Better alternative than stat-less races

[Liquor Box]

I 100% agree with you.

I've been playing D&D now over 20 years, and PCs were never average. ... yet they did have racial modifiers (unless I played human. not all editions had humans with racial modifiers ... but like other PCs they were also not average)

Clearly the proof is in the eating of the pudding: racial modifiers have nothing to do with PCs being average.

Quite right. Having different averages, maximums and normal distributions doesn't means that characters will be average. It just means that there's a slightly different range to choose from or role amongst.

Jaime and Brienne are equally strong fighters. Brienne might be more of a statistical outlier than Jaime, and there might be men who are far stronger than Brienne on the high end, but words like "statistical outlier" have no place in character creation. Jaime and Brienne probably have similar numbers of class levels, and similar overall stats.

This only works if you do apply the strength modifier based on gender. Brienne and Jamie prove the need to have gender divergence.

If men and women were exactly the same strength on average and at max, then Brienne wouldn't be more of a statisitical outlier than Jamie.

But she is - she is probably close to the strongest women in the show, but despite that she is only as strong as a man who is quite strong. This can be well represented by her rolling 18 for strength and applying -2 modifier (and Jamie rolling 16).

If someone wants to play a strong woman, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Because its less statistically probable? What kind of an argument is that? By that logic everyone should roll for race and stats and class on a table that heavily favors "human fighter" as a result. Elves should just get 3 levels for free because of how much more time they have to learn "on average." Picking your height to be on the low end of the curve should have significant stat penalties/bonuses. Picking your age to be higher or lower should also have lots of penalties and bonuses.

No, that logic doesn;t follow. Either way you can still either roll your stats (relying on statistical probability) or choose them as is your practice. But then you apply a modifier on the end.

But no, we don't do that. If someone wants to play a ripped old man who's 5', they should be able to. People should be able to play freaks! Something like a fallen Aasimar is extremely rare per the lore, but you can play one. The only reason there are capped stats at character creation is for balance/progression reasons. It's not there to simulate a certain percentile of person.

Yes, they should be able to play a ripped old man who is 5'. Given he would probably not as strong as a bigger guy, but sounds still strong he might be str 16, but then he is old, so we would apply age based modifiers. Easily represented.

It would be nice if the system allowed us to play statistical freaks on occasion. But if we could play a woman who was outside the usual range of strength for women, then why not men who are outside the usual range for men and are therefore even stronger.

[LudicSavant]

But if we could play a woman who was outside the usual range of strength for women, then why not men who are outside the usual range for men and are therefore even stronger.

The argument isn't against differing stat caps. Different caps are fine. If you wanna say the strongest possible orc is stronger than the strongest possible elf, go ahead. Giants capping out at a higher strength than humans (in games that have that) is generally not controversial. Certainly not as much as 5e's old style of race mods, anyway.

But differing caps isn't what old 5e racial modifiers do.

Instead, the argument is against penalizing one gender/race/height/age/whatever for having *the same* statline. We're not talking Brienne and Gregor Clegane, we're talking Brienne and Jaime.

If Jaime and Brienne have about the same strength (and they do), they should pay about the same for it, because in game design we don't generally cost features by their "typicalness." For example, you wouldn't make a fallen aasimar a mechanically weaker race than a protector aasimar just because they're rarer.

This is why 5e's old implementation of stat modifiers sucked. Because you'd make Brienne and Jaime, two versions of the "person who is a championship-level knight" concept who should have similar capabilities, but Brienne would end up short a feat just because she isn't conforming to a stereotype.

Being a rare character is not a justification for being underpowered in any other part of the game, why would it be for race or gender?

Brienne and Jamie prove the need to have gender divergence.

If men and women were exactly the same strength on average and at max, then Brienne wouldn't be more of a statisitical outlier than Jamie.

But she is - she is probably close to the strongest women in the show, but despite that she is only as strong as a man who is quite strong. This can be well represented by her rolling 18 for strength and applying -2 modifier (and Jamie rolling 16).

Jaime and Brienne are both perfectly good concepts for a "championship-level knight" PC, of roughly the same level of capability.

So why should Brienne's player need to roll higher to play a character of mechanically similar capability to Jaime's?

