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

You wrote that beautifully and I enjoyed reading it.

I played 5e only for about two years after its release, mainly due to complicated nature of using new source material in a language not native for players (and translation not being available). Went back to 3.5 since it was way easier for players. I did not even realize how bad the issue has become.

Yes, our differences should be celebrated, but letting players allocate their stats doesn't wash away racial differences the way you seem to suggest. Tieflings still get their spellcasting and fire resistance, half orcs still have Menacing, Relentless Endurance, and Savage Attacks. Proficiencies are great way to express many of our differences culturally, but also things like the Goliaths Stone's Endurance show us that even the Goliath that lived cloistered as a wizard is still a very durable and hardy individual. Elves still get magic in a way that others don't with free teleportation from some options or cantrips from others to show their natural magical heritage. I would even go so far as to argue that being able to use those differences on a different style of character from the racial norm can easily highlight the differences in just the traits. Halflings are still lucky, Dwarves still get poison resistance to show their constitution, Vadelken still resist effects targeting their mental saves, making a Vadelken Barbarian a more unique Barbarian because it also gets mental save advantage from its heritage despite being a person who lived their life eating raw eggs and lifting heavy things while getting very angry. Going into stats to say makes races are different is very shallow thinking in my opinion since by moving stat increases you provide more opportunity for those racial traits to shine through.

Take for example a Half Orc Sorcerer I played with once. We had a really good roleplay moment when an enemy Assassin Rogue was able to get the jump on him and got a good hit, but his racial trait kept him alive and he Misty Stepped away. We had a nice roleplay moment of my character saying he was worried that was the last of him and his friend would be gone in an instant. My friend replied "I may not be as tough as my kin, but it still takes more than a pointy knife to take down a half orc" and it was a game we were using Tasha's rules. If he had been a human wizard? Probably dead and would have left us panicking because at the time the rest of us were busy with the front line.


I agree this is a problem that WotC has lately, it would be nice to get a guideline of what the race typically would have.


In fairness, Fairies were an anomaly and nobody at all was excited when they saw the stat block and it was even recieved negatively from the UA just to be released as is. The other races, like the Thri-Kreen in an unreleased UA have way more features based on race. Fairies as an example is a bit of a straw man move because advocates on both sides agree Fairy just is boring and kinda sucks, it was made with very little care or attention on its own. If you want to complain about Fairy, I'm right there with you. It's boring and it sucks and the vast majority of players agree. You play Fairy as a meme, it's sad.


Human, Dragonborn, Tiefling, Half Orc, Leonin, Satyr, Bugbears, Kenku, Hobgoblins, Goblins, Lizardfolk, Tabaxi, Kalashtar, Shifter, Gith, and Centaur all live human length lives or shorter, so it's actually a pretty fair assesment to say it's normal to have been born within the century and at that many races it's definitely easier to list the ones that live longer than a century, so I can understand from a writers perspective why they might have said that instead of specifying an arbitrary number, some races even being "we don't know how long they live yet" like the Simic Hybrid or Verdan. Oddly Minotaur doesn't have an age listed, so added a generalization actually does let me know it's probably within the century for age.


I think what it's saying here is there is a general idea for what constitutes a small or medium creature in 5e already, so instead of listing so many variations on height one can have, it's easier from a writers perspective to say that as a race they are, in fact, small, but not tiny, and therefore can fall within a size catergory. It's normal classification stuff, to be honest. I just wish WotC would stop being scared of making a large race... looking at yoou, Goliath, Loxodon, and Firbolg.


Again, I agree, it would be good for people to have a baseline.


I assume you're using standard array in this example so I'd like to point out you do not get a 17 you get a 15. This is also an easy one to explain away. While sure you would probably be taking 1 in INT to round it to 16, you can also say that while you are a half orc, you have human in your blood. You were always smarter than most half orcs around you. But you are still a half orc, so despite your lifestyle choices you somehow turned out more durable than you probably should, so while you are probably taking +2 Con to not have a negative modifier, it's easily justifiable with race without feeling like purely mechanical necessity. You can do this for most races.

Tiefling is not charismatic because he was born in the wilds and didn't get a chance to develop social skills, but their mental skills are still sharp so they got Wisdom instead.

Elf spent years exercising and dieting hard so he lost some dexterity because of how his strength training didn't work enough on the stabilizer muscles, but he's definitely and the dexterity did grant an initial boost to the workout regimen.

Orc in the above example is also a good example.

Celebrating differences should be giving races features that fit the race, Half Orc being a great example of those features, rather than your stat increases, Dragonborn and Fairies being the worst offenders of not getting anything back. There is no racial trait the exemplifies Dragonborn strength, just a breath weapon and elemental resistance. In this regard Dragonborn are the same as Fairies, which is exactly why they get rewritten in Fizbins. Now Dragonborn do have traits that distinguish them.

Your racial differences are better expressed through traits, not stats, and that's because your characters stats should reflect their lifestyle choices, not their born heritage. WotC is not washing away racial differences, they just aren't doing a good job of giving new races distinguishing features. It is a races general lifestyle that has dictated their stat blocks previously, not the races born characteristics. Even before Tasha's I always thought of racial ASI as little more than indications of the races societal lifestyle and cultural differences over being literal racial differences. Not all Half Orcs are bumbling and brutal oafs, not all Tieflings are charismatic folk, not all elves are elegant and graceful, just that the majority of them are, and being different from your race should also be good. One might even be able to say that being a member of a race that behaves different because of their stat blocks should also be celebrated along with their racial differences from other races. He is his own race, but he is also still himself and not one of a hivemind.

