Originally Posted by Scoonster49
My view would be if you are against removing racial ability scores they main point of concern should be more NPCs and less character creation. How other people choose to create their characters doesn't really affect anyone else but how Larian builds NPCs does. So as long as Larian uses the racial AS then there shouldn't be an issue.

My view is while I will usually pick the racial "canon" options I may occasionally decide to make an orc who is physically weaker than normal but more magically inclined or a halfling that is super strong and not as nimble. While atypical are still valid choices
How you create your characters is entirely your call, but nothing in 5E stops you from putting more points into int and less into strength with your half-orc. The problem happens when you try to make your exceptional but not divinely blessed half-orc as nimble as an eceptional but not blessed person of a species that is exceptionally gifted at being nimble.

That does not add to the universe. It takes from it. Because now all species have become very minor variants of the same species. Now bears and cheetas and humans and monkeys and birds and whales are all the same species, just with different proficiency bonuses. And frankly, why shouldn't a cheetah be able to swim like a while and dive to a depth of 3000 meters below and hold its breath for an hour? It's totally unfair that this is something reserved for whales, isn't it? Well, maybe it is unfair, but that is how different species work. They're different.

My view is, I will roll whatever character I feel like, but I'd like if the race choice actually means something. If I decide to go dwarf, I want to feel dwarfy. If I go Elf, I want to feel Elfy. And if I go with a "suboptimal race choice" then that's my choice and it sets me back relative to some abstract idea of perfection, but it really isn't likely to mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, because the game doesn't require a party of min-maxed munchkin characters. But with this change, what does Dwarfy or Elfy even mean? How is that different from being human or orc or ogre or illithid? We're all physically the same anyway, after all.

Granted, some physical differences still remain. Some species are a little faster, and some can see in the dark. And how long will it be before these things are also considered "unfair" or even racist stereotypes and wiped out? Why should a swift Elf be any faster at running than a 4 foot dude? Justice for the little people!


Originally Posted by Scoonster49
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Scoonster49
My view would be if you are against removing racial ability scores they main point of concern should be more NPCs and less character creation. How other people choose to create their characters doesn't really affect anyone else but how Larian builds NPCs does. So as long as Larian uses the racial AS then there shouldn't be an issue.

My view is while I will usually pick the racial "canon" options I may occasionally decide to make an orc who is physically weaker than normal but more magically inclined or a halfling that is super strong and not as nimble. While atypical are still valid choices
D&D is a co-operative, party-based game though, so you can't just ignore PCs. While the other party members' characters don't directly affect my character, they still do so indirectly via comparison. If my 17-strength orc obtained that maximum strength possible to level 1 characters by having dedicated years to enhance his inherent physical strength through a training regimen that only the strongest and hardiest of races could endure, and then you roll up with your 17 strength gnome, owlkin, or fairy...that directly affects immersion and world consistency.

You can already do everything in that last paragraph with racial ASIs though. An Orc with 10 strength and 12 to 15 Int is "an orc who is physically weaker than normal but more magically inclined." A halfling with 12 to 15 strength and 10 Dex is a "halfling that is super strong and not as nimble."

Again, I'd be okay with one of many different solutions as long as they preserve sufficient & unique physical and mental differences that characterize the various fantasy races. Orcs getting no strength ASI in exchange for (the laughably useless) Powerful Build and the easily-obtainable-by-anyone Athletics Proficiency is not anywhere near sufficient imo.

DnD maybe cooperative but it is also local how my group plays doesn't affect yours in anyway. Same here with BG3, you can play it however you want and I can play it however I want and it doesn't affect either of our experiences. I do not understand the idea in a game like this that other people should have options denied to them that only affect their game because others do not like those options.

While you are talking about how usually orcs have inherently higher strength it is entirely possible that for some reason an orc is born with significantly less strength and I can play one who is weaker than the norm trying to find their place in the world. Being able to change the ASI greatly helps roleplay that scenario. Or it is possible a human or halfing or what ever has orc in their heritage and their genes just come about to give them a boost.

To me one of the wonders of DnD is the ability to craft worlds and narratives at will. Being able to take the set rules and adjust as needed is one of it's best features
But I can't play however I want, can I? The change that wipes out racial differences for you also wipes them out for me. I can't pretend that orcs are generally stronger than haflings because my game is explicitly telling me that they're not. And please, find me that exceptional human that can outrun a cheetah or outwrestle a grizzly. Find me that exceptional human that can outsniff trained sniffer dogs. Find me that exceptional human that can outdive a whale.

Or kindly stop suggesting that it makes total sense that an exceptional hafling can actually be just as strong as an exceptional half-orc.