Why is their degree of deviation from the raw demographic average for their genders even relevant to the PC character creation process in the first place? Should we also consider their degree of deviation from the raw demographic average for their height? Their age? Their eye color? Their weight? Should we also do this not only for their attributes, but also for their skill proficiencies, their feats? Should some feats cost 2 ASIs because they're rarer for some demographic you're a part of?

This is the problem right here. Both characters have the same feature, 16 Strength -- but one is having to pay a tax for their fluff not conforming to a stereotype.

[Liquor Box]

The argument isn't against differing stat caps. Different caps are fine. If you wanna say the strongest possible orc is stronger than the strongest possible elf, go ahead. Giants capping out at a higher strength than humans (in games that have that) is generally not controversial. Certainly not as much as 5e's old style of race mods, anyway.

But differing caps isn't what old 5e racial modifiers do.

Instead, the argument is against penalizing one gender/race/height/age/whatever for having *the same* statline. We're not talking Brienne and Gregor Clegane, we're talking Brienne and Jaime.

If Jaime and Brienne have about the same strength (and they do), they should pay about the same for it, because in game design we don't generally cost features by their "typicalness." For example, you wouldn't make a fallen aasimar a mechanically weaker race than a protector aasimar just because they're rarer.

This is why 5e's old implementation of stat modifiers sucked. Because you'd make Brienne and Jaime, two versions of the "person who is a championship-level knight" concept who should have similar capabilities, but Brienne would end up short a feat just because she isn't conforming to a stereotype.

Being a rare character is not a justification for being underpowered in any other part of the game, why would it be for race or gender?

I don't know why you are talking about races being underpowered. The aim at least, is that races are balanced, with each having different statistical advantages and disadvantages relative to one another.

If the stats represented men being stronger than women, then Brienne should pay more for being the same strength as Jamie, than Jamie does, because she is more of an outlier than he is. Her strength is exceptional for a human woman. Jamie's strength is merely good for a human man. If the game implemented a str penalty for females, then it would be reasonable to give them some advantage to balance it.

I don't knwo where rarity comes into it for you?

Why should Brienne's player need to roll higher to play a mechanically similar character to Jaime's?

Why is their degree of deviation from the raw demographic average for their genders even relevant to the PC character creation process in the first place?

This is the problem right here. Both characters have the same 16 Strength -- you're just making it so that one player is paying a tax for their fluff not conforming to a stereotype.

You refer to women being weaker as conforming to a stereotype, but it is in fact very well demonstrated by multiple of studies. Men who are in the tenth percentile for men for upper body strength are stronger than women in ninetieth percentile for upper body strength. Men remain stronger than women even when you control for them being larger, and the difference is persistent whether you examine average people, athletes, or records.

[LudicSavant]

Brienne should pay more for being the same strength as Jamie, than Jamie does, because she is more of an outlier than he is. Her strength is exceptional for a human woman. Jamie's strength is merely good for a human man.

This isn't answering the core question, namely why is being a statistical outlier even relevant to how much you pay for a feature?

My eye color makes me a statistical outlier. Should I have to pay more in order to play a character with my eye color?

I'd say no, because in game design, we don't generally cost features by how statistically common they are. We generally cost them by how effective they are. It doesn't matter if your Kryptonian is just an average Kryptonian, they're going to cost a lot, because an average Kryptonian is a very powerful character. It doesn't matter if Green Arrow is a very very rare human, he's probably going to cost less to play than Superman, even though Green Arrow's much more of a statistical outlier for his race.

[Liquor Box]

This isn't answering the core question, namely why is being a statistical outlier even relevant to how much you pay for a feature?

My eye color makes me a statistical outlier. Should I have to pay more in order to play a character with my eye color?

Because stats are designed that way. That's why all characters pay more for a bigger divergence from the average for their stats. I suppose it is designed that way so not every character is super powerful in every stat. It makes sense to me that it costs more to be unusually powerful (or intelligent etc)

You shouldn't pay more for eye colour because that's not a feature of DnD - eye colour makes no mechanical difference.

