Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Some Suggestions after 300 hours

1. Losing +1 modifier for main spell-casting stat is not "shooting yourself in a foot". You massively overstate the importance of having a +3 instead of +2. It's more visible for martials, but it's never character breaking. 16 int wizard being great and 15 int wizard sucking is just not true. In cases when it would made a massive difference you probably shouldn't rely on DC spells anyway (+1 to DC matters a lot when your chance of actually beating their save is low, meaning you probably should do something else). In 3.5e or Pathfinder the difference is a lot bigger since a lot of class features scale with your main stat, 5e is a different beast.

2. You could build Tiefling Druid that performs great (and Druid can be the least stat reliant class in the game). And the same goes probably for most classes. Some races might be tougher and some easier, but it's doable. I cannot possibly fathom all the race/class choices that one mind find massively underpowered, hence I used the example given.

3. Floating stat bonus doesn't really prevent you from feeling penalized. Why would you play a High Elf or Tiefling wizard when you could play a Shield Dwarf with the same stats and additionally use medium armor. Why would you ever play any other race than Drow as ranged character? That darkvision increase is incredible. Why would you play a frontline that is not Gold Dwarf for that toughness. Or Barbarian or Champion that is not a half-orc...
It doesn't fix a supposed problem while ruining race identity,

1. 5e uses Bound Accuracy, so a +1 is 5% and that's a lot more than you seem to think it is, especially as enemies get more AC and higher saves. There's a reason Proficiency takes so long to get up and you can't normally start with an 18 in any stat and it takes 4 entire levels for most classes to get more ASI's. It's also a difference in number of spells prepared, saving throws, and in the case of Dexterity for noncasters, AC, initiative, saves, stealth, and for some even accuracy and damage. +1 is a huge deal, that's why we love +1 weapons, +1 armor, artificers in 5e using +1 spell foci, the PHB and DMG originally left out +1 foci from the game because they were afraid they would be too strong. They added them later, but even then, most DMs will give out a +3 greatsword before giving the wizard a +2 spell focus. Cantrips cause status effects, slowing enemies with Ray of Frost, stopping healing from Chill Touch, Preventing reactions with Shocking Grasp. A lot of your most basic attack options can make a huge impact when they hit, so you want them to hit, so that 5% in the long game is a huge deal because you use that 5% almost every single action, reaction, and bonus action that is relevant which adds up very quickly. If it's important for even your cantrips to succeed, imagine having your spell slots fail you. A lot of status require multiple saving throws, like hold or charm person, so each saving throw tests that 5% chance on even a single spell, so sometimes that 5% is applied two or three times in a single round. It's a lot.

In pathfinder 2e a +1 is actually not a very big deal since you add your level to everything... so I have to VERY strongly disagree there. I don't care about about losing a +1 in favor of having a little more charisma to make a fun character in Pathfinder 2e. Having played both systems twice a week for years now, +1 is a way bigger deal in 5e than in most other systems. I say this as a player and a DM. 5% alone may not seem like a lot on a single roll. 5% 15 times in a single fight is a lot. 5% for 8 levels is definitely an absolute ton. You need to have some forward thinking to see how many times that 5% made you fail.

2. You're talking about the very thing I said. You can make an effective one, and you'll see below, if you can float ASI you still can, nothing is stopping you from making a Charisma Druid, but with floating ASI, you are doing it because you want to not because you have to. You're just using more conjecture.

Let me answer number 3 for you with something I already said.


