, ect. But the point is, all of that is again, DM dependent. You can't rely on that being the case, you can rely on the fact that the fighter is going to roll an attack roll during the campaign.
I wouldn't really rely on D&D Beyond data. A lot of people use it just to try out builds with characters they never play. And most the people (IME) who make builds there are more often looking for those race/class ASI synergies.
I don't understand how they need to "look" for them. It is kind of blatant to go to the site, pull up the "races" tab and see which races have a +2 Dex, then think about all the ways you can attack with Dex.
I don't think you need to build a lot of different characters to prove that, and even if you did, they would also build more "oddball" options, to test those, so they likely balance out.
