Better alternative than stat-less races

[Liquor Box]

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.

I don't think so - the point buy still represents the normal distribution by making more extreme stat scores more expensive.

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.

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.

A silverback gorilla is not the same size as a human (it is the same height, but it's probably twice the weight). A chimp would be closer to an ape the same size. And chimps are not trained in strength - if they were they would not be an average chimp any more.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40405026

As for horses, as you point out, they work differently because the size rules come into play - so they are still realistic in terms of carrying capacity etc. I'm not sure that 16 in wrong in terms of the leverage they can actually apply with their limbs to an object. But if it is wrong, the better solution is to make horses stronger - not to say 'oh well, lets make other str differences disappear as well'.

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...)

I fully get that saying 'it's consistent with the way stats generally work' isn't the end of the argument, because stats can be redesigned to work differently. But I did follow up on that comment with other reasons why I feel differences in ability for different races is a good design choice.

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.

Why exactly? If some people prefer fixed ASIs and say they'd prefer that to be the rules, why do you have a problem with that?

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.

For the record, I am more concerned with it being because they have a more robust frame (more marked if you are talking halflings and orcs), and because i think it's positive for the game to create more meangful mechanical difference between them.

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.

I I don't think you are right that human sexual dimorphism is not significant enough to merit a modifier, at least so far as strength is concerned. This study, for example, suggests that women are only half as strong as men in their upper body, and two thirds as strong in their lower body: Other studies show the difference remains persistent when you are talking about athletes and lifters.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf00235103

There may be good reason to not include strength difference. Human women and men are real people, unlike orcs and elves, and emphasising the differences may turn women off the game. It is also not so obvious what advantage you might give women to balance against their lack of strength. But I don't think contending that the difference is not that significant is correct

[strangebloke]

A silverback gorilla is not the same size as a human (it is the same height, but it's probably twice the weight). A chimp would be closer to an ape the same size. And chimps are not trained in strength - if they were they would not be an average chimp any more.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40405026

As for horses, as you point out, they work differently because the size rules come into play - so they are still realistic in terms of carrying capacity etc. I'm not sure that 16 in wrong in terms of the leverage they can actually apply with their limbs to an object. But if it is wrong, the better solution is to make horses stronger - not to say 'oh well, lets make other str differences disappear as well'.

Gorillas cap out at 500 pounds are well within the realm of 'medium sized.' And sure they're not trained, which means that a human adventurer is even more likely to beat them in a wrestling match.

IRL, I would not encourage you to try that.

Horses are so much stronger than humans that domesticating cows and horses and bringing their strength to bear revolutionized all of agriculture and warfare across the whole of the ancient world. A horse can casually kill a human by accident.

And this is all fine, actually, because DND is not a simulation engine. It's a game with mechanics that are designed to be fun. Adventurers on foot need to be able to fight colossal dragons, trolls, giants with pointy sticks. A bear should be something you can fight and beat pretty early on. A horse should usually be less dangerous than its rider, unlike IRL. And yes, this is all inherently absurd, but that's the fun. You can't accept that premise of someone punching a dragon the size of a castle to death, and then turn around and say "but as a woman she should be weaker on average because-"

[OldTrees1]

I I don't think you are right that human sexual dimorphism is not significant enough to merit a modifier, at least so far as strength is concerned. This study, for example, suggests that women are only half as strong as men in their upper body, and two thirds as strong in their lower body: Other studies show the difference remains persistent when you are talking about athletes and lifters.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf00235103

Whether it is significant enough to merit a modifier is a difference of opinion/preference. I do not dispute that studies show a statistically significant difference in human sexual dimorphism. However I do not consider it significant enough to merit a modifier. We have an infinite expanse of non-human possibility, it is easy to imagine a species that I would consider merits a strength modifier even if I put the threshold above what human sexual dimorphism can reach. (For example, a Giant)

There may be good reason to not include strength difference. Human women and men are real people, unlike orcs and elves, and emphasising the differences may turn women off the game. It is also not so obvious what advantage you might give women to balance against their lack of strength. But I don't think contending that the difference is not that significant is correct

These are all good reasons as well. If I analyzed it further there would be many reasons behind my preference to set the threshold higher than human dimorphism can reach, but that is my preference. I have the infinite possibility space of non-humans, so having a higher threshold doesn't stop anything.