Race Identity is not the problem. Limiting thematics and roleplay fantasies is. Player agency for what they want to play. If they want to powerplay? Fine. If they don't? Also fine. But as an advocate of player choice, roleplay, and thematic choices, I have to say choosing stats is important, roleplayers and min-maxers alike will mod the feature in anyway, so why not just build it into the game? If you don't want to do it, just... don't? One of my favorite 5e characters I've ever played was a Tiefling Bard and I actually removed one point from the racial bonus of Charisma and put it into Strength. At the end of the campaign his Charisma was 16 but his strength was 20. The character I wanted to play was a buff based gish but I don't like Hexblade as much as Bard so I changed it up by making a Bard that had Smite as a racial trait and then took smites with my Magical Secrets at 10. This Valor Bard used spells that didn't consider your spell mod, such as Heroism, Aid, Enhance Ability, Enlarge/Reduce, so on and so forth. So yes you totally can make characters that have sub-optimal main stats, my greatsword wielding, smiting, and inspirational leader bard is proof of that, but the point is I was able to make the character I genuinely wanted to play while taking away from what is technically Best in Slot. If I wanted to BiS him he would have had 1 point in hexblade, but I didn't, I wanted to have fun with a strength Bard who started adventuring because he was sick of being a theatrical gladiator. Most fun I've had. Nobody is arguing you can't make it work, but you can make suboptimal choices less punishing and more fun. At the end of the day Half Elves still make the best Warlocks, High Elves still make the best wizards, Dwarves and Half Orcs still make the best Barbarians and Fighters, but floating stats allows us to close the gap.

EDIT And back on point 2, if you have the +1 sooner at level 1 that means you cap at 20 very early which means you have more room for feats that can either A) make a character stronger or B) bolster the characters roleplaying concept, so it brings an option for people who want to min-max by substantially increasing their power, or provides creativity in a character not built for power without making the weaker, because being weak feels bad. Your logic is extremely flawed because if a +1 really isn't a big deal, why would you ever play anything besides the aforementioned Dwarf Wizard?

Yes, of course it is shooting yourself in the foot. A higher number has an impact. That's a fact, it's not in dispute at all. You're just arguing that being shot in the foot isn't as bad as I think. It's irrelevant that other systems have shooting yourself in the foot be much worse. We're not talking about other systems. We're talking about 5e.


Because if I want to play as a High Elf or Tiefling wizard, I want to play as a High Elf or Tiefling Wizard and not a Shield Dwarf wizard. Those are different characters, even though they're both wizards.

You talk about how floating ASI's destroy the identity of races? Where the +2/+1 goes is the LEAST interesting thing about a race.

My idea for a pen-and-paper Halfling Wizard doesn't start out by first taking 1 level in Artificer before going full Wizard, even though that would be more mechanically advantageous. Based on that character's personality, history, and circumstances, it does not make sense for them to take a level in Artificer, so they wouldn't do that.

***

By continuing to ignore my question about how your fun would be impacted, it proves you have no answer. That shows that my argument is correct.

The part where you seem to think that's an effective argument.


I have no interest in changing your mind. What you do in your head is your issue. I'm simply expressing a different opinion, and not for your benefit, but for Larian's.


Decisions like this don't exist in a vacuum. They have a real impact on the gaming experience for everyone involved. From your point of view, you see it as affecting your character. I see it as affecting the entire race.

A default placement means nothing when most players will shuffle their stats to the most mechanically beneficial spot. This mentality quickly spreads throughout the setting. Halflings are suddenly as strong as Half-orcs. The delineation between the races is watered down.

I don't want to play in a world that turns a blind eye to obvious differences.

There's something to be said for functioning within boundaries. Again, as I mentioned earlier, catering to the crowd that wants their cake even after they've eaten it leads to players eventually saying, "You can't hit me because I have a force field."

It's a spoiled mentality that lessens the game for everyone by tainting the racial differences. And, as another poster mentioned, that suddenly negates the balance of the other racial differences, things like skills, armor proficiencies, and darkvision.

In short, it's just a narrow-sighted bad idea someone had because they wanted better stats.

... What? No, it's a good idea for people who want to roleplay a particular type of character without being punished. It's VERY telling that you called someone elses opinion a problem and said you were helping Larian by pointing it out so I mean... Open your mind and try to see from someone elses perspective and read literally any of the argument being posed. Your argument is literally "If given the change to min max, I will, and I will not enjoy min maxing" to which I say... Then don't do it? If someone else has fun making a GWM Polearm master fighter by level 8, let them, it's not your game, you can make your own fun build, and if you're worried about it being easy, they already confirmed there will be difficulty settings, so just... make it harder.