And anyone that says "You don't have to use it" is either a belligerent person who can't actually have a real discussion about the topic, or is dealing with someone like that. You make some good points, I just don't necessarily agree with them. Saying you have to keep racial stat increases to appreciate the differences in race is, in my opinion, a little short sighted when races should get unique traits with that choice rather than just being an aesthetic option. In fact, the abundance of traits is actually what makes the PHB Dragonborn and the Fairy not only boring, but also just weak, because there was no flavor or traits to separate them from literally anything else. In being boring, they were also made to be weak regardless of their class choices. And worth noting, that didn't stop people from playing Dragonborn Wizards. A weak race on a class that didn't synergize well. It's nice to have the option to synergize in at least one regard, being the ASI. Now dragonborn are so much better and it's not because of their ASI, it's their actual traits that define the race. Take PF2e for example, you get an ASI based on your background because your lifestyle should effect your actual stats.

That's my argument. tl;dr traits define your race, ASI defines your heritage, and not all members of a race live the same lifestyle, so I don't see a reason to force them to have those stats, but that doesn't mean you have to dismiss race when choosing your ASI. It's just roleplay.

I would still like to know.

I mean i totally understand that racial bonuses are big deal when you are using point buy system and none of your stats can get abowe 15 ...
But if you are rolling, so you can potentialy get anything in between 3 and 18 ... why does it matter?
So your character will get bonus for some stat you dont need, well, that is a prize payed for playing atypical character, it still can be as effective with its main stats as you want ... up to 18.

Dunno ...
I never understand this stat bonus quite honestly ... bcs of Drows, the most hated race in all the world, the boogeyman not just for kids but parents aswell, the race that never bothers with any polite interactions with others, since they just enslave or kill you on sight ... gets bonus to Charisma aswell ... i cant really quite imagine how should i reason with it ... some people say that Drow have some kind of "exotic natural beauty" ... well that dont seems to be corect, since any beauty Drow have, other Elves have aswell, and Elves gets no bonus to Charisma as far as i know.

Every other stat have some reasoning behind it ... except Charisma.
Sometimes it seems to me a little like every race they (WotC) didt find any reason to have other stat bonuses, recedived Charisma as an compensation.

So why should a Tiefling get +2 to Charisma?
Why not ... they just do, deal with it.

How often is "often"? And if its not "all the time" how can you tell from one example if that is following the rule or breaking it?

//Edit:
@Niara:
Nicely said, as usualy ... +1!

Thanks Rag (and others) ^.^

I don't' want to come across as argumentative her,e so this is all said in the spirit of positive conversation, and I apologise if any part of it doesn't read that way...


Players can already allocate their ability scores – that's a thing that we do. Allocating your ability scores is an expression of your character's background life, and personal history and trends – it is the nurture side of your physical, mental and biological self. Your lifestyle already does affect your ability scores – that's precisely what the player allocating them is doing when they do so. Putting the seventeen you rolled in one score because that is what your character has focused on, and your 4 is a different score because that's something they personally have always been really bad with and continued to neglect... that's allocating your ability scores, that's your lifestyle and background affecting your scores, and we all do it.

Racial ability score bonuses are not about that; they are the nature side of your origin, alongside the nurture side. They are the part you, as a character, didn't choose. These exist in spite of and alongside how you've been raised and how you've grown up, because different peoples are different.

Most of what you've described here is focused on the nurture side of a character's history; acting like there is no nature element to your personal ability attributes is making a move towards denying that and erasing it, and I very strongly do not agree with the move.

I'm absolutely in agreement with you that it's more defined by interesting and unique racial traits, and that that is where the meat of fun stuff is and should be – I don't disagree with that that... but I still do feel strongly that these generalities for basic attribute propensities being different between different races of people is something that should not be erased... and WotC is seeking to erase it, and I do not support that.

Proficiencies as you mention, should absolutely be part of the nurture side of our character builds – I actually feel that proficiences should not be an intrinsic part of our race choice at all, or should be free-floating if they are (as in, a particular race getting one free proficiency that the player can choose, because this race is generally quicker to master things than others); there is nothing on the innate, nature side of your origin that automatically makes you a better speaker, or knowledgeable about plants – that's all nurture, and shouldn't be hard-defined as part of your race choice.

I do feel as though you've really just done the two things I called against though, in your responses – adding ability scores based on mechanical min-maxing, and adding them by hearkening to elements that you already referenced in your initial ability score allocation, effectively doubling up... but I won't fight that.

Instead, I'll point out that saying you take the +1 to Int because of your human blood doesn't work if you're abolishing racial propensities – humans aren't any smarter on average than half orcs, any more, under Tasha; you've just done the very thing that Tasha's rules are stopping you from doing with all of the races published after them. If they reprinted all the Phb races too be 'in line' with MotM, then the concept of saying “That extra int comes from my human blood” doesn't work any more.

Tieflings get that +2 Charisma because they have presence – it's racially inborn because they are tieflings; they look, obviously, like tieflings and that causes an impact, one way or another.

The nurture element, upbringing and way of life and so on, doesn't change the fact that their obvious tiefling nature naturally adds to their overall presence unavoidably... that's why it's a racial bonus, not tied to their background or life-style choices... and that's why I feel it should stay. The tiefling that was raised by wolves might have no social skills... but he still draws eyes when he enters a room... and as long as he doesn't open his mouth, or trip over a chair, that will still have more of an effect on what he does than if he were a regular human doing the same thing. It's innate, he didn't choose it, and it's not tied in any way to his upbringing or lifestyle, or even his personal history... it's a racial thing, born to, and it's legitimate and should not be erased.

((Now as an aside: I mentioned that the ability to change your base racial bonuses has always been a thing that you can discuss with your DM, and the DMG encourages Dms to be flexible and help players customise heir characters in ways that make sense for them and are fun. It's been a thing for a long time... If a player came to their DM and said “I'm playing a tiefling, but I don't actually have any visible tells that I am one, when I'm fully dressed at least... no horns, I hide my tail, my markings are all under my clothes, and my skin tone is pretty inside human possibilities... I think the +2 Cha doesn't make sense for me, can I have a different racial bonus?” That's absolutely normal and fine, in most cases... Remember, this to Rag and others as well - Charisma is about presence and force of personality. Many things contribute to that, or can, but it's not just about 'ability to talk goodly' any more than it's 'look pretty'; tieflings get a CHA bonus because they have an innate, unavoidable physical presence that impacts everything they do, purely by virtue of being and looking like a tiefling. In a world space where Tieflings are the most common race, or exceptionally normal and widespread, that would be an excellent case to give them alternate racial bonuses.))