[Liquor Box]

Gorillas cap out at 500 pounds are well within the realm of 'medium sized.' And sure they're not trained, which means that a human adventurer is even more likely to beat them in a wrestling match.

IRL, I would not encourage you to try that.

If the description is just for an ape, why do you think it means a gorilla, not a chimp? If it's a chimp the strength score isn't far off the mark, so no problem.

Horses are so much stronger than humans that domesticating cows and horses and bringing their strength to bear revolutionized all of agriculture and warfare across the whole of the ancient world. A horse can casually kill a human by accident.

The bring their strength to bear in terms of carrying and hauling items. And under the DnD engine they do that much much better than humans. The DnD engine does simulate their greater ability to haul and carry (the sorts of things they were domesticated for) adequately.

And this is all fine, actually, because DND is not a simulation engine. It's a game with mechanics that are designed to be fun. Adventurers on foot need to be able to fight colossal dragons, trolls, giants with pointy sticks. A bear should be something you can fight and beat pretty early on. A horse should usually be less dangerous than its rider, unlike IRL. And yes, this is all inherently absurd, but that's the fun. You can't accept that premise of someone punching a dragon the size of a castle to death, and then turn around and say "but as a woman she should be weaker on average because-"

It's not a perfect simulation engine, but it does aim to somewhat simulate. There is a very well known article from an earlier edition where a designer goes into great dpeth about how closely it was desgined to human stats. And in the real world a human with medieval weapons is more dangerous than a horse, and they are not too far below a bear.

Whether it is significant enough to merit a modifier is a difference of opinion/preference. I do not dispute that studies show a statistically significant difference in human sexual dimorphism. However I do not consider it significant enough to merit a modifier. We have an infinite expanse of non-human possibility, it is easy to imagine a species that I would consider merits a strength modifier even if I put the threshold above what human sexual dimorphism can reach. (For example, a Giant)

I'd wrongly assumed you were saying that the sexual dimorphism of strength was insufficient to merit a modifier because you underestimated the extent of the difference.

But isn't the problem with saying that near double strength advantage isn't enough to warrant a modifier, that strength differences of that extent are already represented between humans of unspecified gender and other somewhat stronger humans of unspecified gender?

[Rukelnikov]

Whether it is significant enough to merit a modifier is a difference of opinion/preference. I do not dispute that studies show a statistically significant difference in human sexual dimorphism. However I do not consider it significant enough to merit a modifier. We have an infinite expanse of non-human possibility, it is easy to imagine a species that I would consider merits a strength modifier even if I put the threshold above what human sexual dimorphism can reach. (For example, a Giant)

These are all good reasons as well. If I analyzed it further there would be many reasons behind my preference to set the threshold higher than human dimorphism can reach, but that is my preference. I have the infinite possibility space of non-humans, so having a higher threshold doesn't stop anything.

That's not entirely correct, we have a reference in the game rules regarding about how much does a point of strength amount to, each point of strength represents about 30 pounds of deadlift. It'd be a matter of taking some statistics and applying some numbers.

However, I don't see a point in that. Gender shouldn't be a mechanical choice anymore than eye color, applying mechanics to it would mean that suddenly most characters of class X are either male or female because of min/max, I think that detracts from the game a bit.

Race (or species, ancestry, lineage, whateveryouwannacallit) on the other hand is not a stylistic choice anymore than what type of armor you wear.

I want my GWM Fighter to wear leather armor cause it looks cool, why do I have to be forced to put points in Dex penalized just to look cool while fighting?

[strangebloke]

If the description is just for an ape, why do you think it means a gorilla, not a chimp? If it's a chimp the strength score isn't far off the mark, so no problem.


The bring their strength to bear in terms of carrying and hauling items. And under the DnD engine they do that much much better than humans. The DnD engine does simulate their greater ability to haul and carry (the sorts of things they were domesticated for) adequately.

It's not a perfect simulation engine, but it does aim to somewhat simulate. There is a very well known article from an earlier edition where a designer goes into great dpeth about how closely it was desgined to human stats. And in the real world a human with medieval weapons is more dangerous than a horse, and they are not too far below a bear.