I'd say no, because in game design, we don't generally cost features by how statistically common they are. We generally cost them by how effective they are. It doesn't matter if your Kryptonian is just an average Kryptonian, they're going to cost a lot, because an average Kryptonian is a very powerful character. It doesn't matter if Green Arrow is a very very rare human, he's probably going to cost less to play than Superman, even though Green Arrow's much more of a statistical outlier for his race.

it's interesting that you used a non-DnD race for your example here. I think it is because DnD races are not designed the way you say. Instead they make efforts to balance races so they are not consistently more or less powerful than one another. Indeed, what would be the point of playing a theoretical kryptonian, if you could only ever afford to play a severely substandard one. Better to balance the races by various means, and then charge by degree of divergence from the norm - which is what they do.

[Captain Cap]

Because stats are designed that way.

Stats are designed to provide in-game numerical effects. That's it. Whatever cost should be associated with them is another matter. You can tinker with caps/modifiers/etc. without changing how the stats work in game.

[Liquor Box]

Stats are designed to provide in-game numerical effects. That's it. Whatever cost should be associated with them is another matter. You can tinker with caps/modifiers/etc. without changing how the stats work in game.

That may be their purpose, but we were talking about what they represent, not their purpose. They represent a distribution of stat scores - with average scores being standard and paying from divergence from that (or in previous editions, dice mechanics which make average scores mroe likely). Sure they don't have to do that, but they do in DnD. Whether they should is a different discussion.

[LudicSavant]

Whether they should is a different discussion.

Whether they should is the exact discussion I was having.

[Liquor Box]

Whether they should is the exact discussion I was having.

Well that is the way they are designed at the moment in DnD. Even if you remove racial modifiers they still work that way (they just ignore the fact that different races have different distributions). If you think it shouldn't work that way, then it goes beyond not applying racial modifiers.

My suggestion is that racial modifiers is a good idea because it is consistent with how stats work in DnD.

Outside that, I think it is a good idea anyway, because I think it adds to the immersion of a setting that some creature types tend to be stronger (or more intelligent etc) than others. I think it's silly if there's a halfling or a gnome that is as strong as the strongest orcs and humans (without some sort of magical enhancement). It's like horses being as strong as elephants.

[JackPhoenix]

The argument isn't against differing stat caps. Different caps are fine. If you wanna say the strongest possible orc is stronger than the strongest possible elf, go ahead. Giants capping out at a higher strength than humans (in games that have that) is generally not controversial. Certainly not as much as 5e's old style of race mods, anyway.

But differing caps isn't what old 5e racial modifiers do.

Instead, the argument is against penalizing one gender/race/height/age/whatever for having *the same* statline. We're not talking Brienne and Gregor Clegane, we're talking Brienne and Jaime.

Why not? You're allowed to play statistical outlier if that outlier's Brienne, but not allowed to play a statistical outlier if that outlier's the Mountain?

Why are different caps (which actually DO have impact on balance) fine, while different modifiers (which don't impact balance) aren't? How are different ability modifiers "penalizing" anyone?

This is why 5e's old implementation of stat modifiers sucked. Because you'd make Brienne and Jaime, two versions of the "person who is a championship-level knight" concept who should have similar capabilities, but Brienne would end up short a feat just because she isn't conforming to a stereotype.

That's why 5e's old implementations of stat modifiers was great, because I could make Brienne, Jaime or Gregor Clegane, THREE versions of "the person who is a championship-level knight" who should have different capabilities, but than the rules were changed because someone has decided to limit things to only Brienne or Jaime, and now I can't play Gregor Clegane, because he isn't conforming to a stereotype.

Jaime and Brienne are both perfectly good concepts for a "championship-level knight" PC, of roughly the same level of capability.

But that's the thing, everyone MUST have the same level of capability now. You aren't allowed to stand out from the crowd anymore (funny how that works, when the change is supposed to bring more diversity, isn't it?). And "balance" is just an excuse, the available options still aren't balanced with each other, and can't be without forcing everyone to being exactly the same.

So why should Brienne's player need to roll higher to play a character of mechanically similar capability to Jaime's?

Because Brienne's player decided to play an unique character that stands out among characters of the same [category] (sex, in this case, despite that not being a thing that matters in the rules). Brienne would hardly stand out as a character if Sansa or Cersei could have the same physical capabilities, would she? That's the core of her character... she's not trully accepted amongst "championship-level knights" because she's a woman, and she's not seen as other women.

