D&D 5E Wow! No more subraces. The Players Handbook races reformat to the new race format going forward.

[UngeheuerLich]

And this is not a counter argument against mine. I'm not arguing that these features would not be beneficial for people with a low dex. I'm saying it would be nonsensical for them to exist for low dex people. Low dex people are sloooooow, not evasion monsters.

At this point it is just denial.
I don't know what aiming with a range weapon and being able to shrug off damage have in common...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If it's liked popular, then it's not a "mess." It's just something that a few dislike.

If they wanted to reduce complexity, they would have removed it entirely instead of adding more complexity to the situation. A floating +2, +1 adds more decision points for the player, increasing complexity.

I could see it go for 5.5. It is just a stopgap until we get something baked into the system from beginning.

Although I guess if you roll 4d6, it is still useful. Also it allows to customize the standard array a bit.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

No one is pushing you other than yourself.
Nothing says that in a role playing game that everyone must be a optimized combat machine, unless your idea of role is playing a class and not a character.

I already addressed that in this post:

It doesn't force you, but it feels like it does. For a game, where the intent is to have fun, that feeling can be just as impactful to your ability to have fun as a real mechanical effect would, like the previous version of the Bladesinger requiring you to be an Elf/Half-Elf to take the subclass. It doesn't matter if it didn't force you to do something, because if it feels like it does that, it still has an impact on your ability to have fun at the table.

And also, as said above, the PHB and other sourcebooks recommend certain races for different classes based off of their racial ASIs. That's like the definition of "pushing a specific race into a class niche".

"Anyone that wants a +2 in their primary ability score is a filthy powergamer" is neither a valid nor accurate complaint. If the game recommends it, has mechanical effects that make them more effective, and the single largest group of players are ones that create characters that fit into these suggested/effective race-class combos, maybe the problem isn't "wanting to be an optimized combat machine" and instead "wanting to be effective at your job in the class, without being punished for not being the optimal race".

(And, yes, you are being punished if you aren't taking the optimal race using pre-Tasha's Racial ASIs. "Not getting a +2 to X Ability Score due to your race" is definitely a punishment to your character.)

 

[Scribe]

I already addressed that in this post:

And also, as said above, the PHB and other sourcebooks recommend certain races for different classes based off of their racial ASIs. That's like the definition of "pushing a specific race into a class niche".

"Anyone that wants a +2 in their primary ability score is a filthy powergamer" is neither a valid nor accurate complaint. If the game recommends it, has mechanical effects that make them more effective, and the single largest group of players are ones that create characters that fit into these suggested/effective race-class combos, maybe the problem isn't "wanting to be an optimized combat machine" and instead "wanting to be effective at your job in the class, without being punished for not being the optimal race".

(And, yes, you are being punished if you aren't taking the optimal race using pre-Tasha's Racial ASIs. "Not getting a +2 to X Ability Score due to your race" is definitely a punishment to your character.)

 

[Faolyn]

Nothing was stopping them. Especially post Tasha's.

Nothing except that some people still think D&D is a game you win by maxxing out your damage potential (I've had people--on reddit, fortunately not my friends--tell me I'm literally a bad gamer and failing my party by having a non-minmaxed race/class combo). I hope that this is a mentality that dies out soon, but since Tasha's is still pretty new, I'd say it will take several more years, or even an entire new edition, for "play whatever race and class you want and put the +2/+1 where you want them to be" to be the new norm.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

And this is not a counter argument against mine. I'm not arguing that these features would not be beneficial for people with a low dex. I'm saying it would be nonsensical for them to exist for low dex people. Low dex people are sloooooow, not evasion monsters.

There are a ton of mechanics that typically mean "agile/dexterous" without being tied to your Dexterity score. Your movement speed, the Cunning Action ability, Uncanny Dodge, Elusive, Ki, the Mobile feat, and similar features. D&D already has ways to be "Agile/Dexterous" without having an amazing Dexterity score. Heck, Barbarians get advantage on DEX saves made against effects that they can see, even though the class is known for brute strength instead of quick movements, and I don't see you complaining about that for being "nonsensical".

And there are different types of agility. Movement speed is different from avoiding fireballs, which is different from being good with a bow, which is different from having nimble fingers. It is not "nonsensical" to have racial/class abilities that increase your affinity with different types of agility, because being good at one doesn't always (or even normally) mean being good or even decent at the other.

I see no reason why it's nonsensical for a Barbarian, which isn't typically known for being dexterous, to have the ability to add an extra 1d4 to Dexterity saving throws that they fail as a reaction, even if they're not good at archery, juggling, or pickpocketing. IMO, it's more nonsensical the other way around, where any "agile" race gets an automatic bonus to their Dexterity score, making them better at a vast swathe of practically unconnected abilities and talents.

So, no, I get your point of "but why can this race be good at this Dexterity-related thing, but not this other", I just think it's plain wrong and nonsense. Not having a High DEX doesn't mean that you can't ever be good/decent with anything related to Dexterity/agility, and thus, Hare Trigger and similar racial features aren't nonsensical and are better design than just giving the race a +2 to X Ability Score or proficiency in X skill.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Never said there wasn't. Just said that Racial ASIs make the game less fun for me because they push me into certain classes. It doesn't matter if I can choose to be a less-effective race for my class, because that's not fun to me. "Fun" is what matters, not whether or not I have the choice.

 

[Faolyn]

And also, as said above, the PHB and other sourcebooks recommend certain races for different classes based off of their racial ASIs. That's like the definition of "pushing a specific race into a class niche".

The DMG, when it was showing how to make a race (the aasimar) said "Since we want aasimar to be effective paladins and clerics, it makes sense to improve their Wisdom and Charisma instead of Intelligence and Charisma."

 

[Maxperson]

On any particular world, there are rarely more than 5-6 PCs, out of tens or hundreds of millions of NPCs.

There's no reason, therefore, that one halfling (the PC) in all those millions of people can't be as strong or stronger than a goliath. Especially when that halfling still can't use Heavy weapons or lift as much goliath can. The DM can easily have every single NPC halfling have Strength 8 and every single NPC goliath have Strength 16. Having one super-strong halfling doesn't break anything or make goliaths seem weak, especially in a fantasy game.

Sure. After ASIs the halfling PC can be as strong as a goliath.

Practically speaking, Strength is used for one thing: determining your attack and damage bonus.

Am I the only one who has PCs that try to lift or drag heavy things?

And even if you have racial ASIs, there's still nothing stopping you from having a halfling with a Strength of 20. They just can't have it at 1st level, where a goliath can (if you roll for stats).

Correct.

Plus, those ASIs make no sense. Goliaths get +2 to Strength. So do githyanki, who are not only shorter than goliaths by a lot, but are described as slender. Centaurs get a +2 Strength, even though they have human arms. Mountain dwarfs are short but get +2 Strength. But loxodon, who are bigger than goliaths and can on average lift 50 pounds with their trunk, get no Strength bonus.

The bonus issue is due to 5e's overabundance of balance. Balance is good, but too much balance is not.

 

[Scribe]

Nothing except that some people still think D&D is a game you win by maxxing out your damage potential (I've had people--on reddit, fortunately not my friends--tell me I'm literally a bad gamer and failing my party by having a non-minmaxed race/class combo). I hope that this is a mentality that dies out soon, but since Tasha's is still pretty new, I'd say it will take several more years, or even an entire new edition, for "play whatever race and class you want and put the +2/+1 where you want them to be" to be the new norm.

You cannot control what some people would do. I think you are incorrect on your prediction. Its something people have accepted as the new norm, very quickly.