Most of what you describe is playing for or against type, and that's something that has to do with lifestyle, upbringing and choices; that's the realm of your actual ability score allocation (where you choose to put the numbers you roll), not your racial ability score bonuses (which you don't choose, just as any member of a given race did not choose to be born as), and which Are supposed to be direct physical/biological propensities that make the different races different from each other.

Elves are inclined to better reflexes and better balance than humans – an individual might be pretty darn clumsy for an elf and clumsier than many humans, and if you choose to allocate your ability scores that way, they can and will be – but to deny that they have, as an elf, a real physical propensity in a certain way that is shared by all members of their race, by virtue of being born that way, is to erase a difference that should not be erased.

No, it's not what defines them, and as I said above, I'm well on board with the need for more supporting traits and other interesting ways to help make our different races distinct and flavoursome, absolutely! I'm not fighting that at all! However, racial ability score bonuses exist to convey something that is tangible and real... and it should not be removed or erased.

==

For the rest,

Sure, fairy is probably the most egregious example, I'll pay that... but I'm distinctly nonplussed by the style of most of the final results for post-Tasha races, if I'm honest. To me, they all come across as much less flavoursome in design than the ones that were made when Wizards was more comfortable creating striking racial differences and highlighting them... but I'll allow that most of this goes beyond the ability score situation, which is only one small element of the issue. I'm saying only that it is one element of the issue, and it's one part of a larger problem; in resisting that problem I resist most of the individual small parts of it, even if one of them on its own seems relatively minor.

...If we're nit-picking though...

I promise this is said tongue-in-cheek and in good humour, and with a smile, I swear! None of this is intended as attacking or argumentative...

- You assumed I was using standard array? Why? I specifically said the seventeen that I rolled... read carefully before you assume ^.^

- Fairy was not released as is; it was in fact nerfed further between the UA and the release... Original fairy didn't have the flight restrictions, and their flying was magical... so UA fairies weren't forcefully obliged to have wings (Perkins even spoke about brownies as one possibility), and they could fly in chain shirts, like their official artwork depicts... released fairies must have wings, their flight isn't magical, and they can't fly in medium armour any more... it was a pretty big nerf to an already underwhelming block.

- You're mistaken about the age issue, I'm afraid... or, rather, you've fallen into the trap of saying “They erased most of the differences between different creature's ages, so now it's correct when we say they all live mostly the same length.”, as though that were a defence of the action...

Here's a list:

To be clear: Of the races presented, without making exceptions for extra subraces,
- 10 have human-equivalent lifespans and live about a century at best.
- 24 have lifespans that are not human-equivalent; 13 live longer, and 11 live shorter lives.
- Human lifespans are most decidedly not the majority case, by any reading.
- The generic “everyone lives a century” blurb says that races that live longer will say so in their block. Of those 13 that live longer, only 6 actually do so, and five of those only because they have not been re-released with MotM – the rest have had that information simply erased. All races who live shorter lives than humans have had that information erased. They have been reconnected into homogenisation and 'mild' racial erasure. It's not 'inclusive' – it's just erasure.

(I think I covered everything that wasn't a subrace of an existing race. I might have missed one or two here or there...)

Aarakocra to human friend: “Look... my people don't live as long as yours do, so maybe if you listen I can give you some of that perspective that you're always complaining that your elf friend lacks.” - Oops, not any more. Information Gone. Racial flavour: erased.

==



Noooo.... it's not saying that. It's saying: “Player characters, regardless of race, typically fall into the same ranges of height and weight that humans have in our world.” Because that's literally what it now says. And it's ridiculous. You can make extrapolations and you can make excuses for the writing, but that's all you – what I've quoted is what it literally says now.

There's a table that lists the averages for height and weight and the average bracket zones using die rolls, for each race. They could update this table, but they choose not to; instead they choose to say that everyone is the same, regardless of race.

Fairy is the go-to example here again; what's a fairy's average height and weight? No, for real... what is it?

The description implies that they're very small, just not quite as small as pixies... so it would be patently incorrect to use, say, the halfling line on the table; they're just not going to be that heavy, realistically. We don't have a smaller line to use though.

So as written right now, the formally as-written rules tell us that Fairies are about the same average height and weight as a human, but, they are still small, and if you'd like to roll on a different line that you think suites the build you're imagining your fairy having, that's fine. I take issue with that. I want them to give us a guideline that actually lists an average height and weight bracket for this race of creature, OR else create a more flavoursome description with more soul, and allow your size to be small or medium, as they've done with some races now (which I very much approve of). I also want Tiny to be allowed, in the same way you want Large ^.^

==

This is perfectly fine by me ... for a Tiefling ...

Peronaly i have problem with Drows ...
Drow somehow get this attention drawing presence ... while none of other elves ever had it ...

And to make it even more confusing ...
Once you crossbreed any Elf (Drow included) with Human, somehow their offspring become even one point more charismatic ... no matter wich breed of Elves was the parent.


Dont get me wrong here, i dont mind it, and certainly not fighting against it ... it just seems a little odd, once you start to think about it. :-/


//Edit:
It just feels like really weird alchemy ...
You take this exceptionaly flexible High Elf ... with inherent traits for slightly higher intelligence ... and mix it with this human who is slightly more smart, strong, flexible, wise, and charismatic ...

And you get something that is incredibly charismatic ... and slightly abowe standards in two other fields ...

I mean along with Strength and Wisdom (or intelligence if the parent is actualy Wood Elf) is Charisma the least shared feature for both parents, so how is that possible it come out strongest?

And if the Elf parent was a Drow, who is inherently more charismatic ...
The offspring is inherently exactly as charismatic as everyone else.
While being even more charismatic than his parent ... aka the original (lets say undiluted mixure )

Weird stuff this genetic.