Why am I allowed to play a freakishly strong halfling, but I'm not allowed to play similarily freakishly strong orc, because "freakishly strong orc" would mean he should be stronger than the halfling?

[Kane0]

Every time this come up, it's the same argument, and every time, it's misinterpretating how statistics work, either deliberately, or out of ignorance. Yes, a strong woman may be stronger than an average man. But a man who's got comparably lucky genetics, or who put the same effort to get stronger... i.e. a strong man... will be stronger than the strong woman.

It's not just averages, it's all across the bell curve.

While true, I dont want to be the one to tell my wife that her fantasy roleplaying game lady barbarian isn't and will never be as strong as if she decided to make them a man instead.

[Captain Cap]

That may be their purpose, but we were talking about what they represent, not their purpose. They represent a distribution of stat scores - with average scores being standard and paying from divergence from that (or in previous editions, dice mechanics which make average scores mroe likely).

Distributions are a statistical concept: the moment you let people build their stat arrays with point buy on any other method beyond throwing dice, the correspondence between stats and distributions is lost.

[LudicSavant]

Why not? You're allowed to play statistical outlier if that outlier's Brienne, but not allowed to play a statistical outlier if that outlier's the Mountain?

Why am I allowed to play a freakishly strong halfling, but I'm not allowed to play similarily freakishly strong orc, because "freakishly strong orc" would mean he should be stronger than the halfling?

This is of course the opposite of what I said, as Strangebloke already pointed out to you.

If you want to design a game where the world's strongest orc is stronger than the world's strongest halfling, I would have no objection.

Why are different caps fine, while different modifiers aren't?

It's the difference between "Only giants can be this tall, halflings can't," (a design choice I have no problem with) and "you can be a halfling just as tall as a giant, but if you do, you'll be underpowered." (a design choice I have a problem with).

If being as tall as a giant is not a valid flavor, you shouldn't be able to play it. If it is a valid flavor, you shouldn't be penalized for playing it. Flavor taxes are lame.

How are different ability modifiers "penalizing" anyone?

For any given 5e class, attributes are not of equal value. Points in your primary stat are worth more than your secondary stat, which are in turn worth more than points in your tertiary stat, which is worth more your quaternary, quinary, and senary stats.

This means that the racial modifiers don't balance out. If you get -2 to your class's primary stat, and +2 to a quaternary stat, then you've ended up with a net penalty for your racial modifiers choice, while that other guy in the same party got a net bonus.

This is extra clear when using point buy -- costs escalate as you raise a stat higher, so the +2 to a quaternary stat is only worth 2 point buy, but the -2 to a primary stat is worth more than that (and may even set you back an ASI, too).

[Dienekes]

That's why 5e's old implementations of stat modifiers was great, because I could make Brienne, Jaime or Gregor Clegane, THREE versions of "the person who is a championship-level knight" who should have different capabilities, but than the rules were changed because someone has decided to limit things to only Brienne or Jaime, and now I can't play Gregor Clegane, because he isn't conforming to a stereotype.

I kinda think you can. Just be a Barbarian 20. Now admittedly, ole Gregor wasted a feat on Heavy Armor. But on balance, yeah, that’s him. Flies into rages, not much a thinker especially when angry. That’s him. Probably isn’t level 20, but then 5e is absolute crap at modeling anything that isn’t D&D anyway.

Personally, I kinda think an issue is just how centralized and structured ability scores are. For most of the game it’s more important than your proficiency bonus. So starting with it lower feels bad. Even when, honestly it mostly doesn’t matter all that much.

The other issue is how the replacements features tend to miss the mark.

Now let’s say we rework ability scores to represent the average of a species. Sure it doesn’t work as well for non-player creatures like dragons and giants and whatever. But let’s ignore that for a moment and assume we’ll fix that in the great reworking and then have racial features to demonstrate how a creatures bases are different.

Then at the very least those features should reflect at least the core part of the ability scores do mechanically.

Powerful Build is the most obvious “this feature represents Strength in a different way” and it only really interacts with the carrying capacity rules. For better or worse, most people ignore the carrying capacity rules. Or they’ll look at them on character creation and then they’ll languish in the background forever.

