# Which races would YOU put into the 50th anniversary Players Handbook?



## Yaarel

Which races would YOU put into the 50th anniversary Players Handbook?

Here is the format:

• The first entry must be human. (Because human, the measure by which all other races are measured.)

• List your races as human plus groups of three, from your most necessary to the less necessary. The total number can be as few as 1, and as many as 22.

• *LIST EACH SUBRACE AS A SEPARATE RACE!* All subraces are now separate races. So, think carefully about which subrace you care about.


----------



## el-remmen

Human
Dwarf
Elf
Gnome
Halfling
Orc


----------



## payn

Whatever Alf is.


----------



## Yaarel

el-remmen said:


> Human
> Dwarf
> Elf
> Gnome
> Halfling
> Orc



Which dwarf? Mountain dwarf?
Which elf? Wood elf?
Which gnome? Which halfling?

Yeah, on orc.


----------



## Vaalingrade

I have no idea how the second restriction works, but let's go.

Human, Sorcerous
Human, Mutant
Human, Augmented

Halfling
Dwarf
Half Dragon (various colors)

Teifling
Aasimar
Gensai (four elements)

Elf (Absolutely NO subraces)
Half Elf
Tabaxi

Tortle
Minotaur
Goblin

Dryad
Animal, Awakened
Revenant


----------



## el-remmen

Yaarel said:


> Which dwarf? Mountain dwarf?




Just Dwarf. Wanna be a dwarf from the mountains, just put it in your backstory or make that background. From the hills, same schniz.


Yaarel said:


> Which elf? Wood elf?



Just elf. See above.


Yaarel said:


> Which gnome? Which halfling?




I think you understand by now.



Yaarel said:


> Yeah, on orc.




Orc, orc, baby!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

1. Human.
2. See (1).


----------



## billd91

Just halflings and gnomes. And all art depicting them will show them flipping the bird at all of their haterz.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

el-remmen said:


> Orc, orc, baby!




Yo el-remmen, let's kick it
Orc, orc baby
Orc, orc baby

Alright stop, collaborate and listen
Orcs are back in the brand new edition
Grognards make all those posts impolitely
Ranting 'bout half-orcs daily and nightly
Will they ever stop? Yo, I don't know
All they can see is the status quo

Orc, orc baby
Not a half orc, orc baby
Not a half orc, orc baby
Not a half orc, orc baby


----------



## GreyLord

Well, two sets...basic for online downloads and the PHB.

In Basic

Human
Elf
Dwarf
Halfling

For PHB you add

Half Elf
Half Orc
Gnome

I'd put other races in the DMG or a supplement...in the supplement you would have

6 different types of Dragonborn (at least)
Tiefling
Genasi
Goliath
Aarakocra
Aasimar (it always burns me when they have Tieflings but don't have their opposing side)
Centaur
Changeling
4 different types of Genasi
Gith
Kalashtar
Kenku
Leonin
Minotaur
Orc
Satyr
Tabaxi
Tortle
and Triton as core (so probably in the DMG as optional core).

I'd leave the rest/others for a supplement that includes even more races (so that's where Goblin, Kobold, Owlin etc would go along with Modron, Ogre, Yuan-Ti, etc woudl go).


----------



## Warpiglet-7

payn said:


> Whatever Alf is.



Wth man?!


----------



## Warpiglet-7

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Yo el-remmen, let's kick it
> Orc, orc baby
> Orc, orc baby
> 
> Alright stop, collaborate and listen
> Orcs are back in the brand new edition
> Grognards make all those posts impolitely
> Ranting 'bout half-orcs daily and nightly
> Will they ever stop? Yo, I don't know
> All they can see is the status quo
> 
> Orc, orc baby
> Not a half orc, orc baby
> Not a half orc, orc baby
> Not a half orc, orc baby



You sir, are ate up


----------



## billd91

payn said:


> Whatever Alf is.



Melmacian. That's what the natives of Melmac are called.

Ha! You thought nobody would remember, didn't you?


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Humans

Minotaur to replace dwarves
Harengon to replace halfling
Orc to replace half-orc (or even best, Lizardfolks)

Hexborn to replace tieflings 
Satyr/faun to replace elf
Aasimar (If prefer if the 4e Deva were used instead)

Goblin
Hobgoblin
Bugbear

Pixies to replace gnomes (steal some stuff from the Firbolg while we're at it)
Pasmoid
Revenant

Dragonborn, chromatic
Dragonborn, metallic 
Dragonborn, gemic(? )

The actual order's of preference was not really taken in consideration to be honest. The idea being: let's try something different from the usual Tolkien races.


----------



## beancounter

Human.

Everything else is just xp fodder.




Seriously, I don't mind any and all races (species, really) that WoTC can come up with, but personally I will never use half of them.

So, go ahead, and put them all in.


----------



## Tutara

Race no longer gives modifiers or abilities except for a single cultural ability - the equivalent of a feat.

Everything is moved to backgrounds and/or classes.

Races are then everything we've had so far. Ability plus a bit of flavour text. 

Either half-races for every conceivable combination, or no half-races.


----------



## Blue

Human

Elf
Dwarf
Halfling
(Once you take out all culture and ability scores, from a design point of view there _should not_ be enough mechanical difference to have subraces be needed, just like we don't have subraces for human.  So NO SUBRACES.)

[A big gap]

Half-Elf
Half-Orc
Gnome

Centaur
Minotaur
Half-Giant / Half-Ogre

Aasimar
Tiefling
Genasi

Sprite/Pixie (tiny & flying)
Dryad
Satyr

Metallic Dragonborn
Chromatic Dragonborn
Kobold

Yes, I would leave out a lot of current choices - PHB can't put in too many choices else it's a real barrier to entry for new players.  Plus some really are setting specific.

And I want massive power-ups on all of them.  Such that race matters.  And that you can have a large size minotaur and it's balanced against a gnome and a tiny flying sprite and a human.  Right now there is very little design room in races, blocking proper implementations of some of the more powerful ones.  So we have medium sized pony-people instead of centaurs and the like.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Human
Half Elf
Half Orc

 High Elf (but with a mechanic for seperating Gold from Moon and Star Elves)
 Wild Elf
 Drow (Seldarine and Dark Seldarine varints).

 Hill Dwarf
 Mountain Dwarf
 Deep Dwarf

 Lightfoot Halfling
 Stout Halfling
 Ghostwise Halfling

 Tieflings
 Aasimar
 Fire Genasi/Earth Genasi/Water Genasi/Air Genasi

 Goblins
 Hobgoblins
 Bugbears

 Mountain Orc
 Grey Orc
 Scor Orc

 Chromatic Dragonborn
 Metallic Dragonborn
 Gem Dragonborn

 Rock Gnomes
 Forest Gnomes
 Deep Gnomes

 Centaurs
 Minotaurs
Satyrs/Nymphs


----------



## Professor Murder

Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Halfling, Gnome, Dragonborn, Orcs
Then
Lineages: Aasimar, Tiefling, Genasi. All can be applied to the races above.
Then
Race Specific Lineages: The preexisting subraces for the above races. Half Elf and Half Orc are also lineages now for humans, but rename them to something more in keeping with advancing sensibilities.


----------



## Jer

Yes.  Include all of them.

And in a new DMG some advice on how to roll your own with maybe the guidelines that the dev team uses when they create new ones.


----------



## Reynard

Human

Elf
Dwarf
Halfling

That's it. Everything else is in a setting book.


----------



## Vaalingrade

My question is why do we have to keep Humans.


----------



## Lanefan

Vaalingrade said:


> My question is why do we have to keep Humans.



Because most people intrinsically know how to play one?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Lanefan said:


> Because most people intrinsically know how to play one?



I have seen 0 proof of this over 4 decades.


----------



## Yaarel

For my vote.

_Give rules for custom race, with suggestions if it is a half race._

• Human

• Elf (astral-ish, teleport, cantrip, proficiencies, spell-per-day)
• Elf (wood-ish, elven accuracy, cantrip, speed, darkvision)
• Tiefling (devil or demon)

• Dragonborn
• Dwarf
• Orc

• Giant (large: earth, cold, lightning-thunder, or fire-radiant)
• Genasi (tough: earth or water)
• Genasi (fly: air or fire)

• Gnome (choose illusion, animal, or technology)
• Awsimar
• Changeling

• Warforged
• Plasmoid
• Tabaxi

• Fairy
• Goblin
• Satyr

• Thri-kreen
• Dhampir
• Aarakocra


----------



## schneeland

el-remmen said:


> Human
> Dwarf
> Elf
> Gnome
> Halfling
> Orc



That, but Gnome gets replaced by Goblin.


----------



## Lanefan

Human

Elf - Wood, High, Fair, Arctic (sub-species are NOT in my view as separate as the OP would have them)
Dwarf - Hill, Mountain
Hobbit - Agrarian, Maritime (with better sub-species names that that, I hope!)

Part-Elf
Part-Orc
Gnome

Stop there.

And then make those species mean something again!  Compare each to Human (the baseline) and adjust their root stats up and-or down to reflect that comparison; give the non-Humans some species-based abilities (night-sight being the most obvious) and penalize them some other way to compensate.  Make some species - including Human - naturally trend toward some classes and away from others; maybe even ban a few combinations outright.  And so forth...