I guess Drow are charismatic in the same sense that Darth Vader is charismatic.

I would assume that the Charisma bonus is because they come from a cut throat political society where you need to know how to talk and navigate society in order to not get dead. That's the explanation I can think of anyway. Or maybe there's some kind of inborn magic at play.

You put the +2/+1 where you want and you modify the justification as needed. It’s absolutely no different from how you justified the explanations for the other ability scores. No matter the method you allocate your scores, even if you aren't using floating ASI's and are leaving the original default racial ASI's, you're still doing the same thing in the same way. The key point is that the numbers and where you decided to put them came BEFORE the justification.

You're arguing that floating ASI’s pushes players into making game-centric instead of role-playing-centric choices, but do you not think that fixed racial ASI’s also pushes players into making game-centric instead of role-playing-centric choices? Because it does.



Yeah, all of this.

At this point it's mostly pointing out differences in opinion and pointing out logical fallacy on both sides.

As a general rule I don't speak in absolutes unless I've looked through the material being discussed in that moment because I don't necessarily know if the statement is absolute from memory, but if you must know after looking through them now, you can only really make a case that culturally Dragonborn might not need strength, but you could equally make a case that their self sufficiency gives them the strength and that a dragonborn raised with a silver spoon might not have worked their muscles to that degree.


This fundamentally takes away individuality, though, and that's not how this world works. My mother and father have always been very talented artists and can both draw life-like pictures with a pencil. One sister became a tattoo artist, the other is an art teacher. That's every member of my immediate family and also a true story, my only tattoo I got from my sister and I have a painting of an eagle on my wall from the other. I, however, do not share this creativity. I'm a logistics manager and deal in hard numbers, not artistic expression. At no point in my life was a good at any art stuff, and at some point my family wasn't either. They nurtured their artistic expression (which I guess would be Cha) and I nurtured my work with numbers (Which I guess is Int?) and I'm not "just more artistic" than any other human being out there because of my lineage, if you were to translate this into D&D stat blocks it would be to say my birthing had no bearing on my stat blocks. Saying "all members of x race are like this just because they are" gives off real "Asians are model minority" vibes, not to make this real life racey, but just being honest with how it comes off to me.


A case could be made either way. Tabaxi being naturally stealthy makes sense to me, as does races with different eyes having Perception like the Harengon. I suppose it would depend on which skills are being questioned, so I think we can chuck this one up to conjecture.


We're not abolishing racial propensities, we're letting the player choose where their racial traits come from to make their character unique. Putting the racial ASI in the stat block should be default, not to force a player to use those stats, but to display the general tendencies of a race, allowing the player to adjust them later for a unique case. Yes, there are people that purely choose based on mechanical advantage, but there are also people that do not, these choices do not exist in a vacuum, and the decision to remove those was not to remove racial traits, but to allow player agency in the character they want to make. The player character should be different and should be special.

And on a side note, people already picked race/class combinations purely for mechanical advantage. There were certain combinations you just rarely saw, especially at a table that had min-maxing style of gameplay. Floating your ASI has allowed min-max tables to not subside off "meta" race/class combinations, which racial discussion aside and in terms strictly about the game health, is a good thing.


I have to firmly and strongly disagree. A Half Orc also draws eyes when he walks into a room. So does Elton John, Goliaths, goblins, bugbears, Lizardfolk... All of that attention is external, not internal. A good example of how you can say Tieflings in general tend to be charismatic is using their spellcasting, which MotM has washed away and I personally dislike. Tiefling Spells used to cast off Charisma, but it doesn't necessarily mean Tieflings are naturally charismatic. That's something I wish MotM kept for sure, now you can just choose any mental stat, which makes little to no sense to me since the origins of your magic should be what determines your spellcasting mod. But for the sake of argument let's say I did agree with this decision, the choices of what the spells are is also an impact, like one variant of Tiefling getting the Friends cantrip for free, another getting Minor Illusion, etc, is still a good expression of that specific bloodline.

And on the topic of Tieflings, if you count Variant and Variant Feral, there are 12 different subraces, and you mean to tell me every single one has to be charismatic by nature? I have to disagree with that.


This is where I think you contradict yourself. Players already do that kind of thing, the only thing Tasha's system did was put it in the players hands instead of asking the DM for it. The player is now allowed to create a unique circumstance because they want to, and can, rather than asking DM-senpai if I can please make an Elf raised by Orcs who worships Bane and doesn't have normal elven elegance.


Some arguments for physical ASI's I accept for being racial, there will be physical differences, but my counter argument is always racial traits. Stones Endurance and Relentless Endurance are paragons of this and wonderful expressions of being naturally durable, higher movement speeds for typically nimble classes, climbing speeds, swimming speeds, unarmored defenses, etc. Mental stats, to me, cannot be justified by race, it makes no sense to be born smarter, wiser, or more sociable, that's just straight up not a thing.


This fundamentally takes away individuality, though, and that's not how this world works. My mother and father have always been very talented artists and can both draw life-like pictures with a pencil. One sister became a tattoo artist, the other is an art teacher. That's every member of my immediate family and also a true story, my only tattoo I got from my sister and I have a painting of an eagle on my wall from the other. I, however, do not share this creativity. I'm a logistics manager and deal in hard numbers, not artistic expression. At no point in my life was a good at any art stuff, and at some point my family wasn't either. They nurtured their artistic expression (which I guess would be Cha) and I nurtured my work with numbers (Which I guess is Int?) and I'm not "just more artistic" than any other human being out there because of my lineage. Saying "all members of x race are like this just because they are" gives off real "Asians are model minority" vibes, not to make this real life racey, but just being honest with how it comes off to me.


A case could be made either way. Tabaxi being naturally stealthy makes sense to me, as does races with different eyes having Perception like the Harengon. I suppose it would depend on which skills are being questioned, so I think we can chuck this one up to conjecture.


