It's only a fallacy if it isn't relevant, and it's very much relevant.
Relevancy to the topic isn't a necessary quality for an argument to be a fallacy or not? And it is a slippery slope fallacy cause the argument is that if we remove ASI being locked down to races, we will also lose racial abilities. The the "slippery slope" is that we are setting on a path where all uniqueness in races is going to be removed. Though I don't think anyone has argued for removing racial abilities at all? In fact, I'd argue they do a lot more for racial uniqueness than ASIs and are usually something any class can benefit from.
Originally Posted by FuryouMiko
At this point all I see is a bunch of people trying to tell me that in a world where some people are literally born better because of racial abilities and ASIs, there's no racism.
The topic wasn't about racism at all, and was more an argument about the ramifications of adding in Tasha's updates to the dnd 5e ruleset into BG3. 5e assigns ASIs and abilities based on racial pick but even pre-Tasha's I would not say one race is better than another outright as they all have good flavor and RP potential. I just have the issue that pre-Tasha's the ASI a race gives would play a bit too much on what class you'd play with that race. Additionally racial ability wise almost all of them have something useful and different that sometimes it can be comparing apples and oranges. (Even if some argue Humans or Half Elves are the best mechanically, I tend to disagree because while a feat is great and the half elf stuff is strong, sometimes having something like spells and resistance or being a mount can be a lot stronger/more fun.)
