Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Xanathar and Tasha Rules

I think the thing we all forgot in the discussion along the way is that the rule is completely optional (all dnd rules are but this one moreso) and it's up the DM and the table. DMs who don't like it don't have to use it, and DMs who do can use it. Same for players depending on the table they are at. And likely if put into BG3 it'd be optional as there's nothing forcing a person to use it.

The fix should be to give a corresponding 'Small Build' to haflings/gnomes/etc, not to limit their strength score.
This way, you can play a Halfling with Str 20 and be equally as effective in combat (you have developed technique to compensate for your lower raw power) while still having the more realistic natural "weakness" of these smaller races.

You all are talking about realistic ...
Why is so unrealistic that Halfling Barbarian being strong?
Yes, they need to work harder to achieve the same goal as Half-Orc, but its suppose to be perfectly achievable ... their muscles works exactly the same. O_o

Have you never seen short bodybuilder? O_o
Personaly im 198cm tall and i know a lot of people that is way stronger than me, yet way shorter ... since they are working with their hands a lot more than i do.
So i dont quite understand what is so unrealistic about strong Halfling to be honest. :-/

It seem to me like you were forgoting that you usualy dont create Halfling Barbarian level 1 ... who allready have 20Str.
And it seem to me like you were forgoting that level and ability score improvements are just reflection of his EXPERIENCE ...
Yes, Halfling would need to work harder and it takes him longer to be as strong as Half-Orc, or Goliath, or Human, or some specific kind of Dwarfs (wich are lot closer to Halflings in matter of bodyshape, yet they are as far of them as the other ones that seem to "logicaly had to be a lot stronger") ... funny enough it takes him precisely the same time as most Elfs, and other races that dont get +X to Str. btw, but that dont seem to bother anyone.

Exactly. A halfling who trained his whole life for strength will be stronger than the common half orc (highest score in strength), but weaker than a half orc which did the same kind of training (lower strength than a half orc who also put the highest score in strength because of racial modifiers).
The halfling needs to work harder (put more ability increases into strength) to match a half orc.

Thats how it is -before- Tasha's.

I still don't agree that it must be so.

a) If it is accepted that an Elf (or Halfling, or Lizardfolk) can reach 20 Strength, and that it is seen as representing the fact that they trained, then I don't see why it would be a problem to say that the Elf trained their whole life, hence why they now have 17 Strength.

b) The key word in what you say is common. I think that's where it really all is.

A Half-Orc who similarly trained their whole life, could end up with "only" 16 Strength. Because while they had the same amount of training (possibly training with the above Elf, same teacher, same everything), that Elf just had a leg up on that Half-Orc at birth.

The 17-Strength Elf might be in the top 1% strongest of Elves, while the 16-Strength Half-Orc was only in the 5% strongest Half-Orcs, but not the top 4% (and definitely top 1%). That 17-Strength Elf is thus more exceptional. An equally rare Half-Orc would have 19 Strength.

c) To take an example from Teams & Tournament, I could decide to play a Female East-European. The signature ability of the Basketballer class I want to use is Dunk, which works better if I have a Height of 2m or more, so I'll have a 2m tall Female. Of course, a 2m tall Female is rare. A 2m tall Male is rare too, but less rare. Maybe my 2m tall Female is as rare as a 2.15m tall Male. That's fine.

Judging from real-life basketball, a large number of Males who are adventurers Pro-Player Basketballer are under 2m in Height, while some Female Pro-Player Basketballer are above 2m tall.



Custom Origin doesn't modify the lore, it only modify the degree of statistical rareness of the characters you can create.

