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.
This is true. Hopefully, everyone here is just debating their assertions/opinions and not trying to prove they are “rightâ€.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