My dude, you're literally arguing that a human having comparable strength to a horse (as in, able to wrestle a horse to the ground without tools most of the time) is a normal and reasonable thing, but women and men being treated the same by the system is some huge breach of verisimilitude.

However, I don't see a point in that. Gender shouldn't be a mechanical choice anymore than eye color, applying mechanics to it would mean that suddenly most characters of class X are either male or female because of min/max, I think that detracts from the game a bit.

Race (or species, ancestry, lineage, whateveryouwannacallit) on the other hand is not a stylistic choice anymore than what type of armor you wear.

I want my GWM Fighter to wear leather armor cause it looks cool, why do I have to be forced to put points in Dex penalized just to look cool while fighting?

Yeah precisely. People should be able to be abnormal, unusual. Nobody shows up eager to play the most statistically probable sort of character. That guy's probably a grungy human farmer without class levels.

[Rukelnikov]

Yeah precisely. People should be able to be abnormal, unusual. Nobody shows up eager to play the most statistically probable sort of character. That guy's probably a grungy human farmer without class levels.

Same as I prefer different armors having different values and not dissociate the flavor from the mechanics therein, I prefer different species having different values.

A lvl 1 point buy Minotaur and Halfling that make the exact same decisions beside species, should come up with the Minotaur having higher Strength.

[NichG]

Don't bother with things that can be bought off, and don't bother with things that are within a few standard deviations of the population variance. Arguing intensely over 5% shifts in success rates is silly, regardless of what sorts of external things can be brought in to try to justify it one way or the other.

So raise the stakes, and make each race give something that fundamentally changes build logic. Halflings get Dex to damage instead of Strength. Elves and only elves can freely combine a cantrip with any melee attack. Orcs can't roll 1s or 2s on damage dice - broadsword or fireball. Dwarves gain 50% increased bonuses from gear.

[Rukelnikov]

So raise the stakes, and make each race give something that fundamentally changes build logic. Halflings get Dex to damage instead of Strength. Elves and only elves can freely combine a cantrip with any melee attack. Orcs can't roll 1s or 2s on damage dice - broadsword or fireball. Dwarves gain 50% increased bonuses from gear.

If that's the kind of racials they bring in to replace stats, I think that'd be reasonable. (free Bladesong EA, floor of 3 on damage dice, around that level, tier 2 feature)

[Captain Cap]

However, I don't see a point in that. Gender shouldn't be a mechanical choice anymore than eye color, applying mechanics to it would mean that suddenly most characters of class X are either male or female because of min/max, I think that detracts from the game a bit.

Race (or species, ancestry, lineage, whateveryouwannacallit) on the other hand is not a stylistic choice anymore than what type of armor you wear.

However, if you take into account small differences (+2/-2) between races but ignore sexual dimorphism (which is statistically significant), you get inconsistent and paradoxical results, and end up with orcs that have a mechanical advantage over elves by being ~20% stronger on average than them, but also with male characters with no mechanical advantage over female despite being on average ~50% stronger. And this completely wrecks the verisimilitude angle.

If you don't think that ~50% is significative enough to be represented (because it is too small or because it is less controversial to ignore it), to be consistent you should award mechanical bonuses only to larger average deviations, like in the giant example already mentioned.

[Rukelnikov]

However, if you take into account small differences (+2/-2) between races but ignore sexual dimorphism (which is statistically significant), you get inconsistent and paradoxical results, and end up with orcs that have a mechanical advantage over elves by being ~20% stronger on average than them, but also with male characters with no mechanical advantage over female despite being on average ~50% stronger. And this completely wrecks the verisimilitude angle.

If you don't think that ~50% is significative enough to be represented (because it is too small or because it is less controversial to ignore it), to be consistent you should award mechanical bonuses only to larger average deviations, like in the giant example already mentioned.

That's a simulationism argument, which I don't think holds since the game doesn't try to go for simulationism.

The game, otoh, does try to cater to medieval fantasy, races being differentiable by their traits is one thing most fantasy involving different species has. Removing the differentiation means removing different races as a concept.

[Captain Cap]

That's a simulationism argument, which I don't think holds since the game doesn't try to go for simulationism.