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Dragonborn, Elf, Gnome, Human.


----------



## overgeeked

Everything from the current PHB plus all the races released prior to Monster of the Multiverse that didn't make the cut.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Everything in the existing PHB including possibly Dragonborn (sub)races from Fizban's and Tiefling, but no Tiefling subraces, just have one Tiefling race that's more customizable (see Aasimar as a example). And then add Aasimar, Orc, Goblin, Hobgoblin and Bugbear.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

For my don't alienate anyone and cause another failed edition answer, I think Level Up got it right:

Dragonborn
Dwarf
Elf
Gnome
Halfling
Human
Orc
Planetouched

With general rules on mixed species characters.

My selfish, only include options that match my homebrew setting answer would be much different.


----------



## payn

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Wth man?!



Oh cmon it would be glorious! _WOTC has catered to grogs yet again!_


----------



## cbwjm

Same ones from the original 5e PHB.


----------



## delericho

Human
Dwarf
Elf
Halfling
Dragonborn
Gnome
Half-elf
Half-orc
Tiefling

No subraces - with the removal of cultural elements from race descriptions the races are very thin, removing any need for them.


----------



## Aurel Guthrie

Human

Dwarf
Elf
Half-Orc

Halfling
Gnome
Tiefling

Half-Elf
Dragonborn
Aasimar

Orc
Drow
Goliath

Goblin
Kobold
Minotaur


----------



## Malmuria

Human
Demi Human
Half Human
Big Human
Humanoid
Animal Human
Plant Human
Celestial and Infernal Human
Robot Human
Hooman
Underground Human
Underwater Human
Space Human


----------



## Weiley31

At least _ONE_ Aberration. Keep it the same after that or just toss along in Mord's race selection as well.


----------



## CreamCloud0

Human
-
Hill dwarf, High elf, Lightfoot halfling

Tiefling, Half-orc, Goblin
-
Dragonborn, Drow, Rock gnome

Warforged, Aasimar, Dryad
-
Genasi, Goliath, Tabaxi
-


----------



## MoonSong

None. 

Race is 100% fluff with no mechanical advantage. That also means no extra bonuses to stats.


----------



## Jer

One that I think actually will be in the revised phb is the Warforged. All the other Eberron races are in MoM but the Warforged is conspicuous by its absence.


----------



## Yaarel

delericho said:


> No subraces - with the removal of cultural elements from race descriptions the races are very thin, removing any need for them.




The removal of ability score improvements plus the addition of background feats, obsoletes the subraces.

Still the elf does better with two saliently different races:

• elf (astral-ish, teleport, spell-per-day, proficiency swaps, any cantrip)
• elf (wood-ish, elven accuracy, darkvision, speed, any cantrip)

The astral-ish elf covers: astral, eladrin, aevendrow, lorendrow, shadar-kai, pale.

The wood-ish elf covers: wood, high, udadrow, grugach, 3e wild, sea elf (waterbreating cantrip), athas.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

payn said:


> Oh cmon it would be glorious! _WOTC has catered to grogs yet again!_



Yeah so blarg my fighter looks for any stray cats in the village.  He ran out of rations a day ago and wants to stock up.

Younger players stare in abject disgust.

What man?! I am just playing my character!


----------



## Mezuka

Humans +
Werebats
Werebears
Wereboars
Wererats
Weretigers
Werewolves


----------



## RoughCoronet0

So I’m choose these races/species under the assumption that they will not be reprinting any races released post Tasha’s. I’m also not going to include Custom Lineage, though I wouldn’t be surprised if this option is included in some way.

Human
Half-Elf
Half-Orc
Dark Elves (Drow)
High Elves
Wood Elves
Mountain Dwarves
Hill Dwarves
Forest Gnomes
Rock Gnomes
Ghostwise Halflings
Lightfoot Halflings
Stout Halflings
Standard Dragonborn
Tiefling
Warforged


----------



## Vaalingrade

payn said:


> Oh cmon it would be glorious! _WOTC has catered to grogs yet again!_



Melmakian Barbarian in a party of Tabaxi.


----------



## cbwjm

payn said:


> Whatever Alf is.



Melmacian?


----------



## Minigiant

Human
Dragonborn
Dwarf
Elf
Gnome
Gnomeling
Goblin
Golemites
Goliath
Halfling
Half-Dwarf
Half-Elf
Half-Orc
Hobgoblin
Lizardfolk
Leonin
Orc
Tabaxi
Tiefling
Warforged


----------



## DarkCrisis

Human
Elf
Half-Elf
Dwarf
Halfling
Gnome


That’s it.


----------



## DND_Reborn

Human

Dwarf (no subraces)
Elf (no subraces)
Halfling (no subraces)

Half-Orc
Gnome (no subraces)
Half-Elf

Maybe...

Centaur
Firbolg
Goliath

And that's pretty much it.


----------



## Reynard

Mezuka said:


> Humans +
> Werebats
> Werebears
> Wereboars
> Wererats
> Weretigers
> Werewolves



In one random 2E campaign I decided each were-thing was associated with a specific race. Only elves could be were-tigers or whatever.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Human

Dwarf
Dragonborn
Tiefling
Elf, high
elf, wood
elf, dark (edit to add: I think elves need subraces to be DnD elves. But pretty muh _only_ elves do, and maybe genasi. Most other races just have cultures (ie dwarves don't need separate rules for clans) or variants (ie dragnborn just need an energy type and some feat support))
Halfling/gnome (one race. They're redundant as is, but the new race should include the tropes of both)
Goliath/Firbolg (one race, same reason)

(all are equally necessary - including dwarves but not dragonborn is a _huge_ step backwards and abandonment of waht makes DnD distinct. Including dragonborn but not dwarves is crapping on decades of fantasy history. Etc.)

Aasimar
Genasi
kolbold

Half-elf
Half-orc
Orc

Centaur
goblin
hobgoblin
bugbear

lizardfolk
kenku
all other beastfolk as a general build-a-beast toolkit

Weird stuff like warforged, shardminds, or plasmoids.


----------



## Charlaquin

*Dragonborn* - As per the Metallic Dragonborn in FToD.

*Dwarf* - with racial weapon/armor proficiencies and ASIs both going away, mountain dwarves lose both their features. So, I suggest making the hill dwarf’s HP bonus a standard dwarf feature, which will help compensate for the loss of their weapon and tool proficiencies.

*Eladrin* - Exactly as seen in MMotM. Replaces high elf as the magical flavor of elf.

*Elf* - Lose trance to further distinguish from Eladrin. Still gets choice of any two weapon/tool proficiencies but can’t swap them out after a long rest. Keep the other base elf features, plus Mask of the Wild.

*Gnome* - As per the Forest Gnome, but with the new MMotM version of Gnome Magic Resistance. (Rock Gnomes can go in the Dragonlance book as “Tinker Gnomes”).

*Halfling* - Gets both halfling resilience and naturally stealthy, since halflings need a bit of a boost anyway.

*Human* - As per the non-variant version.

*Orc* - Exactly as seen in MMotM.

*Tiefling* - Unchanged except that their spells can be used with appropriate-level spell slots.

*Custom Lineage* - Exactly as seen in TCoE. Replaces Variant Human as the “start with a feat” option.


----------



## Lazvon

Human
Half-Elf
Dark Elves (Drow)
High Elves
Wood Elves
Mountain Dwarves
Hill Dwarves
Stout Halflings
Lightfoot Halflings


----------



## Mecheon

1: Human
2: Elf (The three regular ones, they're enough of a Thing nowerdays folks recognise them outside of the D&D space)
3: Dwarf (Just the one. D&D's never really had a good case of making the two dwarves seperate so we can shove the other one off somewhere)
4: Halfing (Just the one again)
5: Gnome (two of them, as say what you will about gnomes, but they're at least differentiated and both archetypes widely known enough they'd fit)
6: Goblin
7: Orc (With probably some half-orc flavour option)
8: Tiefling
9: Dragonborn (Just metalic and chromatic)


----------



## Lanefan

Mezuka said:


> Humans +
> Werebats
> Werebears
> Wereboars
> Wererats
> Weretigers
> Werewolves



Wouldn't it be simpler just to call them all Werehumans and then roll for alternate-form creature during char-gen?


----------



## Scribe

Human

Aasimar (No Subrace)
Genasi (Pick an Element)
Tiefling (No Subrace, SCAG/Pre 4e Style)

Elf (Wood)
Dwarf (Hill)
Orc  (No Subrace)

Dragonborn (Pick a Colour)
Gnome (Rock)
Halfling (Lightfoot)

Elf (Drow)
Dwarf (Duergar)
Goblin

Satyr
Fairy
Harengone

Elf (Astral)
Plasmoid
Gith

Reborn
Dhamphir
Thri-kreen

If I wanted to present the new edition as a wholistic 'we can do it all' that is the list I would go with.

Humans, Planetouched, Tolkien-esque, Monsterous, Fairytales, Space, Under-(whatever), and Gothic. I dont like the whole subrace as a stand alone thing, and I dont think it works for everyone, like Dragonborn...but yeah something like that.