1. As I stated previously, +5% matters in terms of average effectiveness more the lower the chance is (to a point of hoping for 20). If you are trying to hit an enemy with high AC and need a roll of 17-20, that +1 is massive in terms of DPR or duration of an effect. But in those cases it is ALWAYS better to look for another option other than rolling those odds. So in actual play if that 5% actually matters to a massive degree (like 30% increased effectiveness) it's more on the player for choosing wrong action or on the team not supporting a player to do it's job than on single stat point. Additionally 15 Int Wizard would most likely have higher CON or DEX due to his racial bonus, which will make surviving an opportunity attack after the 1/20 failed shocking grasp more likely. +1 in main stat without getting anything else is obviously good, but we are not talking about that. Choosing a race that doesn't allow you to get +3 modifier in your main stat does not mean that it doesn't have other strengths. And a player can use those strengths in new interesting way that go beyond what a usual exemplar of its class is capable of and thus minimizing the impact of lack of +1 to a stat point.


Do you really need floating stat points to make a nerdy barbarian dwarf? Just put as many point into intelligence as possible. Why the need to give yourself even more? Can you roleplay better with it? Half-orc with 10 strength will be considered weak, do you really need 8 for your character fantasy?

I find hard to believe that anyone who considers a role play a big factor needs floating stat point to create a unique character.


So on one hand whatever the impact is, big or small, it doesn't matter because it still prevents you from playing a race-class combination you want. So you need to float those racial stat points.
But on the other hand the racial abilities don't matter, because whatever the impact, they have you still will play a race-class combination you want.

I find those two a little bit contradictory.


I asked you in return if allowing free points at character creation wouldn't be a solution. Whatever answer you would give to that question is the same answer I would give to yours. How is your fun impacted by someone wanting to roll until he gets al 18s or edits that in?

If someone finds fun in playing a character with +5 to everything who are you to tell them you shouldn't have fun like that.


But the severity of it's impact doesn't matter (see above) as long as you can't prove that it undeniably ruins your personal fun, right?

That's not my argument. I literally have no idea what you're saying. Did you mean to reply to me?

Yes we agree on this but the problem is there will always be the Absolute Best At X and what choosing stats does is narrow the gap. And again, it would be completely optional with an Opt In on New Game. Choosing optional stats just means the min-maxed is a different race/class combo than it is without, but people will still choose what they like with a smaller power gap, which is a good thing.


When I said Nerdy Barbarian, you said Dwarf, why does it have to be a dwarf? Because they get the Barbarian stats. And that is where the problem lies. Nobody is saying you can't build anything you want, we're saying we don't want to be harshly punished for picking a race/class combination we want. What if I don't want to play a low mental stat Barbarian but want to be a -1 charisma Barbarian Tiefling? I can't. I just want to play as a rude and vulgar tiefling that doesn't know how to talk to people and gets angry easily, well too bad, I literally just can't. So no, you don't need to change your racial ASI to play something viably, but you do need it to properly portray character personality and history. If you can't understand that I just have to assume you don't roleplay as much as you powerplay simply because it's such a basic concept to have the character you want to play have the stats you want to have, the only person saying it must be used to min-max is you. It doesn't have to be used to min max, it can, and is often, used to create a personality and projection of the characters history. I find it hard to believe someone doesn't think stats are important to roleplay, especially mental stats. A Wizard that is a teacher wouldn't have as much Wisdom as they would Charisma, because teaching takes Intelligence and Charisma. There are infinite character concepts out there and being able to customize stats expresses that even further.


Every time you talk about this you are explaning your min maxing, and Drow already play ranged characters anyway because they get the +2 Dex. If you can't choose racial stats, the same problem is still there. As a min-maxer, why would you ever play a Dragonborn as anything other than a Paladin for their stat increases? Or a Half Elf as a charisma class? Your argument is that people will end up doing the thing that those types of people will already be doing, my argument is just that it will close the gap for powerful builds vs weak builds and also open up lots of personality and roleplay aspects. If I had a dollar for every Drow Rogue that seconded their Charisma stat I'd be able to end the US Debt crisis and still be able to retire. Customizing stats means more of the other things people want to play but aren't willing to gimp themselves on.

Not to mention, the class that did things to cover up their shortcomings in character creation can do the very same thing that the character that didn't gimp themselves can do, but since they chose the better stats, they do it even better still.


You've been contradicting yourself left and right this entire discussion...


