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

[Maxperson]

You're not losing anything by having to manually put the +2 in the stat of your choice.

This is objectively false. I will have lost racial bonuses.

You don't have to take those options

The floating +2, +1 is no longer being presented as optional, so it's not a matter of not taking those options.

--absolutely nobody is saying that you, Maxperson, can't make all your elves with +2 Dex and all your dwarfs with +2 Con and all your gnomes with +2 Int. Nobody is going to look down on you if you make all of your PCs with their +2/+1 in the "traditional way."

And the Oberoni Fallacy isn't an answer that works, since new races won't have racial bonuses for me to opt back into.

 

[HammerMan]

That doesn't work for two reasons. First, 90% isn't the entire race, it's 90%. Second, 90% choosing con isn't the same as 100% being born with bonus con.

Dwarves aren't given a choice. You don't to be born a dwarf and opt into a con bonus. It's just there. As I've said multiple times, though, I have no problem with dwarves having a racial bonus of +2 and then giving a floating +2 so that all of you guys who want to pick can still do so. +2, +2 doesn't break anything.

no you are missing something here... if ALL DWARVES are +2 COn, BUT PC EXCEPTION (and only pc/super unqiue NPC) can change that does that then make the race fluff matter?

 

[Maxperson]

no you are missing something here... if ALL DWARVES are +2 COn, BUT PC EXCEPTION (and only pc/super unqiue NPC) can change that does that then make the race fluff matter?

What you are missing is that the PCs are part of the race. They are not an exception in that regard.

 

[HammerMan]

What you are missing is that the PCs are part of the race. They are not an exception in that regard.

I am missing the part were that matters? As long as the fluff says all dwarves have +2 con (still don't know how fluff does con) it allows for it to make sense... and if you are already going to allow a Dwarf player to put the 8 from the array in con and get a 10, and the 15 in there Dex (making them way more dex then con) why it matters to you if instead they put the 10 in there con, the 8 else where the 14 in dex take the +2 and get a 16 dex? (in this instance maybe because they like the cool art of a dwarven gunman from 3.5 and you are letting firarms in?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So an unhealthy dwarf 8 con, is very healthy with his racial ability, creating a situation where said dwarf is unhealthy and healthy simultaneously. That's a disconnect.

Nice how you left out that 10 is also not especially healthy...

 

[HammerMan]

And the unhealthiest dwarf is currently 5(3 with your method) con, not 8. Rolling is a thing

I mean yeah rolling is a thing, but who knows a player crazy enough to put even the 8 in there con no modifier let alone a 3...

 

[Maxperson]

I am missing the part were that matters?

Correct.

As long as the fluff says all dwarves have +2 con (still don't know how fluff does con) it allows for it to make sense...

"Their courage and endurance are also easily a match for any of the larger folk."

"Dwarves are solid and enduring like the mountains they love, weathering the passage of centuries with stoic endurance and little change."

"The dwarf god Moradin forged the first dwarves in his great workshop, causing them to spring to life from inert metal when he cooled the heated castings with his breath."

"Moradin crafted the dwarves' sturdy bodies, giving them the strength to work for long periods of time."

"His gifts of durability and purpose gave the dwarves all they needed..."

I'm sure there is more, but this more makes my point that they should have a constitution bonus.

and if you are already going to allow a Dwarf player to put the 8 from the array in con and get a 10, and the 15 in there Dex (making them way more dex then con) why it matters to you if instead they put the 10 in there con, the 8 else where the 14 in dex take the +2 and get a 16 dex?

Because it's not about the final number(and I don't allow arrays or point buy). It's about the race as a whole, which includes the PC.

 

[Maxperson]

Nice how you left out that 10 is also not especially healthy...

10 is not unhealthy, and is entirely irrelevant to my point.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean yeah rolling is a thing, but who knows a player crazy enough to put even the 8 in there con no modifier let alone a 3...

I do! My players often place stats for roleplay and not optimization. I've seen 8 and even more rarely 7 cons. Not often, but it happens.

 

[Scribe]

Nice how you left out that 10 is also not especially healthy...

Variation within a population is not a problem.

If the God aRNGee decides that 2 beings will have con 8, but one ends up an Elf, and the other a Dwarf, then despite both being far from robust, the Dwarf is still a Dwarf, and gets a bump to 10 Con instead while the Elf gets 8.