----------



## Cadence

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Yeah so blarg my fighter looks for any stray cats in the village.  He ran out of rations a day ago and wants to stock up.
> 
> Younger players stare in abject disgust.
> 
> What man?! I am just playing my character!



It's good to see you've embraced the true spirit of it!

Looks like no one has quite nailed it down yet, either:


----------



## deganawida

Snarf Zagyg said:


> 1. Human.
> 2. See (1).



Honestly, after much thought, I also have concluded this. The problem with elves and dwarves and whatnot in the core, apart from their implementation owing a lot to Tolkien, is that not every setting should include these things. Have just humans, and then develop what races are in each setting organically.


----------



## Reynard

The "Mos Eisley" issue of race means that ultimately most players are really a) just picking stat bonuses or b) are just picking aesthetics,  and no one is actually picking "this alien mindset." Because Tolkien was such a strong influence,  it was easier for folks to pair a very "gamist" choice with a "narrative" one. But there is no equivalent for Dragonborn or Tieflings. I won't special to whether "gamist" beats out "narrative" in those cases, but broadly speaking i don't think the choice is usually culturally driven.

I think that the higher number of available races equates to a lower interest in making any particular race interesting and culturally distinct.


----------



## J.Quondam

deganawida said:


> Honestly, after much thought, I also have concluded this. The problem with elves and dwarves and whatnot in the core, apart from their implementation owing a lot to Tolkien, is that not every setting should include these things. Have just humans, and then develop what races are in each setting organically.



Yeah, I'm of similar mind. Although personally I'd open that up a bit and, instead of starting with humans _necessarily_, just start with one (or at most two or three) of _whatever_ races, then develop the rest organically from that seed.
Starting from, for example, tabaxi + grippli would lead to a very different world-building exercise than one starting from humans.

edit: @doctorbadwolf started a thread last year about settings based around very limited race and class selections. Those constraints generated a lot of fun ideas.
Personally, I think that those sorts of restrictions can be a real boon to creativity.


----------



## Elodan

Human

Dwarf
Elf
Halfling

Aasimar
Tiefling
Genasi

Dragonborn
Warforged
Gnome

Subraces as cultures of the different races.


----------



## Hriston

1. Human

2. High Elf
3. Hill Dwarf
4. Lightfoot Halfling

5. Goblin
6. Orc
7. Sprite

8. Grey Elf
9. Pixie
10. Rock Gnome

11. Hobgoblin
12. Kobold
13. Orog


----------



## FitzTheRuke

All of them that weren't in Monsters of the Multiverse.


----------



## SteveC

payn said:


> Whatever Alf is.



I just wanted to say that I've had a very serious day and you just let me wash off all of that. In other words: bravo and thanks for making my day a better one.


----------



## Corinnguard

el-remmen said:


> Human
> Dwarf
> Elf
> Gnome
> Halfling
> Orc



This is the standard line-up for Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition.   The only heritage missing from your list is Planetouched.


----------



## RuinousPowers

Human
Genasi (air, earth, fire, water)
Gnome (deep, rock, forest)

Loxodon
Tabaxi
Dragonborn (chromatic, metallic, gem)

Changeling
Warforged
Autognome

Elf (high, wood, drow)
Dwarf (hill, mountain, gray)
Plasmoid

Honestly, I feel compelled to add elves and dwarves out of nostalgia/compliance with the Forgotten Realms, even though I think of them as evolutionary dead-ends, and would like to see the future of the game veer away from Ye Olde Faux Middle Age Britain and into more fantastical settings.


----------



## delericho

Yaarel said:


> The removal of ability score improvements plus the addition of background feats, obsoletes the subraces.
> 
> Still the elf does better with two saliently different races:
> 
> • elf (astral-ish, teleport, spell-per-day, proficiency swaps, any cantrip)
> • elf (wood-ish, elven accuracy, darkvision, speed, any cantrip)
> 
> The astral-ish elf covers: astral, eladrin, aevendrow, lorendrow, shadar-kai, pale.
> 
> The wood-ish elf covers: wood, high, udadrow, grugach, 3e wild, sea elf (waterbreating cantrip).



I have no real doubt that the PHB we _actually_ get will contain multiple elves. I'd rather it didn't, but the designers' ongoing fetish for elf-love remains strong.

However, one thing I am sure of is that the split between aevendrow, lorendrow and udadrow _must _be a matter of culture, and not one of subrace - it's problematic to have an all-evil subrace of elves, and splitting that subrace into three doesn't actually fix anything if one of them remains all-evil.

(Actually, I'd like the split between aevendrow, lorendrow and udadrow consigned to the fire, never to be seen again. And whoever came up with those awful names should be banned from using language ever again, as a lesson to others. But that's a whole other rant.)


----------



## Horwath

1; Core
Human
Elf/Eladrin
Dwarf
Orc

2; various half species of humans;
Half-elf
Half-orc
Mul
Aasimar
Tiefling
Dhampir

3; uncommon, not a priority
Dragonborn
Warforged
Shifter
Changeling
Genasi

4; monstrous races;
Goblins
hobgoblins
bugbears
yuan-ti
minoraur
etc...

5; small races, don't really need them
Halfling
gnome


----------



## EzekielRaiden

There are 12 classes, so 12 ancestries makes sense to me.

Human (2 variants)
Elf (3 variants)
Half-Elf
Dragonborn (3 variants)
Tiefling (2 or 3 variants)
Half-orc
Halfling (4 variants: absorbs Gnome)
Dwarf (3 variants)
Genasi (4 variants)
Goliath
Aasimar (possibly 2-3 variants?)
Changeling

Those are the most popular options, with all "subrace" variants combined together, in more-or-less order of popularity on D&D Beyond. It's the data-based approach.

If I had my druthers, we'd probably drop Goliath and put in Minotaur instead, and maybe have Satyr instead of Changeling. But I like more "thematic" options and I find Goliaths and Changelings a bit bland in terms of theme.

Edit: Ah, "subrace" is being elevated, rather than considered to be just a variant. In which case, I guess I have to cut some from the above.

Human (Standard, Variant) [2 total options]
Elf (High, Wood, Drow) [3 total options]
Half-elf
Dragonborn (Metallic, Chromatic, Gem) [3 total options]
Tiefling
Half-Orc
Halfling (Forest/Lightfoot, Plains/Stoutheart, Crags/Defthand, Deep/Ghostwise) [4 total options]
Dwarf (Mountain, Hill, Duergar) [3 total options]
Genasi (Air, Fire, Earth, Water) [4 total options]

That's 22: 2+3+1+3+1 up through Tiefling is 10, and from Half-Orc to Genasi is 1+4+3+4 = 12. Only had to drop Goliath, Changeling, and Tiefling variants. Could reclaim Goliath by dropping Duergar, if necessary.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Horwath said:


> 3; uncommon, not a priority
> Dragonborn



Might be unwise, considering dragonborn are the 4th most popular race in the game as of 2019, after humans collectively, elves collectively, and half-elves. They might not be a priority _for you_, but they've become a staple race and wildly popular among modern fans. (And, just to be clear, this is _not_ just me being a dragonborn fanatic. I'm legit as surprised as the next person that dragonborn are so popular now. Excluding them would genuinely upset a significant chunk of fans.)


----------



## Blue

MoonSong said:


> None.
> 
> Race is 100% fluff with no mechanical advantage. That also means no extra bonuses to stats.



So are you saying that you explicitly want to deny the possibility of playing, for example, a winged race?  Or a large one?  Or one that can see in the dark?  Do feel that the majority of players will agree with you?


----------



## Horwath

Jer said:


> One that I think actually will be in the revised phb is the Warforged. All the other Eberron races are in MoM but the Warforged is conspicuous by its absence.



i always found strange that warforged didn't have darkvision.

You built them for war...imagine today sending soldiers to war without nightvision goggles...well, lets say that I wont comment on what war...


----------



## Blue

deganawida said:


> Honestly, after much thought, I also have concluded this. The problem with elves and dwarves and whatnot in the core, apart from their implementation owing a lot to Tolkien, is that not every setting should include these things. Have just humans, and then develop what races are in each setting organically.



Dark Sun has shown us that you can remove core races.  If the majority of settings have Elves and Dwarves, leave them in.  I think they are expected for D&D, and expected by new players.


----------



## Yaarel

deganawida said:


> Honestly, after much thought, I also have concluded this. The problem with elves and dwarves and whatnot in the core, apart from their implementation owing a lot to Tolkien, is that not every setting should include these things. Have just humans, and then develop what races are in each setting organically.



I am sympathetic to the 2024 Players Handbook only listing the human race, with a note to consult with the DM for other races that exist in the setting.

This approach pairs well with an other contention of mine, the Players Handbook should be as setting neutral as possible, except for popular notions about medieval-esque plus the existence of magic.

All worldbuilding needs to be in the DMs Guide, relating to possible cosmologies, worlds, races, and cultures. Especially the Cleric class in the Players Handbook must not lock these assumptions in.