Like right here, for example, you're saying don't let people build a powerful character by customizing stats (even though we're advocating for roleplay and not power) but then telling Stabbey hereto stop telling people they can't have fun with a character that has 20's across the board.

THIS IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING! When you say stuff like this it sounds like you want us to have fun your way instead of our way.


Then consider rephrasing because that's pretty much what you said.

No, it's not. You're having trouble parsing the language.


This is another example of you having trouble understanding what you're reading. Elebhra was using that "logic" in a somewhat sarcastic manner to showcase how it could be used to justify virtually anything.

I just don't see why an Elven Barbarian who spent the last 300 years sticking to a strict workout regimen shouldn't get a strength bonus at the penalty of not getting a different ASI. Simple as that.

This discussion has boiled down to Strawmanning and Conjecture, so I will speak no further in this particular topic unless in its own thread, this is clearly not a productive area of conversation.

No one has any provided any counter to the key thrust of the argument yet, they just ignore it and hope no one notices.


You think that Halflings shuffling from DEX to STR is a problem, but players tossing the race they would prefer to play as to the side for the sake of a race with more mechanically beneficial race ASI's is fine? ...Why do you think that moving the spots the +2/+1 go is worse than forcing players to not play the race and class combination they're interested in playing?

You say floating ASI's waters the delineation between the races as a whole. But having most races pigeonholed into being optimized for certain classes has the effect of making those races more generic internally to that race and at the same time it limits the space for a class to certain races.

I still don't see any explanation in there about how floating ASI's you can leave at the defaults hurts your play experience. You don't have to use them in your playthroughs. Who cares if Jim - in his playthrough separate from yours - wants to make Gumbo the Strongest Halfling in the world? How does that hurt you, who are leaving your scores where they are by default?


Boundaries still exist. Floating ASI's does not magically change the game into Calvinball. Pretending that floating ASI's turns the entire rule set into "I HAVE A FORCEFIELD YOU DIDN'T HIT ME" is a painfully, painfully bad strawman.


Really? You're the one saying "You guys way over there, stop having fun in a different way than I prefer!" And you're calling "I want to play the race and class combination I want in my own game" as the spoiled mentality?


No character is going to be strong in every situation. There are always going to be cases where different characters are better or weaker against certain foes. But the difference of missing out on a +1 is that they're going to be weaker against foes they're expected to be good against for a significant amount of time.

Oh, and the idea that you can choose a better option - in a game with dice rolls for everything - doesn't track. That Halfling Wizard with 15 INT, their attack rolls and spell DC for saving throws are both going to be equally worse than a human wizard with 16 INT. It still comes down to a roll of a die either way.


I sure do need that 8 in strength if, say my character fantasy is for example, a half-orc who was left on the doorstep of a monastery and raised as a monk who needs a +2 DEX much more than +2 STR. Especially because Monks are generally considered underpowered as it is.

If the stats meant absolutely nothing for success or failure, then that would be the case where floating stat points would not making a difference in role-playing. But the stats do mean things.


Not that contradictory. The value of the ASI is going to have the bigger impact. Other racial abilities can indeed be a selling point for a race-class combination, but a good ASI is always going to be king. Why do you think JandK scoffs at the idea of a Halfling as strong as a Half-Orc? Because the default Half-Orc comes with +2 STR and the default Halfling doesn't.


My fun is not impacted by that, because it is not my game. A person can feel free to edit their character stuff in their own game, because it is their own game. Just as my Stout Halfling Wizard having +2 INT/+1 CON in my own game should not hurt your experience.


My point was that there's a difference between +2/+1 and +4/+4/+4/+4/+4/+4, and pretending that wanting a floating +2/+1 is the same as wanting +4/+4/+4/+4/+4/+4 was false.

I also see little point in continuing to go in circles on this.

Bcs their inherent bonuses are suppose to reflect predispositions of certain races ...
And doing anything for last 300 years should be reflected in amount of your gathered XP and incerased stats on levels where you can incerase them? O_o

Just guessing ...

Really, tell me someone, please ... what does it matter if you get rolled stats?