The part of the ability I think people actually interact with and correlate with Strength the most is hitting things harder, and maybe grappling. But mostly hitting things.

I kinda think reworking the ability score replacement features to actually hit the main parts of the ability score people want the most works better. Probably cordoning off accuracy (in attack bonuses and saving throw DCs) for streamlined numbers and bounded accuracy and all that. Figure out what the core features of each ability score represent and interact with and find a way to add those to the game would probably go decently far to get them accepted.

Another option would be to actually use the subclass system to make non-standard ability score spreads more beneficial. Oh your Orc has a bonus in Strength. Cool here’s a Sorcerer subclass that’s all about grappling people and casting touch spells against them that uses your Strength to do some neat bonus things. Could be interesting, provided you find a way to avoid the Hexblade problem.

[Psyren]

I 100% agree with you.

I've been playing D&D now over 20 years, and PCs were never average. ... yet they did have racial modifiers (unless I played human. not all editions had humans with racial modifiers ... but like other PCs they were also not average)

Clearly the proof is in the eating of the pudding: racial modifiers have nothing to do with PCs being average.

Right, but we're talking about the rules for creating PCs. If you want to apply racial modifiers to your world's NPCs I have zero problem with that. For all your elf commoners, take the commoner statbock and apply +2 Dex +2 Int -2 Con to it or whatever to your heart's content. For Goliath or Orc commoners, you can bump up their Str and Con and reduce their Int and Cha all you want. And you can do the same for your warriors, experts, merchants etc. So long as you're not trying to force the PC elves and goliaths to have specific starting ability bonuses or penalties mandated by the books, I coudn't care less what else you do.

[strangebloke]

I just find arguments about how males need str bonuses relative to females so silly when this is a game where a stinking horse has 16 strength.

A horse.

Sure the size rules carry some weight here, but have you guys interacted with a horse? A horse can kill and flatten someone accidentally. And that's just where the nonsense starts for DND. An Elephant is only marginally stronger than a high level adventurer. A hill giant essentially isn't stronger than a high level adventurer, outside of carrying capacity and being harder to grapple. An ape has the same str and size as a first level human.

Like sure its true that olympic athlete males have way better numbers than olympic athlete females in the same events, but lol train a silverback gorilla in the deadlift and see how well he does.

[Hytheter]

An ape has the same str and size as a first level human.

Not to diminish your overall point, but what size were you expecting? Even the tallest gorillas are barely taller than the average human (but of course much heftier).

[Aimeryan]

If you want to play a woman and have her be weaker than the average male adventurer go ahead. There's nothing stopping you, in the same vein that people sometimes make wizened old men with 8 CON.

I'm torn on this statement. Factually, its not incorrect, however, is this not an example of the Oberoni Fallacy? Essentially, you can make changes, therefore its not broken? On the other hand, it really depends on the goal, so it may not be broken in the first place.

The truth here is, 5e is designed for gameplay not for simulation. So, the strongest a Halfling female can get to (without magic) being the same as a Goliath male breaks disbelief - but for gameplay purposes it works fine, and thats the goal for 5e. In this sense, whatever the developers state the goal is can restrict whether it is even possible to have a better system.

In the end, if a player would like a system balanced around not being homogenous and the system doesn't provide that in the relevant way (racial features are not the same as ability scores, so may not be relevant here), then for that player there is a better system. Furthermore, being able to change things doesn't make the system as is better (which is the point of the Oberoni Fallacy).

TL;DR: This is subjective, so subjectively what 5e does currently may or may not be what someone wants.

[qube]

Well that is the way they are designed at the moment in DnD.
...
My suggestion is that racial modifiers is a good idea because it is consistent with how stats work in DnD.

One the one hand, yes. On the other ... I do advice you to read post 1 of this thread. It's litterly a proposition to play around with that :) (consider how "because core says so" is a strange argument in a homebrew thread)

TL;DR : I agree racial modifiers is a good idea, I disagree it should impact the general efficiency of characters (dwarf fighters and elf fighters will be very different fighters (racial modifiers) but equally efficient (presumably same attack score/etc...)

My eye color makes me a statistical outlier. Should I have to pay more in order to play a character with my eye color?

I'd say no, because in game design, we don't generally cost features by how statistically common they are.