Unless you go for some measure of simulationism, stats modifiers are completely arbitrary, and there would hardly be anything beyond personal preference to justify their presence or their association with particular races.

The game, otoh, does try to cater to medieval fantasy, races being differentiable by their traits is one thing most fantasy involving different species has. Removing the differentiation means removing different races as a concept.

What's discussed here is removing/replacing stat modifiers, not traits in general.

[strangebloke]

Same as I prefer different armors having different values and not dissociate the flavor from the mechanics therein, I prefer different species having different values.

A lvl 1 point buy Minotaur and Halfling that make the exact same decisions beside species, should come up with the Minotaur having higher Strength.

Oh I completely misread you. Gender doesn't matter to you, but species does.

Well, fine.

But I don't know, a halfling is weaker than a minotaur in several ways. 1/4 the carrying capacity, worse weapon options, and can't grapple large creatures. A Halfling who is strength based is probably... what, a paladin? A ranger, maybe? People always talk about these halfling barbarians, but a lack of access to GWM is actually a huge downside, and even at range missing out on longbow is a bummer.

I'd be fine enhancing the differences between size categories OVERALL to be honest, but the minotaur/halfling comparison is the most extreme example of different playable races. Most races in 5e are things like tieflings or elves. It's one thing to give up STR because you're playing a tiny halfling man. Its another thing to give up having at-pace strength because you're playing a drow instead of a half-drow, or a lizardfolk instead of a dragonborn.

Again, I think the solution here would be stat caps rather than bonuses. Bonuses at level 1 are so impactful because of how ASIs and point buy works that if you're missing a bonus at level 1 you're basically screwed, but caps would give you a reason to play a certain classic archetype without hobbling the off-archetype race choices completely.

Maybe give small races a hard cap of 16 STR while goliaths and minotaurs and centaurs have 22 max STR, as one example.

[Liquor Box]

My dude, you're literally arguing that a human having comparable strength to a horse (as in, able to wrestle a horse to the ground without tools most of the time) is a normal and reasonable thing, but women and men being treated the same by the system is some huge breach of verisimilitude.

No, I'm literally not. i said an armed human was more dangerous than a horse. I also said that it sounded as if horse strength was well represented by a combination of its high strength score and increased carrying and dragging capacity due to its size.

I don't see how it would be normal for a human to be able to wrestle a horse to the ground, given the horses significantly higher strength compared to a normal human, and it grapple bonus due to size - but I am more familiar with 3e than 5e, so I'm not certain. If it's true that humans can outwrestle horses in 5e, then they should correct that inconsistency, not use it as an excuse to fail to represent other things realistically.

Don't bother with things that can be bought off, and don't bother with things that are within a few standard deviations of the population variance. Arguing intensely over 5% shifts in success rates is silly, regardless of what sorts of external things can be brought in to try to justify it one way or the other.

To be honest, the difference in str between an orc and a halfling should be much much more than +2. But I guess there are other considerations such as that having such vastly different strengths might complicate the game.

[akma]

Gender ability score adjustments get much more complicated if you'll want to apply them to other races.
In some animals, the female is bigger and stronger, so that means that humanoid animal races should reflect that? What about races without animal analogues? Are you going to supply each race with two versions for male and female? If not, why are humans special in that regard? Biologically, someone can have traits of both or lack some traits, will you include that too? And that's without getting into questions relating to social differences, which is a can of worm we should probably avoid.

A race for which the males and females are significantly different sounds cool; but having to nitpick gameplay differences for each race simply sounds tedious.

So raise the stakes, and make each race give something that fundamentally changes build logic. Halflings get Dex to damage instead of Strength. Elves and only elves can freely combine a cantrip with any melee attack. Orcs can't roll 1s or 2s on damage dice - broadsword or fireball. Dwarves gain 50% increased bonuses from gear.

That would definitely make the races much more distinct than ability modifiers can, but will make the core problem worse - a culture of minmaxing that narrows race/class combinations.

[OldTrees1]

Sorry for making this quickly (IRL time constraints):

I'd wrongly assumed you were saying that the sexual dimorphism of strength was insufficient to merit a modifier because you underestimated the extent of the difference.

