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.
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.
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.
Pre-Tashas I don't think I saw a single caster pick Half Orc or Goliath, they were all martial classes.
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.
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.
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.
- Rolling for stats is not an 'optional rule' – it's the default rule; check your handbook. Using standard array or point buy are the 'optional rules'. Our characters are meant to be exceptional individuals, above the normal averages in some way – that's why we're rolling for stats at all in the first place, rather than having nothing but 9-11 for everything. There shouldn't be a 'standard' adventurer, because they're all meant to be unique and exceptional. Using standard array kind of shoots that in the foot, in my personal opinion, because it inclines people towards droves of very generically statted very similar characters.
I acknowledge that the inability to have a negative on your racial core may seem like a problem... but my only counter to that is that standard array and point buy actually run contra to the spirit of the game, and are bad systems that I don't like and never use – no-one at any of my game tables ever uses them, in fact.
==
I played a fairy artificer (weak underwhelming and unsatisfying race for a weak, underwhelming and unsatisfying class...) recently ^.^ Her name is Holly, but she presents as Holly-Tender, and gives off the impression of being a human-sized warforged (power armour), and lets people believe this. It was pretty fun, for a one-shot character. I do wish the race was better implemented though – very much so. I will play a serious fairy character (or perhaps play Holly for longer and a proper game), and the poor design won't stop me doing that, but it is disappointing.