At the same time that the 2024 Players Handbook comes out, there needs to be a 2024 Forgotten Realms Adventurers Guide. It spells out the cosmology, world of Toril, races, and cultures that are familiar to 2014 5e players now. So, this 2024 FRAG (heh) is a core book, and is where to find the beloved races and cultures, including elves and dwarves, among others.

But the beauty of this corebook FRAG, is it becomes easy to swap in, instead, the Eberron Adventurers Guide, Astral Adventurers Guide, Dragonlance Adventurers Guide, and so on.

Each adventurers guide rewrites any races shared with other settings, so the descriptions exactly match who the races are within a particular setting.

Most importantly, it becomes easier for the DM to swap in a homebrew world. Perhaps the homebrew "adventurers guide" starts off local, with a few sheets of paper with brief notes describing the races who inhabit a particular town. Eventually by the time the players reach level 20, there can be a substantial amount of information about the cosmology and other parts of it.

Meanwhile the 2024 Players Handbook, just has humans, as an example of how a race works mechanically, and a few medievalesque multicultural backgrounds relating to the humans.


----------



## Tonguez

Medium Humanoid - choose traits
Small Humanoid - choose traits
Large Humanoid - choose traits
Tiny Humanoid - choose traits

Ancestry Traits and Cultural Traits go into Settings Lists


----------



## Laurefindel

My preference would be to breakup races by themes, with the standard Tolkienesque theme as default in the PHB.

Then include all the others in campaign setting (or regional settings), emphasizing on the fact that default races do not need to be made available in a specific setting, or that what is described as humans, elves, dwarves, halflings can be different human cultures in another setting.

[edit] but I do think that what will end up being in the PHB is everything that was left out of Monster of the Multiverse…


----------



## Yaarel

delericho said:


> I have no real doubt that the PHB we _actually_ get will contain multiple elves. I'd rather it didn't, but the designers' ongoing fetish for elf-love remains strong.



Heh, this thread welcomes the way 5e now treats subraces as separate races. I feel this is important, so each race concept can be fully described narratively and mechanically without being constrained by base race requirements. For example, it annoys me if every elf must have darkvision, even when it makes less sense. Separate races is a way to format a family of related races.

However. The call for there to only be ONE kind elf without any variants, convinced me pretty much immediately. If the elf player can choose the cantrip, and spell, and background feat, there doesnt need to be any other races, mechanically. Let eladrin cultures tend toward certain cantrips and spells, and drow cultures tend toward other cantrips and spells. Same mechanics. Player chooses. Setting recommends but doesnt require.

On retrospect, the elf does need two separate races. But both of them need to be called an "elf" or elf fans will cry if their favorite version doesnt get the name elf. Heh, I know I would.

Lets call them "sun elf" and "moon elf". The sun elf is the same thing as the astral elf, mechanically. The astral elf is well thought out, and its trancing is flavorful with useful proficiency swaps. It has the Misty Step teleportation per proficiency times per day. The teleport is highly useful in my experience, for any chosen class. (Might as well rename the spell itself "Elf Step".) Instead of a preassigned cantrip, let the player choose any cantrip from any spell list, so the race mechanics can be more useful for more elf cultures. Finally, instead of "sunny darkvision", choose any level 1 spell and cast it for free per day. So, elf races that cast innate spells, can use this race instead.

The moon elf is culturally nocturnal, but enjoys the twilights after sunset and before sunrise. It has darkvision and the twilights appear glorious because of this darkvision. Where the sun elf has Misty Step, the moon elf has the precisely agile Elven Accuracy. It shares the same trancing including proficiency swaps, and choice of cantrip for innate magic. But the moon elf is quick improving speed instead of gaining a spell.

The moon elf can handle most of the standard elf subraces, including wood, high, and uda-drow, plus FR moon, 3e wild, 1e grugach, 2e-4e athas, and others.

The sun elf can handle most of the exotic elf subraces, including astral, eladrin, 1e grey and faerie, 2e-3e-4e FR sun, Wildemount pale, and probably aeven-drow, and maybe loren-drow.

Change Darkvision and Waterbreathing into cantrips that any caster can choose. So a "moon elf" that takes Waterbreathing is defacto a "sea elf". A "sun elf" who takes Waterbreathing might be a nixie. A "sun elf" that takes Darkvision might be an aeven-drow or a shadar-kai.

A background feat can supply the uda-drow culture the Lolth spell traditions, like Faerie Fire and Darkness. Same goes for other backgrounds for other elf cultures.

Besides the two different elf mechanics, one for "sun" and one for "moon", all of the different kinds of elves are strictly cultures. Heh, two elf mechanics to rule them all.

The physical appearance of any elf can be whatever a player wants. It is already D&D canon that pale even whitish drow exist, and likewise dark even blackish astral elves exist. A player can choose any appearance, especially any reallife human characteristic.

Two elf races is actually enough for all of the 100+ elves in D&D traditions.

In the default lore, the astral elves, a kind of sun elf, are the original elves that reproduced from the blood of Corellon while in the astral dominion. The drow elves, a kind of moon elf, are the original material elves, who materialized into the material plane becoming creatures of flesh and blood. In the aftermath of their schism, the elves scattered across the multiverse, including elves of fey and shadow. Other elves of flesh and blood, including wood elves and high elves, are also kinds of moon elf.





delericho said:


> However, one thing I am sure of is that the split between aevendrow, lorendrow and udadrow _must _be a matter of culture, and not one of subrace - it's problematic to have an all-evil subrace of elves, and splitting that subrace into three doesn't actually fix anything if one of them remains all-evil.
> 
> (Actually, I'd like the split between aevendrow, lorendrow and udadrow consigned to the fire, never to be seen again. And whoever came up with those awful names should be banned from using language ever again, as a lesson to others. But that's a whole other rant.)



I am comfortable with uda, aeven, and loren, being different but related elven ethnicities. Same goes for wood elf and high elf as ethnicities. I view the high elf as admixing the eladrin fey spirits. The 1e Greyhawk grey elves are eladrin who choose to materialize, while the faerie are the ones that remain in the feywild.



Two elf races represents everything well enough.

I hope, in 2024, we only see two kinds of elven races mechanics.

Anything else is a cultural background.


----------



## Tallifer

Munchkin
Paper Doll
House Elf
Muggle
Vadhagh
Green Man of Mars
Fremen
Deryni
Talking Beast
Sparkly Vampire
Deep One half-breed
Ent
Gingerbread Man
Cookie Gnome
Schmoo
Wild Man (see image)
Mushroom Man
Dufflepod
Gelfling
Man


----------



## el-remmen

Corinnguard said:


> This is the standard line-up for Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition.   The only heritage missing from your list is Planetouched.




I just might have that book.


----------



## MoonSong

Blue said:


> So are you saying that you explicitly want to deny the possibility of playing, for example, a winged race?  Or a large one?  Or one that can see in the dark?  Do feel that the majority of players will agree with you?



Maybe at the cost of a feat? I mean I have nothing in principle against having fluffy and meaty races, but the current approach just feels like an excuse for powergaming where every race is just human+ (even humans themselves). We cannot have races be truly alien/inhuman. We cannot have them have very developed culture and strong cultural views. We cannot have them have meaningful weaknesses. We cannot have them have anything truly unique. Oh, but they can be a vehicle to gain more power where the right or wrong choice can make a character useless or overpowered!...  My approach is more of a "throw the towel" gesture than anything else.


----------



## see

Dwarf
Elf
Halfling
Human
"Custom Origin"

No subraces, and the space saved used to provide "origin feats" for the custom origin option.


----------



## jmartkdr2

I believe the worst thing WotC could do is remove any races from the PHB. They will revise and might add, but all the stuff in the 5.0 PHB will still be in the 5.5 PHB and that's the right call. All of the PHB races have their fans. 

(I do hope they remove subraces from races that don't need them like dwarves and halflings. I mentioned before that elves do need them, and I can see the argument either way on gnomes, but other than that the PHB races shouldn't have them.)

If they do add, I think the most likely candidates are orcs, goblinoids, and kolbolds - in that order, although kolbolds should be in front of goblins. Goliaths and tabaxi are in the next tier, along with other planetouched and more elves. Custom Linage is very likely to get in via sidebar.


----------



## Blue

MoonSong said:


> Maybe at the cost of a feat? I mean I have nothing in principle against having fluffy and meaty races, but the current approach just feels like an excuse for powergaming where every race is just human+ (even humans themselves).



By that definition of powergaming, classes are also powergaming.  This is a heroic game - these are the PCs.  Those stat blocks are not the race, the mechanics of which are in the MM.



MoonSong said:


> We cannot have races be truly alien/inhuman.



Which is true but entirely meaningless.  People want to play these tropes in a game that is designed to allow people to play characters that aren't themselves.  Being truly alien is not a prerequisite in the slightest.



MoonSong said:


> We cannot have them have very developed culture and strong cultural views.



Of course we can - in a setting book that defines cultures.  Take a look at Eberron.  Multiple cultures of elves, multiple cultures of halflings, multiple cultures of dwarves.  You complain about not truly alien but imply that a core book should push monoculture races across all settings?  No, culture isn't what belongs in the base rules, except maybe a dusting for the default setting.