Does it really narrow the gap enough? There are some seriously good racial abilities that for some classes are incredibly powerful. There is a reason why giving Shield Dwarves medium armor proficiency that wizards, sorcerers salivate for is not game breaking. It's their racial stat bonus.



Argument would work for any race, Dwarf or not. Why is being punished for being a High Elf Barbarian bad, but ok in case of Halflings? The inability to use heavy weapons is far more punishing for Barbarian than +1 to Strength. You can always find a roleplay reason to do something in the game or round the table that punishes you. Racial Stats are one of the least punishing aspects.

Tiefling with 10 Charisma can be obnoxious. That +2 Charisma is there to represent that power that his bloodline gives him. I would argue that a Tiefling with 8 Charisma wouldn't be a Tiefling at all. He might be vulgar, clumsy with words and angry all the time, the only difference would be that his fiendish (or other ancestry) let's him get away with it sometimes.

The most naturally intelligent half-orc shouldn't be as intelligent as the most intelligent high elf. It's how the race fantasy works. Races are not just about looks and making them so is bad for role play especially. Good roleplay always has and had some guiding rules.

Additionally only maximum available and minimum score is affected by floating bonuses. Nothing prevents you from putting points in Charisma as a teacher wizard, it's irrelevant. You don't need to be the most charismatic dwarf in Faerun to roleplay a teacher bacakground.

Then why should a Tiefling, something that in lore is just a human with the physical characteristics of a devil and touched with magic, always get a +2 to Charisma? Especially if that tiefling was ditched in the wilds for being a Tiefling and having racist parents, making the Tiefling grow up to be a ranger? Often times the stats in the PhB are due to the typical lifestyle of a race, like Tieflings needing charisma to talk their way out of the situations they end up in, but if they were not raised in that lifestyle why would they have those stat increases? Saying "that's just how those people are" is very dismissive and kinda gives "model minority" vibes that we see in the real world. You mean to tell me Elves are 100% naturally graceful and elegant and there isn't a single bumbling oaf with a bad temper in the entire race?

How often does your wizard need armor? Are you always in melee with it? This example reeks of gameplay errors justifying a weird min-max choice. I've never even needed Mage armor on my wizards, let alone other forms of armor. You're so hung up on dwarves as if mage armor doesn't already exist and isn't already enough, it's just a level 1 spell slot. Just have a good frontliner and people won't get the chance to do much to the wizard so picking a dwarf for an armored wizard is actually not even that great of an option. Sorcerers already can go Draconic and get passive AC increase and more HP so armor is kinda not great there either. As someone who plays a lot of casters, I've never salivated for armor, it was always just kinda like alright but I don't get hit that much so whatever. I'd rather have extra spells from Tiefling or extra movement from wood elves or wood half elves, which you already don't need to have adjustable racial ASI to min-max around. Most combinations are already good, but some are outright bad and anti-synergistic, all floating ASI does is make the bad ones less bad. Half Orcs ability to not-die is not good on spellcasters because you shouldn't be getting hit in the first place, but really good on clerics, paladins, and other front liners. So if you want a wizard half orc, what do you get for it? Constitution? On the class that isn't getting hit much? Con is good, but if that's all I get, no thanks.


Because dual wielding handaxes has never been a good Barbarian strategy... Who cares if you don't have heavy weapons with dual wielding? less damage than a heavy weapon, but more AC with dual wielding feat. More accuracy without the GWM penalty and able to apply that rage bonus one additional time without needing to pick Berserker. Yeah, not carrying heavy weapons really isn't that big of a deal. It's just a different playstyle that is not "the best one" so your min-max attitude is showing again.


I do not understand what this means. A tiefling with 8 charisma is just not a tiefling? I know that's not what you're trying to say, but that's kinda how it sounds from that phrasing.


So Half Orcs can't be as smart as a gome or elf? That's kinda messed up to say. A Half Orc raised by his Human father who was a wizard and taught him everything he knows about the weave should be smart, and without proper protein and workout regimens he also will not be as strong as other half orcs. Maybe in your fantasy races cannot change their self identity with practice and training or study, but in my fantasies, any race can be anything they damn well please and I refuse to see that as a problem. Not to mention being against customization options in a game where the very first thing you do is customize a character.