I would say, that could be the case. Ex. part of character creation could be that you have 10 points to be put in stuff that makes you unique/an outlier (if you're a Berathion (not a Lanister), blond hair could cost you 3 points :) ).

And I don't think anyone would argue that's inherently bad game design.

The problem arrises when these differences have noticable impact on the game. If there was a game design choice that men make equally good fighters as women (which I would argue is a good choice) - one should not be specifically held back.

It's why my proposition adds a layer of abstraction. it unifies the flavor of diversity (no, half-orges aren't as charismatic as an aasimar, and that's OK) but still allows the game design choice that all races are equally good at all classes (a half-orge warlock will just go about another way making a pact, the an aasimar would).

While true, I dont want to be the one to tell my wife that her fantasy roleplaying game lady barbarian isn't and will never be as strong as if she decided to make them a man instead.

I feel your wilfe would instruct you in the meaning of rage

Right, but we're talking about the rules for creating PCs.
...
So long as you're not trying to force the PC elves and goliaths to have specific starting ability bonuses or penalties mandated by the books, I coudn't care less what else you do.

You don't have a problem as long as I don't want elf PCs to have +2 DEX? then you have a problem.

Because I don't subscribe to the narative that Tasha's tries to sell. The extra-ordinairty & uniqueness of PCs has ALWAYS come from the fact they don't use the 10-10-10-10-10-10 array, but their rolls (or appointments). It's called "the heroic array" for a reason. Tasha tries to deal with the game mechanical problem that ability scores are quite impactful in the game. And I think they do that badly.

That's why the name of this threat is "Better alternative than stat-less races".

------------------------------
The problem is NOT problem ability scores - they are just 6 incremental abilities.
The problem is that they too greatly impact combat.

After all, if D&D was a weight lifting game, it wouldn't be a +1 modifer that was broken - but the fact goliats can lift WAAY more.

[Psyren]

You don't have a problem as long as I don't want elf PCs to have +2 DEX? then you have a problem.

Not quite - I don't have a problem as long as you don't want the books to say elf PCs have +2 Dex. You can do whatever you want with both the PCs and NPCs at your table. If however you're advocating for the books to go back to fixed ASIs - especially OneD&D and other future published races like the Glitchling - then yes, we have a problem.

Because I don't subscribe to the narative that Tasha's tries to sell. The extra-ordinairty & uniqueness of PCs has ALWAYS come from the fact they don't use the 10-10-10-10-10-10 array, but their rolls (or appointments). It's called "the heroic array" for a reason. Tasha tries to deal with the game mechanical problem that ability scores are quite impactful in the game. And I think they do that badly.

What does the array PCs use have to do with fixed vs. variable ASIs? These are two different things.

I'm torn on this statement. Factually, its not incorrect, however, is this not an example of the Oberoni Fallacy? Essentially, you can make changes, therefore its not broken? On the other hand, it really depends on the goal, so it may not be broken in the first place.

There is no fallacy here, we're dealing with two irreconcilable camps of people. Somebody is going to have to houserule here to be happy, there is no other way to satisfy everyone.

[akma]

A question for those advocating for races with fixed small bonuses/maluses (let's say in the range +2/-2 in general), no judgment, just curiosity: how do you feel about sexual dimorphism? Men are on average ~70% stronger than women, do you think it should be somewhat reflected in the game? Would you like to see something in the style of Morrowind/Oblivion, with race and sex both influencing the starting array?

No.
It is the custom in both setting design and actual play to basically ignore differences between men and women. It is not customary to ignore the differences between races.
I posted before about a world idea in which some cultures have strong opinions regarding gender, and people didn't seem keen on the idea.
Here is the link.
And that's without any mention of biological differences, just a culture that misinterprets scripture.

senary

Thanks to you I learned a new word!


Some character traits are considered purely aesthetical - like eye color.
Some are considered part of the core mechanics of your character - like your class.
The core relevant "philosophical" issue is how much race choice SHOULD matter. The stats are relevant to this discussion because they are considered an important mechanical aspect.
D&D is a class based system, which inherently limits how you can build your character, so making races more limiting would be somewhat consistent. And because of a culture of minmaxing, a +2 and a -2 to specific stats basically does that without making certain combinations truly unviable or outright impossible. If you make the +2 and -2 also affect the maximal and minimal values of a stat, or simply have a more limited range of values without modifiers, it would represent that philosophy better.
You could even get around that for minmaxers, by saying "your character can be better than that range, but something must have happened in her background that enabled them to break those limits".