We're not abolishing racial propensities, we're letting the player choose where their racial traits come from to make their character unique. Putting the racial ASI in the stat block should be default, not to force a player to use those stats, but to display the general tendencies of a race, allowing the player to adjust them later for a unique case. Yes, there are people that purely choose based on mechanical advantage, but there are also people that do not, these choices do not exist in a vacuum, and the decision to remove those was not to remove racial traits, but to allow player agency in the character they want to make. The player character should be different and should be special.

And on a side note, people already picked race/class combinations purely for mechanical advantage. There were certain combinations you just rarely saw, especially at a table that had min-maxing style of gameplay. Floating your ASI has allowed min-max tables to not subside off "meta" race/class combinations, which racial discussion aside and in terms strictly about the game health, is a good thing.


I have to firmly and strongly disagree. A Half Orc also draws eyes when he walks into a room. So does Elton John, Goliaths, goblins, bugbears, Lizardfolk... All of that attention is external, not internal. A good example of how you can say Tieflings in general tend to be charismatic is using their spellcasting, which MotM has washed away and I personally dislike. Tiefling Spells used to cast off Charisma, but it doesn't necessarily mean Tieflings are naturally charismatic. That's something I wish MotM kept for sure, now you can just choose any mental stat, which makes little to no sense to me since the origins of your magic should be what determines your spellcasting mod. But for the sake of argument let's say I did agree with this decision, the choices of what the spells are is also an impact, like one variant of Tiefling getting the Friends cantrip for free, another getting Minor Illusion, etc, is still a good expression of that specific bloodline.

And on the topic of Tieflings, if you count Variant and Variant Feral, there are 12 different subraces, and you mean to tell me every single one has to be charismatic by nature? I have to disagree with that.


This is where I think you contradict yourself. Players already do that kind of thing, the only thing Tasha's system did was put it in the players hands instead of asking the DM for it. The player is now allowed to create a unique circumstance because they want to, and can, rather than asking DM-senpai if I can please make an Elf raised by Orcs who worships Bane and doesn't have normal elven elegance.


So I did miss that, but to my credit I assumed standard array because that is meant to be the standard character, meaning that every single race is literally incapable of having a negative modifier on the stat they have a +2 in, which is an egregious thing to say. Rolling for stats is an optional rule and definitely not intended to be what a standard character is meant to look like. I'm playing an Artificer in my game that had 2 18's (lucky day for me, really) and so started level 1 with a 20 in Intelligence and 18 in constitution. This is in no way representative of a standard character and rolled stats often lead to outliers like my artificer, which I admittedly did choose mechanical advantage over roleplay, but I also did explain that mechanical decision with roleplay, and the table I'm playing with is very much a high power gaming style table in that particular game, so this character even with this sort of decision is still not actually the most powerful character at this table. All of our characters have at least 1 20 at level 4 and this is not normal, but it exists because we rolled for stats. Standard Array is what I use to determine the standard character, with point buy being acceptable in the discussion but even still not allowing you to go below 8 or above 15 and posing the same issue; your race cannot have a -1 modifier to your main ASI bonus with few exceptions like Triton, and I see that as a problem.


See, I cared so little about Fairies and how thematically, mechanically, and flavorfully weak they are that I didn't even notice they were actually nerfed. The only Fairy player I've ever seen was a Fairy Monk who played the character as a literal joke the entire time (which at that table was fine, it was kind of a nonsense game) but I have yet to see anyone seriously play a fairy either mechanically or thematically... The race is a joke, but that's basically just a side note. Fairy should have gotten some way of expressing their fey ancestry other than a couple spells. Where is the normal Fey sleep resistance? What about the usual mental save fey PCs sometimes get? Fairy was just made so poor nobody even considers it a viable option at neither power gaming tables, nor roleplaying tables. I guess what I'm saying is Fairy doesn't belong in this discussion because nobody actually cares they exist.


Anything under 100 years and above 70 is pretty much still a human lifespan. It's not like humans just live until 90 and then die at 90 every time, it's an estimation. And anything 100 and under is literally within the century as it describes. It's not homogenization, it's generalization, which is it's own beast to overcome, but should not be treated as homogenization. What's way more important than lifespan is definitely the rate at which a race matures. I think that's what really needs to be discussed over the lifespan. The vast majority of PC's I have seen that aren't elves are usually less than a century old, so this generalization, while maybe not a good thing (especially for DMs who want to make wise old NPCs) is not as vile as you're making it out to be. Very few people make characters above their own age, most aim around 20's-30's in my personal experience. Most, not all, but still.

Note: Generalization is very bad in my opinion, but it's definitely different from homogenization. Custom Lineage is homogenization, since that was literally just WotC saying Variant human is making everyone play only humans, so let's just give Variant Human to every race and call it good. Basically homogenization is when you say it's all the same, and generalization is when you stay away from specifics. And I like specifics. I want to know how old the average Triton lives because I want to push that age. So it's 200? PC's find a Triton that's 225 who knows things others don't because of his age. But I think it's important to recognize the difference because if you think it's something it's not then you begin arguing things that don't make sense. WotC has a habit of making a book with partial information and saying "IDK DM You make it up. $40 please" which is what they did with age. DM has to do it now, which is lazy on WotC part and I definitely have not purchased any material that reads like that, recent books included. The resources are online and I'm not paying someone else to have me do their work anyway, which is what generalization does.


I think what it means is Halflings are small, and organic matter for them weighs about the same as a human, so while a Halfling is 3 feet tall, they weight about what a human that is 3 feet tall would weigh. Basically, a human of x size would weigh x, so a goliath weights what a human of 8'2" would weigh. At least that's my interpretation.


Exactly this. People already chose mechanical advantage over roleplay anyway. Pre-Tashas I don't think I saw a single caster pick Half Orc or Goliath, they were all martial classes. Any mechanical argument can be easily countered with the fact that it's already happening. Mechanical arguments are literally just "The thing that's already happening will continue to happen but in a different, more versatile way!" and when speaking about the mechanical advantages and disadvantages of the Tasha's ruling, that's when you get into the "If you don't like it don't do it" territory because mechanically speaking, that's what it really comes down to. Either you want your martial-inclined races to stick to being better at martial classes, or you don't. That decision will always be table-to-table.