You don't need to but I want to because it makes sense to me and I would like that to be an option. Why is that so hard to understand?

Ok really, that last one was so profoundly dumb I had to go back on my word and comment, but obviously you're going to keep saying random things that actually either show you have no idea what I'm talking about, you can't not min-max when given the opportunity, you won't give up power for roleplay aspects but at the same time worry nobody will, think that someone else enjoying placing their own stats is a bad thing that will ruin your own fun and ideas of how the world should work, and constantly either contradicting yourself or somehow managing to prove my point even further.

All for an opt-in feature that people who will choose to opt into will download the already existing mod for anyway. My only point was it will be modded in an extremely large amount of games anyway, so when you hit new game, give it a yes or no checkbox as well as party size selection. Don't want to do it? Then just... don't do it. If you're only argument is "But I don't wanna do that" then you can just not do it, if your concern is ruining your view of the game, NPCs and companions will still have the same stats and so all you have to do is opt out, someone else opting in does not change how your game is played. If you can't help but min max a weird armored wizard then that's your business, if you will do that even though you want to play something else then you just need more self control to work on your attraction to power playing. I just want people to have that option on release so they can play the game how they want right away. It really is that simple. If you think people playing the game like this when you don't want to is for some reason is a bad thing, I have some grim news for you... They're going to do it anyway. So I guess we'll have fun our way regardless and you cannot stop us and we are not wrong for enjoying the game the way we like. Your entire argument boils down to "I don't enjoy that so you are factually wrong" and that's not at all how that works. I am not faulting you for enjoying it your way, but you are faulting me for enjoying it my way. If you want static racial bonuses that's fine, do it, but don't tell me I have to because that's what you like. That's not how the world works. Would you also fault me for running my 5e games with Tasha's optional rules? It's the same thing. Just don't join that table. Just don't opt in to that feature.

You are literally missing the entire point of what I'm saying.

Yes you can build Halfling to be a fun and efficient barbarian even with a handicap of not being able to use heavy weapons. Same as you can build a dwarf to be a fun and efficient wizard with a handicap of one less in mental stat. You don't need to change the entire race mechanics to make both of those things possible and fun. An
And why is going into melee with a wizard suddenly a gameplay error. It's not like wizards don't get spells that are effective in melee range, right? And if I can survive, why would it be an error? Are you trying to shame my way of having fun?

And it's not like frontline wizard builds weren't a ever a thing in cRPGs. It never made sense... right?

And last point:
The argument that feature being opt-in a an always good and allows a fun to grow is a terrible argument. Always.

Games should force you to do something the way developers want you to do. Finding ways around or through is a thing that for a lot of people makes games fun.

Elden Ring has no opt-in features like lower difficulty, different itemization options. I don't think it hurts its popularity, I would say that on the contrary, lack of difficulty setting f.e. is what makes Souls games in the eyes of many special.

OH! Your behavior and mentality makes sense now.

"Different game is different" then go play it. Souls games are games about difficulty and perfect execution, CRPGs are about customization and strategy. So let me customize and create my strategies. But souls players like chopping their legs off and removing their opposable thumbs to make the game harder and claiming that those handicaps are what makes the game good, and that's fine because thats what souls games are good for, so enjoy your souls game, but not everything has to be Dark Souls. Some things want to be Dungeons and Dragons, some want to be Final Fantasy, and some want to be Call of Duty. Not everything has to be the same thing like Souls players seem to think. Keep souls like games in the souls like genre and stop preaching it where it doesn't belong. There are just as many people that don't like souls games as there are that do, it doesn't need to take over other genres. A Madden player isn't going to intentionally create a terrible draft just to make the game harder.

Every single cRPG I know has similar racial handicaps that BG3 has.

Original BG 1 and 2 - yes.
Gold Box games - yes.
Arcanum - yes.
Pathfinder: cRPGs - yes.
PoE - maybe to lesser extent, but yes.
DA:O - yes.

Most PnP systems had or has similar racial mechanics.

You also seem to be hilariously unable to differentiate what is said to make a point from my personal preference.