Characters in 5e are usually well trained at level 1, this is their peak before going on an adventure and honing themselves through that. So an elf or halfling could definitely get the training necessary to raise their strength up to 16 or 17 by the time they reach level 1 Adventurer status, all depending on their backstory and genetics.
An Orc Wizard with 14+ INT (cause pre-tasha's your maximum is 13 I think if you pick normal Orc? (Not talking Half-Orc in this example)) could be statistically a rarity but a player might play that because the Orc in question was raised by non-orcs who were scholars and therefor spent his life reading and studying and not training up his martial prowess. His story could depend on the fact that he is not a musclehead and has mixed feelings about the Orcish culture he did not experience and a weird sense of lack of belonging to either.
It is all character specific and the Optional rule enables people to play against typing mechanically and roleplaying wise, and doesn't lock anyone away from options, and it doesn't force itself on any player either.

Absolutely. The (optional) Custom Origin rule opens doors that the (equally optional) Point-Buy rule locks close, in terms of roleplay and story.

That is why Custom Origins increases roleplay opportunities.

How can you play out the struggle with your orcish ancestry when you, thanks to Tashas, have no orcish ancestry?
For a role player the Int penalty of orcs would be part of the character. In your example probably a central one. But what you then describe is not role playing, but power gaming pretending to be role play. Yet its obvious the the primary concern is power and not role.

The racial ability adjustments are not education or training. Those things are represented by where you place your highest ability score and which stats to increase during the game. The racial modifiers represent pure, unalterable biology (aoart from things like reincarnation) which are the same for ever member of that race.

No, it only lets powergamer pretend to be roleplayer.
You can do a simple test. Do you have a character idea you want to play but in the end don't do it because you miss out on a +1 modifier? Then you are a power gamer.

You are, once again, using "roleplay" when you should be saying "power game".

@Dexai, Ixal : I'm using the definition of roleplaying and power-gaming that I spelled out above.


If you have different definitions, which imply that not all roleplaying is compatible with all power-gaming, that's fine. I really regret taking about increased roleplay opportunities, because you both focused on that, and nobody (you or anyone) has yet given any reaction to my statistical arguments.

So if you don't mind me rail-roading, can you (or anyone else really) tell me :

a) Do you agree that the standard rules allow for the creation of an Elf with Strength 17 and a Half-Orc with Strength 16 ?

b) Do you believe that the lore of Elves means they are biologically limited in Strength, and that there should be mechanical limitations to the Strength of an Elf, however exceptional that Elf and their story could be ? (It would work the same with Orc and Intelligence, I'm just sticking to my example. But maybe there's a difference for you. I don't know.)

The reason I use Orc Wizard so much as an example is I did try it, it did not go well at all. He was supposed to be a competent wizard who was taught by his parents and fairly smart. I had 12 int which is a +1 but compared to everyone else with +3s that feels weak, which is already a bad start but something I could roll with. I could roleplay but when the game part came along I might as well of not been there other than wasting the time that could be spent on other people's turns cause I only missed and the saving throws on my spells were always passed. Out of combat I had some utility spells but that did not make anyone see my character as useful. So essentially I did nothing in the combat encounters, which could be attributed to dice but also the fact my plus was low, and other than normal RP the character was a dud.
The aspect of my character being smart and competent as a mage was ruined and so at the end of the session he was reduced to a bad mage and a bad orc cause the initial concept and the mechanics became disparate. Other factors did not continue that campaign, but my character was essentially a joke in the end.
Heck, a friend of mine who DMs removes the -2 to Int because it is way to restrictive and acts as a character penalty.
Ancestry is not all in how strong or weak you are, you can have physically strong ancestors but be weak, or have ancestors considered weak and end up being strong. Also there is culture, language, and customs my character missed out on, which is where that conflict would come from. He didn't know how to interact with tribal orcs, and if that campaign continued it would have been a major part of his character arc. People saw him as a big orc but he didn't act nor feel like one, and depending on how things went I would have given him some sort of conclusion, perhaps getting more and more in touch with his lost culture or accepting he was different and carving out a nook for himself.


