quite true, but *point to post 1* that doesn't have to be the case. That's a game design choice.
And likewise, as we've seen with Tasha (where suddenly the free-armor-proficiency dwarves have better features for wizard then yet-another-cantrip - high elves) this isn't an ability score problem - it's an ability problem.
And I don't disagree with you on that. But I'm talking about Tasha. To quote
if you're a dwarf, your Constitution increases by 2, because dwarf heroes in D&D are often exceptionally tough
Exceptionally tough... compared to whom? if Dwarf commoners get +2 Con, these dwarf hero's would not be exceptionally though - they would be normal. While a dwarf that took +2 Dex instead would be both an exceptionally dexterious dwarf, and weak (as they lack the +2 CON that dwarf commoners have)
I know, and yet
- You previously lauded the fact that golaiths get an ability that increases their carrying capacity.
- You're against elves having the get +2 DEX - even if pointed out that this would have different game mechanical effects then the current rules.
That does not make sense to me. Carrying capacity is ALSO a number you know. Why do think one is bad and the other isn't?
Quite true. But that's not a standard. Not always.
When the rest of the people on the table blame you for the TPK, as you're playing a int 15 wizard, they're not saying not saying the character isn't viable - they are saying they feel the character isn't pulling it's weight.
(and mind you - I'm someone who does maths for a hobby: I'm no saying they are neccecairy right. Psychology and maths are not the same thing)
---------------------------
... Oh, and some food for thought : who is the guy in your party that has the best chance to (nonmagically) seduce the princes?
Spoilerthe orc warlock of course*
* if he's the only charisma based character of the party