But isn't the problem with saying that near double strength advantage isn't enough to warrant a modifier, that strength differences of that extent are already represented between humans of unspecified gender and other somewhat stronger humans of unspecified gender?

I parsed this 2 ways so here are 2 answers:
1) I don't see a problem with the 3d6 or point buy representing all the nuances that I don't see meriting an explicit modifier. Is that what you were asking?
2) There is merit in a linear Strength score translating into an exponential carrying capacity. 5E made it linear:linear which has some knock-on effects. That would diminish the observation you were making?

Sorry, out of time.

That's not entirely correct, we have a reference in the game rules regarding about how much does a point of strength amount to, each point of strength represents about 30 pounds of deadlift. It'd be a matter of taking some statistics and applying some numbers.

There is merit in a linear Strength score translating into an exponential carrying capacity. 5E made it linear:linear which has some knock-on effects (as you described).

Sorry, out of time.

[Captain Cap]

Maybe give small races a hard cap of 16 STR while goliaths and minotaurs and centaurs have 22 max STR, as one example.

Personally, seeing the way Strength works, determining the Athletics score, jumping distance, carrying capacity relative to size etc., it seems to be more a measure of "pound for pound" strength than absolute strength.
In this perspective, if it was for me I'd emphasize the effect of different sizes than have Strength modifiers (unless you expect for a certain race to have more efficient muscles and better fitness all around): other than the effects already in game, a larger size could provide a damage bonus to represent the bigger weight behind melee attacks; at the same time, being smaller could make the character more evasive and increase the class armor, 3.X style.

[NichG]

To be honest, the difference in str between an orc and a halfling should be much much more than +2. But I guess there are other considerations such as that having such vastly different strengths might complicate the game.

I mean, everything you add to a game complicates a game. I don't have much sympathy or taste for the school of game design of making everything so tiny and fiddly that even if you do it wrong you probably won't upset game balance, because that way also lies players not actually noticing things either. Given how much more time is spent on a single combat in a tabletop game compared to, e.g., an MMORPG, I don't think we should emulate the tendency to have things like +2% damage here, +3% health there (not that I even think that's a good idea in an MMO, but you can sort of argue that over the course of hundreds of mobs you might notice a 2% difference). But in a tabletop game you're going to be using things a hundred times less frequently than in a computer game, so they should be big, bold flavors or just not be options given in the first place.

That would definitely make the races much more distinct than ability modifiers can, but will make the core problem worse - a culture of minmaxing that narrows race/class combinations.

You might think that, but because these things work along different axes that depend on other components of your build, resources, what's going on in the campaign, personal taste as far as mechanics you like to engage with, etc, it will actually diversify those combinations. The problem with stat mods is that they're nearly fungible - a -2 from a race can just be bought off with point buy points. So you can actually do math and say 'in all cases, this combination is strictly better than the others' because you have a single axis of comparison (point buy efficiency). But when you have multiple axes, you can have pareto fronts with different things being conditionally optimal - that is to say, conditional on stuff like taste and circumstance and level range of the campaign and types of encounters and availability of loot and ...

[strangebloke]

I don't see how it would be normal for a human to be able to wrestle a horse to the ground, given the horses significantly higher strength compared to a normal human, and it grapple bonus due to size - but I am more familiar with 3e than 5e, so I'm not certain. If it's true that humans can outwrestle horses in 5e, then they should correct that inconsistency, not use it as an excuse to fail to represent other things realistically.

A slightly above average human soldier with +1 str and athletics proficiency can do it 50% of the time.

An above-average human, say, a veteran, has better than 50/50 odds.

Personally, seeing the way Strength works, determining the Athletics score, jumping distance, carrying capacity relative to size etc., it seems to be more a measure of "pound for pound" strength than absolute strength.
In this perspective, if it was for me I'd emphasize the effect of different sizes than have Strength modifiers (unless you expect for a certain race to have more efficient muscles and better fitness all around): other than the effects already in game, a larger size could provide a damage bonus to represent the bigger weight behind melee attacks; at the same time, being smaller could make the character more evasive and increase the class armor, 3.X style.

currently this already exists, sort of. A half-ogre for example deals 2d6 with a javelin, and this is in accord with a rule that's found in the DMG under "oversized weapons." There's a similar distinction where 'heavy' weapons are considered oversized for small PCs. No greatswords or longbows. Obviously this is a much smaller downgrade generally, going from d8 longbow to d6 shortbow, or 2d6 greatsword to 1d10 versatile longsword, but the idea is there.