Powergaming can have a lot of meanings, and I am assuming you are using a previously stated one where the person just wants to min max and have a character that is the strongest they can be at level 1? I tend to make characters around concepts and grab anything that goes into that regard, so in a sense I can be powergaming if I grab only fire spells for my basic fire sorcerer. But I don't really care about having the best stats or reaching 20 in a stat down the line, or I'd have long ago only went for races that allow me to have +17 instead of 'settling' for 14s. I just care that concept and mechanics match so I can play my character both through roleplay and the game aspects of dnd. If all I can do is roleplay but when it comes to the game I suck, that doesn't feel fun. And if I only focus on the combat, and none of the roleplay, that also is not fun. I want them to be balanced and connected, so I can smoothly roleplay in both and enjoy a cooperative session.
Furthermore, I like to play characters that either fit a type to a T or go completely against type, yet many characters that go against type are punished mechanically while those that go toward type are rewarded. This makes it that I see many of the same type of character because other people do power game for what is the strongest. Tasha's detaching of ASIs and Race means playing against type is equally mechanically viable AND means many people who do powergame will likely have more varied or unique characters which will facilitate more natural and rewarding RP. Also from a mechanics standpoint, there will be more variance in how people use the racial abilities provided with class kits that normally would not have interacted with them.

In short, Elves can be bulky, Orcs can be smart, and Tortles can be stealthy because it is fun to play that kind of character.
Sorry if this is rambly, I have had very little sleep, also the tone is supposed to be very neutral and tired cause of lack of sleep lol

You keep insisting on that yet that's not something I've ever said, and it has no bearing on anything in this discussion.




First of all -- the Elf with Str (and other races with Int etc) are not limited. He can be just as Strong as every other race who doesn't get a bonus to Strength. The Orc with Str is advantaged. That is a huge difference in perspective here that shows of which people are power gamers and which aren't. To the power gamers, not having every single advantage is a "limitation" and "makes the character bad". People who don't power game don't view the baseline as "limited" just because one or a few options happens to get advantages within particular fields.

Secondly -- Orcs are biologically stronger. Baseline races have to work harder and longer to reach the same results. You're already exceptional when you start with a 14 or 15. You become exceptionally exceptional over your adventure. What you are asking for is to already start out as exceptionally exceptional at first level. It is the attributional equivalent of people who write character backgrounds about how their level one characters are already the best swordsmen in the world, have slain dragons, are arch-mages, or gods/angels, and so on. I'm sure there's RPGS out there that allow you to start as that. But that's not the journey DnD is set up to create.

Oh I didn't say you ever said that. I was just saying that these are my definitions, and according to these I can play play an Orc Wizard with 16 Intelligence or an Elf Barbarian with 17 Strength at level 1 and still be roleplaying. You said that I would then not be roleplaying, but that's because you probably use a different definition, and in that sense it was relevant to the discussion. That's fine. I'm wasn't as interested in that and moved on to what I find is a more interesting discussion.

a) Ok then. So the Elf with 17 Strength is possible. And, yes, the Half-Orc (or Orc, I guess) is advantaged when it comes to Strength. Statistically advantaged.

This is true, if you add the word statistically in the sentence.

b) It seems to me as if you're in favour of limitations that would (hardly or softly) prevent someone from playing a 17-Strength Elf. Or refuse to call someone a roleplayer if they want to play someone who defies the statistical stereotypes of the race.


Fully agreed with this statement ! If I can roll a bonus-free 18 using the Roll method, then I want to be able to start with a character that has as much if I use Point-Buy or Some Other Rule instead.


I disagree with that second statement though. If I roll an Elf with 17 Strength, I don't have to justify this by a level-10-worthy backstory. I can just say that my character was incredibly gifted by nature.

Which brings me to 2 new, hopefully better, questions :

1) If I rolled a 17 Strength Elf Barbarian, and then try to figure out the backstory of that character, would you allow that and call that roleplaying ?

2) If I start with the backstory for an Elf Barbarian character, and I want to have 17 Strength at level 1, would you call that roleplaying ?

You literally said it again in the very next few seconds. You're saying it adds to roleplaying opportunities. I am saying it is not adding to roleplaying opportunities, it is adding to powergaming opportunities. I am not saying you are not roleplaying if you play with a powergamed character. Stop with your strawmen.