[Captain Cap]

The problem is NOT problem ability scores - they are just 6 incremental abilities.
The problem is that they too greatly impact combat.

Even this wouldn't be that much of a problem if any character could make an impactful use of any ability.

It is the custom in both setting design and actual play to basically ignore differences between men and women. It is not customary to ignore the differences between races.

So you don't look for bonuses/maluses for verisimilitude, in the sense that orcs must be stronger than elves because they normally have a more robust frame, but simply because orcs should be conceptually stronger than elves.

[Aimeryan]

For any given 5e class, attributes are not of equal value. Points in your primary stat are worth more than your secondary stat, which are in turn worth more than points in your tertiary stat, which is worth more your quaternary, quinary, and senary stats.

This means that the racial modifiers don't balance out. If you get -2 to your class's primary stat, and +2 to a quaternary stat, then you've ended up with a net penalty for your racial modifiers choice, while that other guy in the same party got a net bonus.

This is extra clear when using point buy -- costs escalate as you raise a stat higher, so the +2 to a quaternary stat is only worth 2 point buy, but the -2 to a primary stat is worth more than that (and may even set you back an ASI, too).

I agree with you on the idea that being odd shouldn't penalise you. On the other hand, doesn't 5e technically do that with point buy? As you mention, having higher a stat, say Charisma, penalises you by having lower other stats. Even more, this penalty accelerates - each point of Charisma costs more points relatively that are removed elsewhere.

Of course, these are different statements of stat oddity - one is a stat oddity against an universal baseline (8 baseline, accelerating costs up to 15 where it caps), while the other is a stat oddity against specific characterists. 5e only did the latter with race/species, and then changed that with Tashas. Even then, race/species is not a purely flavour characteristic since they still retain unique features, so take that as you will.

Interestingly, rolling for stats technically doesn't penalise for stat oddities. In this case, only probability affects the stats, not a cost that must be payed elsewhere - the probabilities are independent. We could even use this for if we wanted to change probabilities for any particular stat based on specific characteristics (race/species, height, sex, etc.) by using differently weighted dice for each stat separately. The problem with rolling for stats, of course, is that it isn't balanced amongst the group (unless you allow everyone to use any rolled array, which wouldn't make sense with this method).

---

There is no fallacy here, we're dealing with two irreconcilable camps of people. Somebody is going to have to houserule here to be happy, there is no other way to satisfy everyone.

Yes and no; it depends on the official goal and whether that goal is met. If it is, then no fallacy because there is nothing to fix. If it is not, then its a fallacy because being able to change the rules to meet the goal doesn't change the fact that the rules as written do not meet the goal.

As mentioned previously, yeah, what the official goal for 5e is whatever the devs want it to be. What the subject goal is for players, on the other hand, differs amongst players. The fallacy can only really be applied to the official goal.

[strangebloke]

Not to diminish your overall point, but what size were you expecting? Even the tallest gorillas are barely taller than the average human (but of course much heftier).

oh they are medium and that's as it should be.

But with a creature like a horse you can sort of argue that the creature's greater strength is reflected in things like carrying capacity and being harder to grapple. An ape is just. No stronger than a level 1 adventurer, except in that they're better at throwing rocks I guess.

I'm torn on this statement. Factually, its not incorrect, however, is this not an example of the Oberoni Fallacy? Essentially, you can make changes, therefore its not broken? On the other hand, it really depends on the goal, so it may not be broken in the first place.

The truth here is, 5e is designed for gameplay not for simulation. So, the strongest a Halfling female can get to (without magic) being the same as a Goliath male breaks disbelief - but for gameplay purposes it works fine, and thats the goal for 5e. In this sense, whatever the developers state the goal is can restrict whether it is even possible to have a better system.

In the end, if a player would like a system balanced around not being homogenous and the system doesn't provide that in the relevant way (racial features are not the same as ability scores, so may not be relevant here), then for that player there is a better system. Furthermore, being able to change things doesn't make the system as is better (which is the point of the Oberoni Fallacy).