I haven't even played Elden Ring, but the popularity is undeniable. And all games place restrictions on players, it's just that souls games are the most stark example. I'm hardly a power gamer as well.

over 20 year old games aside,since we've learned more about game design since then, Within 15 minutes I found a mod for PoE, Solasta, and DA:O that is within the top downloaded mods of their category. Pathfinder games seem to have extremely small modding communities so I'm not surprised to see so few gameplay mods, it's mostly models and textures and homebrew stuff. Unrelated, but DA:O has so many sex mods... But among the most popular mods are ones that let you choose your own penalties and bonuses. And that's where my point is. They're going to be popular mods anyway, so we need to stop pretending it's not a feature that players want.

Your point is you don't like it so you don't want it to be a possiblity in the game.

My point is people do like it so it should be in the game without modding, but be optional so those that don't like it don't have to opt in.

I still want you to be able to play the game without it, you don't want me to be able to play the game with it. We are not the same. I fully understand your point, you refuse mine while belittling the idea purely with conjecture and strawmanning. Trust me, you're going to be okay if you opt out or opt into any optional features. All this for what was essentially a footnote. I would have accepted "I'd prefer not because I don't like it" and instead you've been essentially attacking the idea as if it is objectively bad. It's not bad, and it's not good, it's opinion. You could have respectfully disagreed and moved on and I would have shrugged and said not everyone will like the idea. Instead you got belligerent. I promise, this time, I'm done responding to you.

Just to throw in an aside quickly...

You want a real-world situation where tasha-style floating stats genuinely take something away from the game? Here you go (read through before responding to bits and pieces - it's going somewhere I promise):

In our realms lore, different races are legitimately entirely different peoples - both physically as well as culturally. some are inclined to be tall, and some are inclined to be short, and some have a natural resilience that others lake, and these are inherent differences between these different peoples. These are described in the lore, and then represented by statistical differences in the game.

Differences between peoples are something that we should acknowledge and celebrate; things we should take pride in and appreciate in others; differences are good! However, lately, Wizards have gotten it into their minds that differences are bad, and that they need to be Erased. This is not making the world a better place - it's just making it a blander place, and worse, it's creating an atmosphere where being different can potentially come under fire... which is the exact opposite of the kind of inclusivity they're claiming to want to champion.

Back to the game, here's where we're at: New races post-Tasha don't HAVE these personal racial propensities and differences any more. They simply don't have them. In an attempt to make absolute flexibility the default, they've succeeded only in creating races that are functionally bland, dry and empty of any kind of soul or feeling. they're mechanical stat blocks which are themselves mostly empty.

It continues when you point out that Players who don't want too use Tasha's floating stats Don't Have A Choice with any of the races crated post-Tasha. Free point is the only option with them, and there is no personal propensity for you to reference, to play into or to play against. You cannot play against type when there is no type to play against.

Compare the Halfling Entry and the Fairy entry:


Now look at the post-Tasha race Fairy:


And, uhh... that's it for Fairy. It's completely soulless, due in part to half the categories saying basically "do what you want" and offering no guidance to give any real flavour to the race as a people.

As special mention, the new lines that they've put in for all new races regarding age, height and weight.... Let's just look at those again:

The typical adventurer's lifespan is about a century? No it isn't. It is if you're playing a human... but not if you're playing the majority of other available races. If you are an aaracocra player, your typical lifespan is not a century at all. This is one more of the signs where they're making sweeping generalisations in order to abolish 'differences' between the races, or at least to act like they aren't there...

In height and weight: "Player characters, regardless of race, typically fall into the same ranges of height and weight that humans have in our world." No they Freaking don't! Small characters in particular, as Fairies ARE, absolutely do not fall into the height and weight norms of humans! There is no height and weight norm listed for this race, and the PHB race table has not been updated to account for it, so we literally have No general racial propensity guideline for average members of this species At All. Playing as an average member of this race is not an option for us, because there is no average suggested.

This is the result of the move that is being made, and it's down right destructive for the game. Yes, floating ability scores are only one small part of this, but the refrain I keep hearing from various supporters of it is:

"It's an Option! You don't Have to use it! You can still use the old defaults if you want! don't take away our fun or force us to have fun your way!"