EDIT: And to your credit, these arguments and points are way more valid than what was seen before, that's the only reason I'm engaging in the debate.

I think Charisma is a bit of a misnomer in 5e. It’s less about how charismatic you are and more about how much you are able to influence other people (i.e persuasion, intimidation). Tieflings and drow get Charisma bonuses because they are naturally intimidating and so can get people to do what they want. It’s also the reason why a lot of the mind control spells require Charisma saving throws. It requires you to resist the caster’s influence. In fact, I think Influence would be a better name for Charisma.

I think it'd be nice if ability score increases came from a mix of race, background, and (maybe) class. Representing inborn (or cultural) traits, learned skills while growing up, and initial class training.
E.g., a half-orc gets +1 Str; a dwarf gets +1 Con; a full orc gets +1 Str/+1 Con/-1 Int; a gnome gets +1 Int; humans get +1 to two stats and -1 to another stat of choice; etc
An entertainer gets +1 Cha, an acolyte gets +1 Int, a hermit gets +1 Wis
A fighter gets +1 Str or Dex, a Wizard gets +1 Int, a Bard gets +1 Cha

This would:
- make background more important than it currently is
- retain differences between races (you could alternatively remove the ASI from class and make races give larger bonuses, still leaving race+background as sources of ASI)
- provide much more flexibility in Point-Buy builds, as you only need a single +1 in order to get 16 in a stat. So it'd constrain only *one* of race/background/class, allowing you to play a ~fully powerful half-orc wizard, but who has by default more strength than an elven wizard

Alternatively/in-addition: Potentially racial ASIs should add to stat caps. An orc has a natural str cap of 22; a dwarf has a Con cap of 22; an elf has a dex cap of 22, etc. This retains the effect of racial traits, but doesn't punish "off-race" combinations for starting adventurers. Because yes, a gnome that has trained for 20 years should be able to start out level 1 with 16 strength. They have worked hard to become strong; *however,* eventually they'll run into their racial limits.

An entire race being described as "naturally" intimidating is very strange to me. Whether or not an entire classification of anything is intimidating is extremely subjective and tied almost entirely to external forces. A society that only has ever known Tieflings to be joyful bakers that have never lifted a finger to hurt someone and have a reputation of being overall not incredibly powerful people would not easily find most Tieflings intimidating. Instead of just giving them free stats towards intimidation it's more appropriate for the DM to lower the DC if the persons being intimidated are particularly fearful of that race. I can scare my sister with a tarantula, but if someone brought me one I'd be thrilled, they're cool creatures, but not to her. In a CRPG we don't have that luxury, though...

Not a terrible idea. Like I said, I'll accept that some races might have physical stat block changes if properly justified, and making background actually matter to your stat blocks is a way of justifying having those racial stats, but at that point you're looking at PF2e character creation.

I've spoken as I need to and as clearly as I might; I'm not seeking to sway others debating, just illustrating something, that's all - folks will read if they're inclined to and take away from this what they choose to. I will say, however, that several of those commenting are confirming my point as we have this discussion:

Belyavor, whether you realise it or not, and whether you intend to or not (I suspect you do not, given your other comments, and that we're far more in agreement on most things than it may seem) you are, actively, denying that different races intrinsically have basic differences in their physiology; you continually return to elements of upbringing, life choice and nurture as part of your responses, when the are not, in any what whatsoever, part of the discussion we're having. If you bring something up and go to talk about it, and you can look at it and say that it's related to a choice you made, the way you were raised, or the skills you practiced, then discard what you were saying or find another way to expresses it, because it's irrelevant to a discussion of racial bonuses.

Your family are artists, you're not; they cultivated skills because they appealed to them, while you focused on other things, because those same things did not – all of that, however, is completely irrelevant to any discussion of a racial propensity towards certain attributes.

My skin is the same tone as my parents'; this is a fact of my birth and my heritage, and it's something that makes me different from my best friend. This isn't a thing of nurture – we didn't pursue different interests to arrive here, and we never made choices about this detail; we were born this way, because we have different racial heritage, and that's cool. Acknowledging this does not take away any element of either of our individuality. Pretending that we are the same on this basic biological element, is harmful... because we're not.

Orcs have a propensity to grow taller than halflings – this is basic biological fact that is a difference of their race. And for some reason we have a lot of people now saying that it's okay to say That, but it's not okay to say that they have propensity, based on their literal physical race, too build muscle faster or to develop to a higher general baseline as they mature, than those same halflings. Retconnining to say that they don't is a form of racial erasure... and frankly, it's not cool.

We're not just talking about different races of humans here – we're talking abut literal different species of peoples; some of them will, as their basic species base-line, develop into adulthood with naturally better information processing, others with faster reflexes, and others with greater muscle mass... because they are very literally, very tangible, different creatures. This is a good thing. This isn't something that we should lose... yet we are losing it.

We can go over all the points again – this propensity does not define us, and it does not determine anything major about our characters, who are, by definition, exceptional individuals who stand above thee norm in some way; we choose the way they do when we allocate their ability scores. We choose the heritage they have and the natural elements they didn't choose for themselves when we pick our race

Saying that you're not abolishing racial propensities, but instead just letting players choose where they go... IS abolishing racial propensities. More importantly though, you jump back to the 'it should be default', which we agree on – and the problem is that since Tasha's, No race has been published with a default. It's actively being abolished right now, right in front of us. That is the problem here – Tasha's system cannot BE the default, because it is a lack of default by definition. If it is made the default in all future races, all we will have is races with no natural born propensities that make them different from one another at a basic physical level. This would be a loss for the game.

(And yes; racial traits are cool, and we agree there – I'm all for them being better supported and better fleshed out... but that doesn't change the fact that I don't want default racial attribute bonuses to be abolished.)

