Quote Originally Posted by diplomancer View Post
Because people in this thread are not engaging with my point. Say I want to play a nimble waif. I use leather armor, a Rapier, get proficiency in Acrobatics, Stealth and Sleight of Hand (but not Athletics), and go around trying to do Acrobatic stunts. I choose feats that enhance that archetype. I play a Rogue Swashbuckler. How is it that my character is NOT a nimble waif? Because I could carry a lot of stuff (even if I don't)?
With the same argument, you could claim I cannot believably play a small character with high Str, because it's unbelievable that a 3' guy that weighs 40 pounds can carry around, tirelessly, 300 pounds, and it's absolutely ridiculous that he can jump for 20'. If you can believe that, you can believe that a "nimble waif" (who, remember, has actually a well developed musculature, whatever her Str score, or she wouldn't be able to do stuff that she already does in the game as it is now) can carry more stuff than she gives herself credit for.

Or what if I want to make a hulking giant? I use Plate Mail, carry a Maul, get proficiency in Athletics (but not Stealth or Acrobatics) and go around making a lot of noise. I get the GWM feat. I choose the Fighter Rune Knight class. I choose an Orc as my race. How is it that I'm not a hulking giant? Because I can competently fire a bow with which I've been trained (which I should be able to, anyhow)?

So, what, exactly, is the archetype that I'm losing?
Because the nimble waif can still carry 300 pounds of gear without breaking a sweat, and manage 600 pounds with difficulty.
A strong but small PC is superheroic in their realm of expertise. No, it doesn't make sense from a realism point of view, but it fits the fantasy.

When the rules explicitly say "You can do X," and you just choose not to, it's at a bare minimum inelegant. And honestly, to me? It's bad, generally speaking. Not always, but usually.

Spoiler: An Exception I Can Think Of
Show
Country Bumpkin Cleric.

Wisdom 20, and so +5 to Insight. No proficiency, because they're a bit naïve, but they've got the raw stats. When the party visits a city, they choose to roll with disadvantage or just outright say "I rolled a 1" without actually rolling when falling for tourist traps.

The reason I'm okay with this? Couple of points, but mainly that this is probably fun for the table. If it's not, then it's worth talking to the player OOC about it, but most tables I've been it will find it funny, believable, and enjoyable.

Notably, this is not a life or death scenario.