I'd be fine with making small races only able to use light weapons without disadvantage, but overall meh.

[Liquor Box]

Sorry for making this quickly (IRL time constraints):



I parsed this 2 ways so here are 2 answers:
1) I don't see a problem with the 3d6 or point buy representing all the nuances that I don't see meriting an explicit modifier. Is that what you were asking?
2) There is merit in a linear Strength score translating into an exponential carrying capacity. 5E made it linear:linear which has some knock-on effects. That would diminish the observation you were making?

Sorry, out of time.

Yes, the first.

A slightly above average human soldier with +1 str and athletics proficiency can do it 50% of the time.

An above-average human, say, a veteran, has better than 50/50 odds.

Right, so you not only need to be a stronger than usual human, but also to have a special proficiency (so not really normal at all). Whether that means that horse str is improperly balanced, I'm not sure. But either way, it makes no difference to modifiers by race or gender - the solution is to improve horses wrestling ability if needed.

[Psyren]

Why exactly? If some people prefer fixed ASIs and say they'd prefer that to be the rules, why do you have a problem with that?

Eh, "problem" was just me being dramatic. What I meant was I disagree with that stance and would do whatever I could to not let the game regress in that fashion.

[Liquor Box]

Eh, "problem" was just me being dramatic. What I meant was I disagree with that stance and would do whatever I could to not let the game regress in that fashion.

Sure, but why do you disagree so much that you would do whatever you could?

[Psyren]

Sure, but why do you disagree so much that you would do whatever you could?

Because I agree with the updated direction.

If you're looking for more detail, that's going to take this thread down all the paths that got the previous ones locked.

[Witty Username]

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".

Given that every race in the game currently is either, as strong as, or weaker, than human.
Which ones warrent ability modifiers?

"humans in hats" is what fixed ASIs have amounted to. It has made race selection less interesting, not more.

[OldTrees1]

Given that every race in the game currently is either, as strong as, or weaker, than human.
Which ones warrent ability modifiers?

"humans in hats" is what fixed ASIs have amounted to. It has made race selection less interesting, not more.

We will have to agree to disagree. Making the species more and more generic is not making species selection more interesting. That is taking a 10ft pit (5E had many species design decisions moving us towards "humans with hats" at launch) and digging deeper. I would prefer they start to climb out of the pit instead (although that can't happen until 6E at the soonest).

However you can prove me wrong if 1D&D includes a Large Giant, a Myconid, a Mimic, a Ghoul, and a Tiny Spider official species. If your scapegoat is really to blame, then 1D&D could deliver.

As I said, 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".

[goodpeople25]

We will have to agree to disagree. Making the species more and more generic is not making species selection more interesting. That is taking a 10ft pit and digging deeper. I would prefer they start to climb out of the pit instead (although that can't happen until 6E at the soonest).

However you can prove me wrong if 1D&D includes a Large Giant, a Myconid, a Mimic, a Ghoul, and a Tiny Spider official species. If your scapegoat is really to blame, then 1D&D could deliver.

As I said, 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".

Saying "Others are scapegoating".

Repeating "Humans in hats".

Pick one.

[OldTrees1]

Saying "Others are scapegoating".

Repeating "Humans in hats".

Pick one.

No?
2) I can critique 5E for its choices at launch and for it continuing to push even further.
1) I can disagree with Witty Username's claim that fixed ASIs caused the choices at 5E's launch that I criticized. It is an outlandish enough claim that I can say they are scapegoating fixed ASIs when they are trying to get me to blame it for my critique. However I also provide a falsifiable test that could convince me if the evidence were provided.

Of course, I think 2 interjections in (with plenty of room for misunderstandings each time), it is unlikely you and I are even having the same conversation. Bye.

[strangebloke]

Right, so you not only need to be a stronger than usual human, but also to have a special proficiency (so not really normal at all). Whether that means that horse str is improperly balanced, I'm not sure. But either way, it makes no difference to modifiers by race or gender - the solution is to improve horses wrestling ability if needed.