I've personally never picked a character's race based on stats or the class I'm player – the concept off doing so is, truthfully, really very alien to me. I make characters, living breathing people, and that's what I've always done. I want to know what the norms of their race and species are, and whether they have neglected that inborn heritage in favour of their own pursuits, whether they're proud of it, whether it helps them or hinders them in subtle ways, and so on... I can't... and let's be super-duper clear here – I can't do that with the new races. I Literally. Do. Not. Have. That. Choice. That choice has been forcefully taken away from me, and the game deprived of it, with the new races being presented only in Tasha's style.

And again – it's not the whole of the picture; it's a small element amongst many that I can still play with perfectly freely, many of which have a larger impact on characterisation and role-play than the base-line racial ability bonuses... but it is an element that has been lost in the newest publications, and that's a problem I want to fight.

==

We'll have to agree to disagree on the age issue: humans are described as living about a century; this is their upper bracket for a full life, on average. Races that get 70 at most do not live to a century – that 70 is their upper bracket for a full life on average, and it's 30% shorter than a human's, which is substantial. They should not have that detail erased. Races that get 30 at most should not have that detail erased. Races that get 60 at most should not have that detail erased. Races that live to 160 live substantially longer than humans – it's worth mentioning for halflings, but has now been erased from Aasimar. Will it be erased from halfings too when they reprint? It seems like it! As it seems right now, the only races that retain their reference to non-human lifespans are, specifically, the races in the player's handbook which have not been updated or reprinted... and that seems like the only reason they remain! Currently, Those Details Have Been Erased from every other race. That is plain and simply factual, and it's a bad move. You can characterise the homogenisation as a generalisation if you want, but that only tracks if the underlying details and specifics are still present and available to check on, and right now they are not. You have to go to older books, which Wizards have formally discontinued and are no longer selling or offering for even digital purchase. They're actively erasing it, as we speak. Everyone who previous had differing life-spans that were a century or less, now has no difference in life span between any of them, because that information has simply been expunged in favour of a single universal description, with no closer specifics that you can reference – that makes it homogenisation. They are literally saying now that everyone, regardless of race, lives to be about 100, or else longer... and they're removing from circulation all evidence that ever suggested otherwise, and all information that gives any contrary specificity.


For an Aaracokra, that's four-ish years old. For a goblin, that's ten-ish years old. For a halfling, that's closer to 35, and for a gnome that's closer to 50; this is a substantial difference, and has substantial impact on roleplay and world knowledge and experience.... but currently, in the present day, if someone picked up official books right now today, and bought everything official available from Wizards... none of that would be true or present. They'd ALL be about 20-30 years old, because the players would have nothing to suggest otherwise, and would have indications that that was actually correct. The racial differences have been erased... and yes, it absolutely IS as insidious as I am making it out to be.

Sorry... I feel strongly about this. It seems that on the big picture side of it, we're basically on the same side and in the same place – we both want that detail and specificity available for players and DMs; use it or don't, adhere to it or discard it – but it should Be there... and it's not good that it's being removed.

Regarding the same situation for height and weight, even if you add in the player-side extrapolation and apologist descriptions for “what they actually mean” with their blurb on height and weight... and, to be abundantly clear, that's all you, because it literally says the opposite – that everyone falls into human height and weight ranges. But, even if you add that... are you okay with them saying that everyone has the same height to weight ratios for a healthy physique for their race as humans? That dwarves are not, in fact, more solidly built as a part of their native biology; that plasmoids have the same mass density a goliaths, who have the same mass density as Giff, who have the same mass density as fairies? - That that Giff has the same healthy height to weight ratio as that Gith? No, don't be daft, they absolutely do not, in any way. Are you satisfied with saying that that slightly shorter Loxodon and that slightly taller elf, if that are both healthy and fit, will weigh approximately the same? Because I'm not – that's ridiculous. Different creatures are built differently, especially when they are different enough to be entire other species of sapient beings.

The entire reason we have that table in the Phb is Because different races have differing ratios for their relative height and weight. I do not support Wizards removing that and homogenising it as their current, most recent texts do.

I'm all for freedom to define your character as you want to – player characters are and should be exceptional, as we've said... but that's not the same as literally removing all of this detail and not presenting it for any future races.


Not long ago, there was a Goliath wizard at one of my games.

What I've never seen is someone playing to type with a Harengon, and following their natural default racial ability bonuses.


I don't have a choice, with the new races. I literally do not have a choice. I cannot play to type, or against type, with them; it's impossible to do. I don't like it – I can't choose not to do it, though, because there is no alternative; there are no racial defaults. Talk about forcing players to have fun one specific way, and telling them they can't have fun the other way? Wizards is actively doing this right now.

I made a really long post, but honestly, I just removed it because it's like arguing with a goat at this point. You were doing so well. The only thing I'm saying is "I think the game can be played like this because of ..."

And you're saying "No it can't your opinion is wrong".

Stop it. Seriously just be okay with people liking something you don't. That is a phenomenally low bar... If you want a "model minority" mentality in your games that's fine, but that kind of racey shit doesn't belong in my games. "Oh no I can't play the new races"... [Proceeds to mention a time they played the new race] You aren't even trying now.
And respect, gone. Go read your own PHB. It's standard array or point buy with rolling being the tertiary option.

Go read it... I should spit in your coffee... Pretentious prick.

Standard Array is not standard... I can't even...

No need for the namecalling, Belyavor.

I'm kind of confused at your reaction, to be honest... I don't believe I've attacked you at any point (if it's come across that way, I do apologise - it's' never been my intention) or told you that your way of playing is wrong - legitimately we seem to be *mostly* on the same page, with a few specific differences of perspective - which is fine! I'm not against people using Tasha's system if they want to, and I'd never tell another person that their way of playing is wrong. I've stressed multiple times that this is intended in a friendly manner, and spoken in good humour.

I'd ask you to explain the buzz phrase you're using there, since you've said it twice now and... seem to be implying that I'm being racist in some way? You're going to have to explain that to me - though it might be best saved for a PM, since it's sounding pretty off topic by this point.