MoonSong said:


> We cannot have them have meaningful weaknesses.



Of course we can.  That we don't does not mean we can't.  In previous editions we have.  And frankly, in many cases lack of a strength is a weakness - look how the non-Darkvision races are treated right now among some groups.  Even in a "no weakness" view we have small creatures who have problems with heavy weapons, we have centaurs who can't climb well.



MoonSong said:


> We cannot have them have anything truly unique.



"Truly unique" is not a requirement either.  We're looking to fill tropes and archetypes that people are looking for - truly unique is not an advantage, it's a penalty.



MoonSong said:


> Oh, but they can be a vehicle to gain more power where the right or wrong choice can make a character useless or overpowered!...  My approach is more of a "throw the towel" gesture than anything else.



You said we can't have weaknesses, yet now you say we can make someone underpowered.  Pick one side of the story and stick to it.

If everyone has abilities, then everyone has abilities.  And yes, that may mean the centaur can carry more than the sprite and run faster than the dwarf.  But the sprite and the dwarf each have their own advantages.  Yes, a combonation of class & race may play different than other combinations - something that has been part of D&D since it's inception.

But again, people want and expect races that differentiate themselves mechanically.  As long as it says D&D, that'll be part of it.  I can't see no mechanical effects for races as something they pick for the 50th Anniversary PHB.


----------



## Professor Murder

Professor Murder said:


> Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Halfling, Gnome, Dragonborn, Orcs
> Then
> Lineages: Aasimar, Tiefling, Genasi. All can be applied to the races above.
> Then
> Race Specific Lineages: The preexisting subraces for the above races. Half Elf and Half Orc are also lineages now for humans, but rename them to something more in keeping with advancing sensibilities.



~on reading the One DnD Doc for character origins~
Someone pick up that phone. 
Because I called it.


----------



## Corinnguard

Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition has it where the subraces are represented by a particular culture. If you are playing a Dwarf, you pick the Dwarven heritage. Then you have the choice of Mountain Dwarf, Hill Dwarf, or Deep Dwarf as your culture.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

MoonSong said:


> Maybe at the cost of a feat? I mean I have nothing in principle against having fluffy and meaty races, but the current approach just feels like an excuse for powergaming where every race is just human+ (even humans themselves).



A rather jaundiced view of the situation. Particularly because if everything is "human+” including actual humans...doesn't that just reset where the baseline is? It sounds to me like you are passing off a normative argument ("races should always be weak and have few powers, it is wrong that 5e is not written this way") as a much easier-to-defend descriptive one ("these options are imbalanced and need to be brought back into balance in order to fit with the game.")

I also find it curious that you invoke power gaming and other balance-related concepts. Are you of the opinion that 5e is supposed to be a pretty strongly balanced game? That's not generally what I have understood 5e fans to think.



MoonSong said:


> We cannot have races be truly alien/inhuman.



It is very nearly impossible for us to imagine truly, totally alien races, let alone roleplay them. This should not surprise you. People want characters they can relate to and enjoy. That means there will be many points in common with humanity, because the players are human. Your desire for "truly alien/inhuman" options is, frankly, silly; you are asking for things that most people will not want to play. Why would WotC make things most people definitely won't want to play?



MoonSong said:


> We cannot have them have very developed culture and strong cultural views.



This is either outright false, or correct and a very good thing, depending on what you mean by it.

If what you mean is, "it is literally impossible to develop cultures in 5e D&D now," then you are straight-up wrong, and I suspect arguing in bad faith. It is in fact easier to do this sort of thing, because we are not chained to the notion that culture and race must be precisely equivalent; we can have polyracial cultures and polycultural races, which is more grounded, provides greater freedom for world building, and enables a wider variety of characters than before, without removing anything whatsoever. We can have Carrot Ironfoundersson, the six-foot-plus "dwarf" who is secretly the human heir to the throne of Ankh-Morpork. Or the elf who was raised in a traditional Remnant Arkhosia enclave, carrying on the proud traditions of Lost Arkhosia. Etc., etc.

Of course, what you could be meaning is "we can't rely on the crutch of racial monocultures and monoracial cultures." In which case, you are 100% correct. This is a very good thing, as already outlined.



MoonSong said:


> We cannot have them have meaningful weaknesses.



Why not? I genuinely don't understand the argument you're making here.



MoonSong said:


> We cannot have them have anything truly unique.



Ah yes, because dragon breath is definitely something everyone can do. Come on, at least TRY to make an argument that isn't a CR -1 Straw Golem.



MoonSong said:


> Oh, but they can be a vehicle to gain more power where the right or wrong choice can make a character useless or overpowered!...  My approach is more of a "throw the towel" gesture than anything else.



You have demonstrated nothing of the kind other than by assertion. Back up that assertion, if you would please. Show how this is the case. Show how choosing hill dwarf or dragonborn makes you "useless" as a Wizard or how being a halfling makes you "useless" as a Barbarian.

Because otherwise you're just using hyperbole and proof by assertion here.


----------



## Umbran

EzekielRaiden said:


> and I suspect arguing in bad faith.



*Mod Note:*
I think you will find that incidents in which an accusation of bad faith makes the discussion _better_ are scarcer than hen's teeth.  Please don't do this.  If you figure that's what is happening, there is no further point in discussing with them anyway, so quietly disengaging is your best bet.


----------



## Lanefan

EzekielRaiden said:


> A rather jaundiced view of the situation. Particularly because if everything is "human+” including actual humans...doesn't that just reset where the baseline is? It sounds to me like you are passing off a normative argument ("races should always be weak and have few powers, it is wrong that 5e is not written this way") as a much easier-to-defend descriptive one ("these options are imbalanced and need to be brought back into balance in order to fit with the game.")



Not so much imbalanced as power-creeping.

Human used to be the baseline.  Now Human+ becomes the baseline.

Other species gained strengths and compensatory weaknesses compared to this baseline, resulting in a vaguely-balanced set of playable species.  Now those compensatory weaknesses have been largely removed, the only option is to also remove those gained strengths, thus making all the species much more similar in play.


EzekielRaiden said:


> It is very nearly impossible for us to imagine truly, totally alien races, let alone roleplay them. This should not surprise you. People want characters they can relate to and enjoy. That means there will be many points in common with humanity, because the players are human. Your desire for "truly alien/inhuman" options is, frankly, silly; you are asking for things that most people will not want to play. Why would WotC make things most people definitely won't want to play?



They've been making Gnomes since the TSR days, so clearly this isn't really an issue for them. 


EzekielRaiden said:


> We can have Carrot Ironfoundersson, the six-foot-plus "dwarf" who is secretly the human heir to the throne of Ankh-Morpork. Or the elf who was raised in a traditional Remnant Arkhosia enclave, carrying on the proud traditions of Lost Arkhosia. Etc., etc.



You can have that now, only Carrot is statted out as a Human (which makes sense, as that's what he in fact is).  The problems come if the system lets you stat him out as a Dwarf and give him Dwarven abilities when in fact he's not a Dwarf at all.


EzekielRaiden said:


> You have demonstrated nothing of the kind other than by assertion. Back up that assertion, if you would please. Show how this is the case. Show how *choosing hill dwarf or dragonborn makes you "useless" as a Wizard or how being a halfling makes you "useless" as a Barbarian.*



Can't speak for @MoonSong here but for my part _the bolded is exactly what I want_ - that some species naturally trend toward some classes and away from others.  If every species can be every class equally well then much of the point of even having different playable species is lost.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Pod races.


----------



## MoonSong

Lanefan said:


> Not so much imbalanced as power-creeping.
> 
> Human used to be the baseline.  Now Human+ becomes the baseline.
> 
> Other species gained strengths and compensatory weaknesses compared to this baseline, resulting in a vaguely-balanced set of playable species.  Now those compensatory weaknesses have been largely removed, the only option is to also remove those gained strengths, thus making all the species much more similar in play.
> 
> They've been making Gnomes since the TSR days, so clearly this isn't really an issue for them.
> 
> You can have that now, only Carrot is statted out as a Human (which makes sense, as that's what he in fact is).  The problems come if the system lets you stat him out as a Dwarf and give him Dwarven abilities when in fact he's not a Dwarf at all.
> 
> Can't speak for @MoonSong here but for my part _the bolded is exactly what I want_ - that some species naturally trend toward some classes and away from others.  If every species can be every class equally well then much of the point of even having different playable species is lost.



More or less the same, as I keep saying I'm old school for mechanics, modern(pre-modern?) for flavor. I'm fine with halfling barbarians, what I'm not fine with is them working the same as a half-orc barbarian.

I don't have any problem with special snowflake characters, in fact the opposite -just read my tag line!-, but they become a problem for me when they are but a thinly veiled excuse for powergaming, for squeezing every last plus possible out of the system. And the way we are going, races are becoming blander and blander to the point there is like no longer a point to them. If a dwarf isn't meaningfully different from a human, and doesn't have anything strongly culturally understood as dwarfish, the choice between one or the other becomes basically a choice of superpower, and hey I like Legion of Superheroes, but not on my D&D.