Yeah you need a COLLOSAL 12 strength to wrestle a horse. Lol.

but no, this is the system working as intended. A system that was accurate and cared about simulation would not let you gain hit points, and would keep your abilities well bounded within 'guy at the gym' levels and would make you die instantly when a 50 foot dragon landed on you...

....and would suck.

We will have to agree to disagree. Making the species more and more generic is not making species selection more interesting. That is taking a 10ft pit and digging deeper. I would prefer they start to climb out of the pit instead (although that can't happen until 6E at the soonest).

However you can prove me wrong if 1D&D includes a Large Giant, a Myconid, a Mimic, a Ghoul, and a Tiny Spider official species. If your scapegoat is really to blame, then 1D&D could deliver.

As I said, 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".

I agree with Witty here.

The way it was implemented was real bad. Racial modifiers were basically ASIs and ASIs are one of the main forms of progression in the game. You could play another race, and suck. And sure, 14 DEX at character creation doesn't make your monk 'unviable' but its a huge setback. You will always effectively be a whole feat behind the Wood Elf monk.

Like at level 1, the wood elf flurrying at ac 15 deals
[(1d8+3)+(1d6+3)*2]*0.55=7.1
whereas the githzerai (a very flavorful monk race) deals
[(1d8+2)+(1d6+2)*2]*0.50=5.5

That's a fourth of your damage, just gone! Yikes! And you're a monk, you can't afford to give up that much power! And this remains a problem for the entirety of your career as a monk.

So if you care about being strong at all, you're locked into wood elf, tabaxi, half-elf, human, and.... probably a few others. Not exactly spoiled for options. And why is this way? Because githzerai couldn't have a +1 to dex? Come on, that's silly. Gith aren't naturally less agile than humans, what are you on about?

At most, if racial modifiers should exist, its for edge case races like halflings and goliaths, and even in those cases you can probably just give them other features that make them feel strong.

[OldTrees1]

So if you care about being strong at all, you're locked into wood elf, tabaxi, half-elf, human, and.... probably a few others. Not exactly spoiled for options. And why is this way? Because githzerai couldn't have a +1 to dex? Come on, that's silly. Gith aren't naturally less agile than humans, what are you on about?

At most, if racial modifiers should exist, its for edge case races like halflings and goliaths, and even in those cases you can probably just give them other features that make them feel strong.

Sounds like you are also mostly agreeing with me. There are plenty of ASIs 5E affixed that I would not agree with, and plenty of more non-human species that they chose not to print. (Clarifying Edit: Also I would be fine with many species not having ASIs if the species pool included edge cases like Giants that did.)


Also, 5E did choose to let your monk afford to give up a fourth of their damage. This whole "So if you care about being strong at all" is a problem we player voluntarily create despite the designers bending over backwards to let us still be strong enough anyways. 5E is the first edition where I would be fine with leaving my primary ability score at 14 all the way to 20th (unless the character cared about my disagreements with the 5E ability check system and that impacted their primary ability score). I could easily see an 18 Cha Rogue that gets by with a 14 Dex or a 16 Int 16 Wis 14 Cha Bard.

[Hurrashane]

I never understood the humans in hats arguments. I really don't see how not having a +2 con and +1 str equates to either +1 in all stats nothing more, or +1 to two stats a feat and a skill. Especially when the former has like, dark vision, and a number of other traits up to and including spells. Unless the argument isn't a mechanical one in which case it being brought up when discussing mechanics is a little confusing.

Also while removing ASI from species selection may be more or less interesting, for me at least, it certainly opens up the possibility of playing non-humans. Playing a mountain dwarf wizard is a much more enticing prospect when not burdened with the +2 strength they'll never need. While a +2 mod on a required stat is passable a +3 feels better, especially if someone else made said stat their secondary or tertiary, hard to feel like the smart one in the group when you share an int mod with another party member who also has a main stat that's higher.

If species stat boosts and/or negatives would become a thing again then I feel that the species traits should in some way balance what is lost, a -int orc gaining extra damage on wizard spells for example. The elf of old does it rather well as a -con is balanced out somewhat by the +2 dex, less HP but a higher chance to dodge possibly making their lower HP go further than another PC with similar con but no improved dex.