TL;DR: This is subjective, so subjectively what 5e does currently may or may not be what someone wants.

Yeah my argument is essentially that DND generally and 5e specifically isn't and hasn't ever been geared for simulation. GURPS would give you a penalty for attacking with your left hand, DND would never do something like that, not even in 3.5 at the height of the "DND as a simulation." Even when DND is a simulation, its a simulation of fantasy adventurer tropes, which are sort of created by DND in the first place, thus creating an oroborous. If things were 'realistic' dragons couldn't fly, but if things were realistic and dragons could fly anyway, there's nothing martials could ever do to fight them. The dragon would land and the whole party would die.

Even if you were going to spend time making DND better at simulation, capturing the (relatively minute) differences between men and women on average would be one of my lowest priorities.

Though to speak to your example, relative to the halfling, the Goliath will have four times the carrying capacity, be able to grapple large enemies, and be able to wield a weapon that deals double damage, while the halfling can climb on more things and ride smaller creatures and hide behind creatures... so there is some differentiation here.

[Captain Cap]

An ape is just. No stronger than a level 1 adventurer, except in that they're better at throwing rocks I guess.

And they got wrong even that, since humans are supposed to be the best at throwing stuff.

[RedWarlock]

Yeah my argument is essentially that DND generally and 5e specifically isn't and hasn't ever been geared for simulation. GURPS would give you a penalty for attacking with your left hand, DND would never do something like that, not even in 3.5 at the height of the "DND as a simulation."

Umm, off-hand penalties in two weapon fighting were totally a thing. What kind of 3.5 were you playing?

[Captain Cap]

Umm, off-hand penalties in two weapon fighting were totally a thing. What kind of 3.5 were you playing?

Wasn't in 3.5 more like a Schrodinger off-hand penalty? In the sense that as long as you attacked with just one weapon (whether it was held in the right or left hand) you suffered no malus?

[strangebloke]

And they got wrong even that, since humans are supposed to be the best at throwing stuff.

yep

Umm, off-hand penalties in two weapon fighting were totally a thing. What kind of 3.5 were you playing?

Offhand attacks are not a general right-hand left-hand rule. It's a specific thing for two weapon fighting (which exists in 5e as well)

If you lose your right hand because you touch a cursed item or whatever, you can pick up your weapon with your left and do just fine.

[akma]

So you don't look for bonuses/maluses for verisimilitude, in the sense that orcs must be stronger than elves because they normally have a more robust frame, but simply because orcs should be conceptually stronger than elves.

In this case, those two are basically the same. You can say orcs appear stronger than elves because orcs are conceptually stronger, or that orcs are conceptually stronger because they look stronger than elves.

If there was a small sized lanky race that was stronger than orcs, it would feel off to many people, even if there was a conceptual reason for that. But certain halflings being as strong as the strongest goliaths breaks both their visual and conceptual perception.

[OldTrees1]

A question for those advocating for races with fixed small bonuses/maluses (let's say in the range +2/-2 in general), no judgment, just curiosity: how do you feel about sexual dimorphism? Men are on average ~70% stronger than women, do you think it should be somewhat reflected in the game? Would you like to see something in the style of Morrowind/Oblivion, with race and sex both influencing the starting array?

I do not consider human sexual dimorphism relevant. Like any other variation within humanity, I do not see human sexual dimorphism being significant enough to merit a modifier. This has an anchoring effect that tells me what a modifier means.

With that anchor in place, I can still imagine non humans that differ from humanity enough to merit mechanical representation of that difference. For example, a Giant has, among other things, a Str modifier.

So if _insert species_ is seen as too similar to Humans, and thus not significant enough to merit a modifier. Then remove its modifier while printing a more non-human species to fill the void. For example remove Goliath's Str modifier by printing a Giant species with a +2 Str modifier.


Think about it this way, I want to play a Mimic PC one day. Why would I baulk at the game including non-human species that merit agility modifiers? I don't need the game to limit itself to "humans in hats". At the same time since I am interested in non-humans, I don't need the game to waste time trying to simulate every nitpicky possible dimorphism inside humans.