----------



## TwoSix

MoonSong said:


> If a dwarf isn't meaningfully different from a human, and doesn't have anything strongly culturally understood as dwarfish, the choice between one or the other becomes basically a choice of superpower, and hey I like Legion of Superheroes, but not on my D&D.



The problem here is that "meaningfully different" is doing an awful lot of work.  How many features, and what level of strength of those features, is required before the distinctions become "meaningful"?

And to the cultural point, I think we're all aware at this point that the core PHB isn't meant to be culturally specific.  Dwarves and elves are all culturally distinct for every published setting, and the core rules are simply meant to evoke the core concepts of the race, the absolute bare minimum to suggest the race's most commonly agreed upon tropes.


----------



## Lanefan

TwoSix said:


> The problem here is that "meaningfully different" is doing an awful lot of work.  How many features, and what level of strength of those features, is required before the distinctions become "meaningful"?



That all Elves be +2 to Dex and -1 to each of Strength and Con would be meaningful.

That all Half-Orcs are +1 to each of Str and Con and -1 to each of Int and Cha would be meaningful.

That Dwarves are banned from arcane-cast classes as something about their genetics means they cannot access [the weave-equivalent] would be meaningful.

How's that for a start?


----------



## TwoSix

Lanefan said:


> How's that for a start?



It certainly helps me understand the ask, although it seems a better fit for an OSR style game, not a modern game focused on unique character building.


----------



## Scribe

TwoSix said:


> It certainly helps me understand the ask, although it seems a better fit for an OSR style game, not a modern game focused on unique character building.



None of those restrictions would negate unique character building.


----------



## TwoSix

Scribe said:


> None of those restrictions would negate unique character building.



Yes, but it would restrict unrestricted character building, which is the modern trend.


----------



## Scribe

TwoSix said:


> Yes, but it would restrict unrestricted character building, which is the modern trend.



Yes, yes indeed.


----------



## TheSword

Anuirean
Brecht
Khinasi
Rjurik
Vos
Half Elf
Dwarf
Halfling

You know if I could wave a magic wand…


----------



## Cold Iron Bound

Right then, 22 races for the PHB. Which would make it rather bloated, but it's my imaginary PHB, so no one will get hurt.

Human
Dwarf
Halfling
Gnome
High Elf
Wood Elf
Drow
Sea Elf
Dragonborn
Orc
Tiefling
Changeling
Duergar
Fairy
Goliath
Githyanki
Githzerai
Goblin
Warforged
Deva
Satyr
Tabaxi


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Lanefan said:


> That all Elves be +2 to Dex and -1 to each of Strength and Con would be meaningful.
> 
> That all Half-Orcs are +1 to each of Str and Con and -1 to each of Int and Cha would be meaningful.
> 
> That Dwarves are banned from arcane-cast classes as something about their genetics means they cannot access [the weave-equivalent] would be meaningful.
> 
> How's that for a start?



Why is +2 Dex, -1 Str, -1 Con more meaningful than Trance or casting spells without spell slots or being immune to sleep magic? This is a huge sticking point for me. This doesn't seem "meaningful" _at all_ to me. If anything, it is utterly divorced from a meaningful identity. These dry numbers tell me nothing at all useful or interesting about the unique characteristics of a race. Dragon breath and celestial wings and somehow surviving crazy dangers and fighting on despite taking lethal wounds...these things are meaningful to me. +1 Intelligence? Who cares about that? A single half-feat erases that difference instantly. A tiny difference in rolled stats obviates that from the word "go." How is that more meaningful than these active, dynamic, unique abilities?

Why is it good to hard-ban classes? How does that actually _add_ to the identity of the dwarf? How is this more flavorful than having higher base HP or innately knowing shape and "seeing" everything around you in stone-carved locations? Surely it is better to make something like that setting-specific (especially with dwarves, who don't need any more reasons for people to choose not to play them, they're already rare enough as it is.)


----------



## Lanefan

EzekielRaiden said:


> Why is +2 Dex, -1 Str, -1 Con more meaningful than Trance or casting spells without spell slots or being immune to sleep magic? This is a huge sticking point for me. This doesn't seem "meaningful" _at all_ to me. If anything, it is utterly divorced from a meaningful identity. These dry numbers tell me nothing at all useful or interesting about the unique characteristics of a race. Dragon breath and celestial wings and somehow surviving crazy dangers and fighting on despite taking lethal wounds...these things are meaningful to me. +1 Intelligence? Who cares about that? A single half-feat erases that difference instantly.



Fortunately for me, perhaps, dragon breath*, celestial wings, and half-feats aren't things I need to worry about.

But the numbers IMO greatly inform what the species is all about and how it presents.  For example, that a typical Elf is more dextrous and less strong than a typical Human tells me a rather great amount about Elves.

* - except from the opposition side, every now and then. 


EzekielRaiden said:


> A tiny difference in rolled stats obviates that from the word "go." How is that more meaningful than these active, dynamic, unique abilities?
> 
> Why is it good to hard-ban classes? How does that actually _add_ to the identity of the dwarf?



Significantly - it says "here's a species that doesn't do magic well".  This, if course, is the downside that pays for the upside of their ideally being way better warriors than most others.

One can even take it a step further and say that magic items have a small chance of not functioning if used-held-worn by a Dwarf.


EzekielRaiden said:


> How is this more flavorful than having higher base HP or innately knowing shape and "seeing" everything around you in stone-carved locations? Surely it is better to make something like that setting-specific (especially with dwarves, who don't need any more reasons for people to choose not to play them, they're already rare enough as it is.)



Wasn't intending to specifically pick on Dwarves; other than Humans I'd like pretty much every species to have a few banned classes in order to perhaps make Humans a bit more appealing to play.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Lanefan said:


> Fortunately for me, perhaps, dragon breath*, celestial wings, and half-feats aren't things I need to worry about.
> 
> But the numbers IMO greatly inform what the species is all about and how it presents.  For example, that a typical Elf is more dextrous and less strong than a typical Human tells me a rather great amount about Elves.
> 
> * - except from the opposition side, every now and then.
> 
> Significantly - it says "here's a species that doesn't do magic well".  This, if course, is the downside that pays for the upside of their ideally being way better warriors than most others.
> 
> One can even take it a step further and say that magic items have a small chance of not functioning if used-held-worn by a Dwarf.
> 
> Wasn't intending to specifically pick on Dwarves; other than Humans I'd like pretty much every species to have a few banned classes in order to perhaps make Humans a bit more appealing to play.



Humans absolutely do not need more things to make people play them. They have always been the most popular option, period. Every edition, every non-D&D system I'm aware of that offers such a choice, (nearly) every video game for which we have statistics. Humans are far and away the most common option. If you count part-human options like tiefling, half-elf, etc. as humans too, then humans are legit an actual majority of characters in D&D.

There is no need to make them "more appealing." They already _are_ appealing, immensely so. They would be appealing if they outright sucked, which they do not. (Well, standard human isn't _great_ in 5e, it's passable but not very strong, but variant human is very powerful, and the listed human in One D&D is closer to the latter.)

The irony of course is that some popular options actually _did_ suck in the PHB. Like dragonborn, which got a massive rework specifically because they were always a bit below par compared to nearly everything else in the PHB--and yet their popularity did nothing but grow over the three years we got clear stats from D&D Beyond (2017, 2018, 2019.)


----------



## Bill Zebub

MoonSong said:


> If a dwarf isn't meaningfully different from a human,




I read that…and please tell me if I’m reading this wrong…to mean that you find an ASI, which anybody can get at 4th level, to be more “meaningfully different” than tremorsense.

Which I find surprising, since in the same post you decried powergaming, but seemed to care about flavor.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> But the numbers IMO greatly inform what the species is all about and how it presents.  For example, that a typical Elf is more dextrous and less strong than a typical Human tells me a rather great amount about Elves.




I know you have a preference for PCs and NPCs to be mechanically equivalent, using the same generation methods, but that’s just not the case in 5e. 

So your “typical” elf can still be more dexterous and less strong than your “typical” human, regardless of PC chargen rules.


----------



## Parmandur

A bit late to the party here, but I'd actually be thrilled if the current UA just became the Race chapter in the new PHB.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Parmandur said:


> A bit late to the party here, but I'd actually be thrilled if the current UA just became the Rave chapter in the new PHB.



They would have to add ecstasy to the equipment list.


----------



## MoonSong

Bill Zebub said:


> I read that…and please tell me if I’m reading this wrong…to mean that you find an ASI, which anybody can get at 4th level, to be more “meaningfully different” than tremorsense.
> 
> Which I find surprising, since in the same post you decried powergaming, but seemed to care about flavor.



I care about mechanics and flavor as a whole. There is not one without the other. Without backing mechanics, flavor is just toothless easy to ignore fluff, without connected flavor mechanics are just a powergaming tool. If you aren't ready to commit a mechanical cost to your flavor, it is unearned. If you ignore how ridiculous and convoluted the flavor gets for a mechanical combo, you are a powergamer and not getting any meaningful experience you couldn't get from a videogame.

I invite you to read my tagline. It summarizes my views pretty well.