This is true. Hopefully, everyone here is just debating their assertions/opinions and not trying to prove they are “right”.


Also true but I think Mearls and Crawford really hated giving penalties to player characters unless it was due to combat debuffs or something of that nature. That’s why none of the core races have any negative modifiers now. Small size should have a penalty in carry/lift capability but that also takes away from the goal of making 5e simple.

Let’s be clear. There’s no wrong way to play D&D. Whatever your table allows is acceptable.

My argument has always been about roleplay philosophy and how system design is changing the philosophy of the players. There was always power gaming. When you involve numbers and math, it’s human nature to maximize the outcome and seek the most efficient solution. But it seems, the lines between min maxing and roleplay have been blurred.

I think it really started around 3.5e with the advent of point buy and ASI. From 3.5e on, the systems encouraged min maxing (point buy) and provided methods to do so (ASI). I also think the popularity of anime and superheroes also influenced this. Tabletop RPGs used to be about a group of plucky adventurers looking for glory and wealth but today it seems more players want to roleplay fantasy superheroes. Again, nothing wrong with it but there has been a shift and this cultural shift has played a significant role on how people roleplay.

That’s why we hear about all these level 1 characters with novel sized backstories. Look at the origin companions. All level one but they all act like experienced veterans. I mean Gale apparently had a relationship with a goddess…

Now the shift has made different races (should be species) less meaningful. It’s getting to the point where the only reason you pick an orc instead of a human is because you want tusks. I personally do not like this. I like that choosing a race meant advantages AND disadvantages.

But back to specific examples:


Orcs are not only statistically stronger but their peak potential is higher. We are talking about peak performance here, not the averages. No one is arguing there can’t be some halflings who are stronger than some orcs. I specifically chose STR as an example because it has a clear statistical component (lifting/carrying) that goes beyond the abstract of training and natural talent.

In 5e, because lifting/carrying is integrated with STR, the strongest halfling is equal to the strongest human (not orc). That’s unrealistic, even in a fantasy setting. Fantasy doesn’t mean anything goes. There has to be some rules that have to be consistent.

But most players don’t want to play with a halfling with a lower STR cap like the old days. I don’t have a problem with that. But to keep some sort of consistency, there should be some sort of advantage or disadvantage to explain the differences in races, hence the bigger races can boost their STR and halflings cannot. Everyone can reach the cap, it just takes halflings longer even if there are exceptionally strong halflings.

That to me makes the setting more consistent and allows each race to be more unique and different beyond cosmetics.


Which seems to confirm my assertion people want to play superheroes these days and not ordinary adventurers.

All the answers to your questions is yes because there’s no wrong way to roleplay. But why not play an elf with STR 15? Statistically an elf with STR 15 is exceptional too.

Rolling for Stats ALONE, renders any discussing meaningless.

Standard Array + ASI from Race (or an alternative method as I've gone with) is by far my favorite method.

I don't like point buy or standard array because both end up making cookie cutter characters. In a private table among trusted friends, I see almost no reason to use these two methods. Everyone should have an idea on what type of game they want to play together. I mean, as a DM, I wouldn't mind them literally picking their stats at that point.

In a public table with random people? I can see the value since you want to balance things out and you don't know what to expect.

By not creating some disadvantages on races, along with point-buy, standard array, ASI, the system continues further down the line of cookie cutter/min max builds.

I can agree with that, but that is exactly why I put importance on ASI.

I actually love the standard array, but that puts a ton of pressure on the racial ASI to make up a distinction at level 1 between races.

Rolling? Then it just doesnt matter as much to me.

Only if you as a player put a high priority in min-maxing. But as I explained before, more numbers/math = more min-maxing. There's no way around it.

Mind you, I am also guilty of min-maxing. I'm just making an observation.

Right, but thats the thing here.

Wanting Floating ASI is nothing but a min/max argument. It doesnt do anything at all but impact if you get an extra +1 on your main abillities.

Thats it. Its not about RP. Its about Min Max. And thats fine, but I wish people would just own it.