I never said I couldn't play the other races - I merely pointed out that I cannot play the new races without using Tasha's system for ability score bonuses, because defaults to play to or against don't exist for them. I would prefer, generally, to play with the default racial bonuses for a character, and work with them or against them as appropriate for that character, as part of their birth and heritage. I can't do that with Tasha races because those defaults don't exist - I'm forced to play them using Tasha's floating-point system, and I don't have a choice in the matter. I'm not telling other people how to play their game - I'm being told how I must play mine.

As for ability scores... Here, and I quote:


Rolling is presented as the method of generating ability scores. The standard array is present second, after that, as an option if you don't wish to use the primary method described first. After that section there, under a separate subheading is this:


Rolling is presented as the primary, main way of generating your scores - it's mentioned first, and all other methods are mentioned in relation to choosing not to use that method. Standard array is presented second, as the first alternative to rolling, if you want to save time, or if you don't want to use rolling. Point Buy is presented as a variant, tertiary option, that should be invoked at your DM's discretion, rather than being a standard method.

I've been perfectly polite to you, I'd request that you show the same respect to me and other forum members, and not sling insults and call names, please.

Even with that, I'm of the opinion that there technically is no default, because D&D is a framework, a resource for the DM to use for their individual table. So the only defaults, is what ever the DM decides for it to be for that particular table.

100% agree. My daughter LOVES dice rolls. She always rolls well and gets high stats. She's like a halfling - always lucky.

My wife, however, loves point but. It's not as RNG based, and she's at least guaranteed some decent stats. When she rolls, I swear - 8s and 9s for at least 2 or 3 stats.

The way I view the whole racial attributes issue is that what we're really dealing with is species, not actual race. It's more like saying that a cheetah is naturally faster than a tiger, as opposed to any modern real life scientific understanding of race. When you look at it from that perspective, almost all the stats make sense. Like it's entirely possible for certain species, even in the same general "family" to have different capacities. I can believe an average orc or dwarf would always be stronger than an average elf because they are built that way on a biological level, the same way an average bulldog is probably going to be stronger than an average golden retriever. Wisdom, which from my understanding is more about the ability to process and interpret the world around you,as opposed to the typical useage of the word, also makes sense since different species can have brains wired to be better or worse at interpreting their environments in varying ways. Like how dogs see in black and white. Even intellect makes more sense since it's certainly possible for different species to just be more intelligent, the way that dolphins are smarter than a lot of other animals. That just starts to tread on uncomfortable territory when you apply it to sapient beings, I feel.

The only thing I don't think lines up is Charisma, since that very much feels like a learned trait. I can buy that, to use an example given above regarding tieflings, that tieflings get a charisma bonus because they look weird and intimidating, that even lines up with dragonborn getting a Cha bonus too. But then...why don't half-orcs get that same Charisma bonus? Why do half-elves get a charisma bonus, but not full elves? If halflings get their bonus because, let's say, they're cute, why don't gnomes also get that? Shouldn't every class that looks very different from humans get a charisma bonus to represent the impact they have? And furthermore, why would that charisma bonus apply to everyone? Why should a tiefling find another tiefling intimidating and persuasive inherently? Why should that +2 bonus apply when talking to say, an individual who has summoned actual fiends and demons? Or if they're talking to an ancient dragon, good or evil? Hell, that +2 bonus doesn't go away if a tiefling is talking to a literal fiend.

(This is why my interpretation of tiefling charisma and intelligence is that their fiendish blood literally makes them magically more persuasive and sharp-minded)

Pretty much, Grey... When talking about fantasy peoples in worlds like the forgotten realms, and dealing with multiple extremely different yet still fully sapient and civilised peoples, race can definitely be seen as something of a misnomer; from our perspective, in a world where most sapient creatures are just humans and more humans, we analogue what we see in fantasy to 'race' very easily, but if we look at it from an outside perspective, completely analytically, we'd almost certainly categorise it as species instead... we're literally dealing with completely different orders of creatures here, from a biological/science perspective, and humans are just one of many varied and different others.

Charisma is very definitely the most frequently misconstrued and fuzzy ability score in the history of the game. I find it's easiest to think of it as force of presence; not specifically talking well, or looking good, or looking scary, or any one of those things, but more subtly the force of presence and personal gravitas that an individual has - even then, yeah, a lot of that is going to seem more learned or practice, or part of nurture, rather than nature... but I suppose you look to thinks like the innate majesty of dragons, and so on. The reason, in the end, why certain races get it and others don't, is just unfortunately down to mechanics and balance, since some races are getting other scores instead which were deemed 'more' appropriate for them than charisma... it's not a satisfying answer, I know.

Recall also that it represents force of will as well; it's sort of the 'flip side' to wisdom, when it comes to mental defences. Spells that affect you subtly, like charms, are saved against with Wisdom, as your mind realises it's being manipulated and can easily shake it off once it has. Other spells that are more direct assaults are (or were intended to be originally at the beginning of 5e), the domain of Charisma - where you know your sense of self or will is being clearly assaulted and you have to hold onto yourself through it. Spells that muddles your wits, confused or disoriented you or interfered with memory or information recall were intended to be the domain of Intelligence saves. Unfortunately, in the design stages, coming off the legacy of having so much already ingrained from older editions as just 'will saves' - *most* of it all became wisdom saves when some of it shouldn't have, just because that was what was felt to be more familiar to more people. WE still have some of the intent though - Spaces that try to exclude you from entering, or reject your presence are still saved against with Charisma as you force your absolute presence of self. If two individuals are fighting to shape a dream space, it will be a Charisma contest. Dominate spells were 'meant' to be Charisma saves too, since they are more overt attacks and controls, while charms, as wisdom, are subtle... while more recent spells have started trying to correct the wisdom-dominated mental saves that we have, it's still mostly carried by wisdom, when a lot of it shouldn't be. Oh well. Sorry for the tangent ^.^