----------



## SakanaSensei

Human
Dwarf
Elf
Halfling
Orc
Goblin
Dragonborn
Tiefling (visually any of the above with influence from the lower planes)
Aasimar (visually any of the above with influence from the upper planes)

^ Would be my ideal set. Lots of the "normal" options, lots of the more typically seen as "monstrous" options so we can put them on a level playing field, then some outer planes shenanigans options. 

In an ideal world, I'd love for biracial characters to be able to get some benefit from both parents a la A5E's approach, but I'm fine with the simplicity in the Origins UA.


----------



## Bill Zebub

MoonSong said:


> If you aren't ready to commit a mechanical cost to your flavor, it is unearned.




Um, ok.  I don't think continuing this dialog has any prayer of accomplishing anything.

Happy gaming.


----------



## CleverNickName

Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling, and then some more robust rules for creating everything else per _Tasha's Cauldron of Everything._


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> I know you have a preference for PCs and NPCs to be mechanically equivalent, using the same generation methods, but that’s just not the case in 5e.
> 
> So your “typical” elf can still be more dexterous and less strong than your “typical” human, regardless of PC chargen rules.



And if PC char-gen rules don't reflect the differences inherent in the greater setting population then they're useless.  5e flat-out has this wrong, and is a poorer game for it.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> And if PC char-gen rules don't reflect the differences inherent in the greater setting population then they're useless.  5e flat-out has this wrong, and is a poorer game for it.




They do "reflect" those differences.  They're just not identical.


----------



## Greg K

Human
Dwarf
Elf
Gnome
Halfling

Goblin
Goliath
(edit) Kobold: (can't believe I forgot this)
Orc
LIzardman
Shifter

Deva*
Dragonborn*
Tiefling (Abyssal, Infernal)*
Warforged*

I'd take a page out of Fantasy Craft and make things Genesai, Half-Dwarf, Half-Elf and Half-Orc feats that can only be taken/applied at level 1.
* maybe use feats ffor these as well


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> They do "reflect" those differences.  They're just not identical.



If, let's say, a typical Elf in the population is on average two points higher in dexterity than a typical Human, then if PC Elves are considered to be on the exact same 3-18 dexterity bell curve as PC Humans the overall setting population isn't being reflected well at all.  The Elves are being mechanically forced to be more Human-like (and not the reverse; as the same lack of baked-in adjustment applies to Dwarves and Hobbits etc. whose typical stats vary in different directions from Human than do those of Elves), thus significantly reducing the difference between PC-playable species.

Not that a flat + or - number is the best reflection either; far better is to determine where in relation to the 3-18 bell curve the low and high extremes for each species' stats would be, and then adjust the whole bell curve to that.  So, if one decides that the bell curve for Elf dexterity runs from 6-19 instead of 3-18 (3-18 being the universal Human baseline) then a roll of 3 in dex gets boosted to a 6, a roll of 18 goes up to 19, and a roll of 11 goes up to 13.  Similarly the range of Hobbit strength might only be 3-16, meaning a rolled 18 gets knocked down to 16, a rolled 10 goes down to 9, and a rolled 3 stays as a 3.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Lanefan said:


> If, let's say, a typical Elf in the population is on average two points higher in dexterity than a typical Human, then if PC Elves are considered to be on the exact same 3-18 dexterity bell curve as PC Humans the overall setting population isn't being reflected well at all.  The Elves are being mechanically forced to be more Human-like (and not the reverse; as the same lack of baked-in adjustment applies to Dwarves and Hobbits etc. whose typical stats vary in different directions from Human than do those of Elves), thus significantly reducing the difference between PC-playable species.
> 
> Not that a flat + or - number is the best reflection either; far better is to determine where in relation to the 3-18 bell curve the low and high extremes for each species' stats would be, and then adjust the whole bell curve to that.  So, if one decides that the bell curve for Elf dexterity runs from 6-19 instead of 3-18 (3-18 being the universal Human baseline) then a roll of 3 in dex gets boosted to a 6, a roll of 18 goes up to 19, and a roll of 11 goes up to 13.  Similarly the range of Hobbit strength might only be 3-16, meaning a rolled 18 gets knocked down to 16, a rolled 10 goes down to 9, and a rolled 3 stays as a 3.



This sounds like an enormous amount of work, and something that would be a _major_ turn-off for casual players just looking into playing the game. "Generate your stats randomly, but adjust them according to which race you are, with a different amount of adjustment based on what your starting value was, with 2-4 different stats needing adjustment" might help boost immersion a little bit, but it's almost guaranteed to confuse and drive away a _lot_ of people wanting to play.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> , then if PC Elves are considered to be on the exact same 3-18 dexterity bell curve as PC Humans the overall setting population isn't being reflected well at all.




But that’s not the case. If, at your tables(s), players put the +2 into dexterity, then in your experience the curves are just what you think they should be.

If the people you game with _don’t_ do that…maybe your aesthetic preferences aren’t shared?

(And of course it goes without saying that what happens at other tables has no bearing on your experience.)

I find the whole thing a little ridiculous. Out of the entire population of elves in the metaverse, who cares if a couple of PC elves don’t fit expectations? As ridiculous as insisting that PC elves not use crossbows, because average elves use bows.


----------



## MoonSong

Bill Zebub said:


> But that’s not the case. If, at your tables(s), players put the +2 into dexterity, then in your experience the curves are just what you think they should be.
> 
> If the people you game with _don’t_ do that…maybe your aesthetic preferences aren’t shared?
> 
> (And of course it goes without saying that what happens at other tables has no bearing on your experience.)
> 
> I find the whole thing a little ridiculous. Out of the entire population of elves in the metaverse, who cares if a couple of PC elves don’t fit expectations? As ridiculous as insisting that PC elves not use crossbows, because average elves use bows.



One or two is ok. But if we get to a point when most elf PCs are entirely divorced from Elvenhood, having no traits in common with what an elf is, exactly what is the point of having elves at all? Just having quick long rest as a superpower?


----------



## Bill Zebub

MoonSong said:


> One or two is ok. But *if we get to a point* when *most* elf PCs are *entirely divorced* from Elvenhood, having *no traits in common* with what an elf is, exactly what is the point of having elves at all? Just having quick long rest as a superpower?




Such hyperbole!  I am reminded of Dr. Venkmen (Bill Murray) from Ghostbusters:


> “Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!”




If the people you play with build elves with "no traits in common" with what you think elves should be like, maybe your friends don't share your opinion on this? If that's the case, do you really want to force them to adhere to your aesthetic.

Surely you don't care what other tables do...?

You keep decrying powergaming/optimizing, but you seem really, really, really focused on ability scores and what they mean.  That seems contradictory to me.  If somebody roleplays being an elf, what does it matter what their ability scores are?


----------



## Lanefan

EzekielRaiden said:


> This sounds like an enormous amount of work, and something that would be a _major_ turn-off for casual players just looking into playing the game. "Generate your stats randomly, but adjust them according to which race you are, with a different amount of adjustment based on what your starting value was, with 2-4 different stats needing adjustment" might help boost immersion a little bit, but it's almost guaranteed to confuse and drive away a _lot_ of people wanting to play.



We've done it this way for about 40 years now and so far, so good...

Admittedly it can add a few minutes to the char-gen process, which is regrettable, but I think this is one case where the benefits far outweigh the drawback.


----------



## Lanefan

Bill Zebub said:


> If the people you play with build elves with "no traits in common" with what you think elves should be like, maybe your friends don't share your opinion on this? If that's the case, do you really want to force them to adhere to your aesthetic.
> 
> Surely you don't care what other tables do...?
> 
> You keep decrying powergaming/optimizing, but you seem really, really, really focused on ability scores and what they mean.  That seems contradictory to me.  If somebody roleplays being an elf, what does it matter what their ability scores are?



@MoonSong is right, though: it's not just a few PC Elves that don't match their own species, it's _every_ PC Elf.  Which means, if one's only exposure to Elves in the setting comes from the PCs in your party you're going to get a warped idea of what Elves are like in the greater world.

As for powergaming/optimizing, ideally any benefits somewhere are balanced out by drawbacks elsewhere, thus taking much of the edge off of the optimizing angle...though of course it can never be eliminated entirely.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> @MoonSong is right, though: it's not just a few PC Elves that don't match their own species, it's _every_ PC Elf.  Which means, if one's only exposure to Elves in the setting comes from the PCs in your party you're going to get a warped idea of what Elves are like in the greater world.




If the argument for fixed racial ASIs depends on making sure new players are imagining elves correctly, then I think the debate is well and truly over.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Bill Zebub said:


> If the argument for fixed racial ASIs depends on making sure new players are imagining elves correctly, then I think the debate is well and truly over.



100% agreed.

If "imagine it correctly" were the standard, D&D would never have come into existence. Nor, for that matter, would Tolkien's work, which is the basis for at least half of the tropes (_especially_ regarding races) that D&D uses.

"Elves" are Keeblers, not willowy super-people relicts of a dying age.


----------



## Peter BOSCO'S

Human, Droid, Twilek, Wookie, Chiss, Togruta, Mon Calimari, and Custom Race.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Half-xenomorph.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Human
Elf
Dwarf
Halfling
Gnome
Orc
Goblin
Goliath


----------



## Baron Opal II

Yaarel said:


> Which races would YOU put into the 50th anniversary Players Handbook?