To which the unfortunate truth is: No, it's NOT an option with the new races... I DO have to use it if I want to play one of those races. There IS NO 'default'... and Wizards ARE forcing me to have fun the Tasha way, and taking away my option not too, because they are NOT supplying the default average propensity of the race. What is the 'default' ability score allocation for a Fairy? Not just what you think it should be - point to an official listing that tells us what it is. You can't, because there isn't one.

Let me put it another way: How do I avoid min-maxing a character's ability scores without engaging in circuitous reasoning? By which I mean, I choose how to allocate my rolls, and as a roleplayer, I choose to allocate those based on the character I'm making, rather than pure statistical consideration... but I'm still making a wizard; a half-orc wizard who ran away to candlekeep as a teenager... so I put that 17 I rolled into his Int, to express the fact that he's spent his teen too adult years exploring and enjoying a love of learning that he wasn't able to express in his home tribe, and really dedicating the whole of his time and effort to that. Next, I'll put the 8 I rolled into his Constitution, to represent the fact that he's really not looked after himself physically in the intervening years, and stay sup too late, doesn't get enough sleep, and has generally given himself a less robust immune system from his cloistered lifestyle. I'll put the 14 I rolled into his Dex, next, because even though he's not particularly active, his reflexes are still fast, and his hand precision has been kept up with a lot of fine manual work managing scrolls, sorting catalogues, and truthfully his data entry speed is pretty exceptional at this point. Next I'll put the 10 into strength, He's carrying a lot of books about most of the day, but he's not really working out, not to the extent that the lifestyle in his home tribe would have seen, and his general muscle mass is a pale shadow of what it might have been. I've got an 11 and a 12 left, I'll give the twelve to Wisdom, and the eleven to Charisma - he still retains some of his basic survival knowledge and his senses are sharp. In particular he's grown accustomed to listening for slight and small sounds in the expansive, generally very quiet archives. Meanwhile, he's passably social, and able to communicate what he needs in a friendly manner to his colleagues, but it's nothing to write home about. Not a shy and silent wallflower, and not really a big socialite either.

Now... where do I put my plus 2? And, more pointedly, what reason do I give for putting it somewhere that isn't just a direct repeat of a reason I already gave for a particular stat allocation? How do I place my plus 2 and plus 1 in a way that is motivated in character, but not just doubling up on an existing character element? How, in a way that doesn't conflict with or negate one of those elements? How, in a way that is not purely game-talk mechanical "this because it's my casting stat and I want it high" or "this because that will bring up this modifier by one and even it out"? Explain how this helps a roleplayer, rather than hindering them by pushing them into making game-centric choices based on min-maxinig rather than character?

Because here's the thing... when races have natural propensities towards different attributes, that's fine - it's good to acknowledge and celebrate our differences; when different peoples have different propensities, we can allocate them as reminders of our heritage and lineage, regardless of whether we're playing to type with them, or against type, despite them... but they're there, and that's Good. Is a halfling wizard at a penalty compared too an elven wizard? No They Aren't! They can both attain the same upper cap - 20. They can both be equally good wizards as one another, despite their racial differences. At the end of the day, everyone, no matter what race they are, can attain that same absolute pinnacle of ability... even if their heritage gives some people a head start, and means others may need to work harder... an individual of each can achieve the same end just as well! And that's Good! that's something we should be celebrating! Sure... maybe Bordo Underhill always knew, in the early days, that Sylanna Swiftwind had a little bit of an edge on him in their spellcasting pursuits, but they travelled together, learned together and grew as adventurers... and then, one day, at the end of all things, when they are standing together facing the ultimate darkness of their world and they put out their hands... Bordo's prismatic spray is every bit just as powerful, potent difficult to resist as Sylanna's... and that's beautiful. Why would you remove that? Because the Tasha's change IS removing that.

The DMG has always encouraged making modifications to characters that suit players' idea and desires for their origins... this isn't new, and has always been there. It maybe needed to be reiterated more strongly and brought to the fore again, but it's been a thing, for a long time. Tasha's floating ability scores should definitely be an option. It should be listed as an optional alternative, with a blurb that describes the fact that special individuals may warrant special allocations... But it not only should not be the default, but it CANNOT be the default - because a default needs to actually exist, and post Tasha races are not giving us those.