Humans
Elves
Dwarves
Halflings
Orc

Then instructions and a menu of A, B, C where you choose from the lists to make whatever ancestry you want. Included with this is an explanation of how the previous traditional races were made, and exceptions for half-races.


----------



## ReshiIRE

Elves
Dwarves
Halfings
Gnomes
Orcs
Goblins
Tabaxi
Tieflings
Aasimar
Kenku
Kobolds
Lizardfolk
Dragonborn

No humans. Just no. Never again pls. Just homerule in the boring whitebread if you want

For serious reasons, I think it'd be a much more interesting game if humans were a rare or not considered a default assumed 'thing' in the world, and see what people would cling to and want in their characters then.


----------



## payn

Bill Zebub said:


> Half-xenomorph.



Bottom or top half?


----------



## jmartkdr2

payn said:


> Bottom or top half?



Back half


----------



## Scribe

EzekielRaiden said:


> Why is +2 Dex, -1 Str, -1 Con more meaningful than Trance or casting spells without spell slots or being immune to sleep magic?



You do them all.


----------



## Greg K

Bill Zebub said:


> If the people you play with build elves with "no traits in common" with what you think elves should be like, maybe your friends don't share your opinion on this? If that's the case, do you really want to force them to adhere to your aesthetic.



I am not @Moongsong. However, myself, if If I have built setting and defined cultures they will need to adapt their view! (which doesn't mean we can't discuss an elf raised by another culture)


----------



## Bill Zebub

payn said:


> Bottom or top half?



Just the inner jaw.


----------



## Cadence

payn said:


> Bottom or top half?



Right and Left like Mazikeen


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Scribe said:


> You do them all.



I fear I don't understand your meaning in the context of the question.


----------



## Scribe

EzekielRaiden said:


> I fear I don't understand your meaning in the context of the question.



ASI tied to race.
Special rules tied to race.
Cultures specific to race.
Gods tied to specific race.

Why limit the design space to a single thing, when a race could contain all these things?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Humans
Dwarves
Elves
Orcs
Gnomes (Halflings will be folded into Small Humans)
Dragonborn
Goblins
Bugbears
Hobgoblins
Tiefling
Aasimar (or 4e Devas, they're cooler)


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Scribe said:


> ASI tied to race.
> Special rules tied to race.
> Cultures specific to race.
> Gods tied to specific race.
> 
> Why limit the design space to a single thing, when a race could contain all these things?



In order:

Because race essentialism is a false and pernicious ideology IRL that has done much harm to a lot of people, and things which perpetuate it should be altered so they do not do so. Also, because real variability in actual living creatures is more than sufficient to make beings who fit anywhere on the "this is something a mortal being can be" spectrum, thus it is not merely laudable, but truly more realistic to embrace that variability in playable characters.* Playable characters, I would note, that are _already_ going to be weird for their race no matter what, because most people don't have class levels.
I already support using this, so I have no criticism for it.
Same as the first answer to #1, but also because culture is an idea, an ideal, a trained or learned thing, not something baked into a person's genetics. You can take two identical twins and raise them in different cultures and, guess what, their cultures will be different! Physiology can have an _influence_ on culture (e.g., as I've said in previous threads, dragonborn mature faster, lay eggs, and have breath weapons; this will affect them regardless of the culture they grow up in, and a majority-dragonborn culture will be affected by this.) But physiology does not, cannot, _should_ not _dictate_ culture.
Setting-specific divinities are individuals with their own preferences; if they choose to favor a specific race over other races, that's their prerogative. It has little to nothing to do with the physiology of any given race, and everything to do with that deity's preferences. You may have noticed, for example, that the Romans enforced syncretism of their deities upon every culture they encountered. _Worship_ is a cultural thing, and thus taught; _divine favor_ is an individual-deity-personality thing and thus completely separate from the question of physiology.

Or, in sum? Because there are both unpleasant implications of #1 and #3 when these things are treated as _essentialism_ rather than as real and IRL measurable variability (for #1) or as the product of training/learning aka "acculturation" (for #3), and because it is _more grounded_, more like the way real things actually behave, to _not_ make these things into examples of race-essentialism. Those unpleasant implications _can_ be avoided, thus, barring some other even more pressing concern, they _should_ be.

*See, for example, the results of _Anthropometry of Flying Personnel - 1950_, G.S. Daniels. TL;DR: There is no such thing as an actually average person. Just two or three requirements (if strict) or five or six (if somewhat looser) is enough to exclude the vast majority of the population, and "exactly +2 Str, +2 Con" or whatever is certainly going to be quite strict. Or, for another example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics openly stating that, in both the 2011 and 2016 censuses, _the average Australian does not exist_, because no individual person has all of the average (or, for non-averageable things, most common) characteristics, despite this being based on the full population data of their nation (over 23 million people.)


----------



## Scribe

I do not apply real world nationalities, to fictional races @EzekielRaiden and so I do not care if there is no 'average Australian' any more than an 'average Canadian' or 'average Egyptian'.

An average Dwarf though? Elf? Halfing? Thats a different thing to me, not because they are real, but because they are fiction.

We wont agree on this.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Scribe said:


> I do not apply real world nationalities, to fictional races @EzekielRaiden and so I do not care if there is no 'average Australian' any more than an 'average Canadian' or 'average Egyptian'.
> 
> An average Dwarf though? Elf? Halfing? Thats a different thing to me, not because they are real, but because they are fiction.
> 
> We wont agree on this.



Fiction is one of the ways by which we model, analyze, and understand reality. Fiction which completely ignores this fact is fiction which contributes to problems in the real world.

We _learn_ from the fiction we use, whether we like it or not, whether we wish to or not. This is NOT the same as saying people cannot distinguish fiction from reality. It is saying that fiction is often an influence on thought. Consider how poorly-handled "darkest hour" situations are pretty significantly part of why a lot of people cannot grok that depression is an _illness_ that must be _treated_, rather than a _trial_ which must be _overcome_.


----------



## Scribe

EzekielRaiden said:


> Fiction is one of the ways by which we model, analyze, and understand reality. Fiction which completely ignores this fact is fiction which contributes to problems in the real world.
> 
> We _learn_ from the fiction we use, whether we like it or not, whether we wish to or not.



I understand where you are going, but I simply wont agree. A Goliath being stronger than a Halfing is simply not going to be a problem to me, any more than a Tiger, being stronger than a House Cat is.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Scribe said:


> I understand where you are going, but I simply wont agree. A Goliath being stronger than a Halfing is simply not going to be a problem to me, any more than a Tiger, being stronger than a House Cat is.



But they _aren't_ necessarily stronger than halflings, are they? A halfling can hit 20 Strength just like a goliath can. And whether you use point-buy stats, or roll-and-assign, or even strict-rolled stats, the gap between a halfling and a goliath will never be more than 4 levels' worth of training (to get the next ASI.) In fact, a fresh-faced level 1 halfling can easily have 5 points higher Strength than a goliath does, a noticeable difference. (I don't know _why_ you would make a goliath with minimum Strength, but it's entirely doable; perhaps wanting to be a more durable Wizard or something.) And even if you compare a goliath with high strength to one without, _even with rolled stats_ so a starting 20 is possible, it will _never_ take more than 3 ASIs to catch up--at which point the halfling and goliath are completely equal purely through training.

And then, from there, natural variability is already a thing that exists. Michael Phelps is physically stronger and hardier than most human beings because his genetics are slightly different (his red blood cells are smaller but more numerous, for example, so his blood is more efficient at carrying in oxygen and nutrients and carrying away waste.) Mozart was an absolute musical _genius_ who got started at age 5. Gauss was likewise a mathematical genius who (at least apocryphally) was proving meaningful results _in grade school_. Meanwhile, some folks have dyscalculia or dyslexia or dyspraxia or a host of things that impede learning, or have physical weakness outside the bounds of normal, or suffer from a congenitally weak constitution, or absolutely chronic foot-in-mouth disease (   ), etc., etc. Factors that can easily push someone well outside the "norm" for their physiology.

So...we aren't actually ending up with goliaths who are consistently stronger than halflings, not even when training is accounted for. And there are plenty of reasons why an individual person's physiological/neurological situation might be better or worse than is typical for their species. What, then, is actually gained from having players forced to use these statistics?

I can see the argument that _NPCs_ should _trend_ toward these things, because NPCs are generally sampled from the population overall, so there's enough of them for individual quirkiness to be washed out by the masses. I don't see how one can get to requiring that absolutely all PCs strictly adhere to this.

Edit: And your example kinda gives the game away here, doesn't it? You're using something where the difference is not a factor of two or three, but a factor of _one hundred_. There is no PC race that weighs 100x as much as another. The _absolute heaviest_ goliath (~440 lb) weighs only slightly more than 10x as much as the lightest halfling (37 lb.) In a world of magic. Where anyone with 16 Str can have a decent chance to _chokeslam a dragon_ that is the size of a _literal actual bus_.


----------



## Greg K

EzekielRaiden said:


> In order:
> 
> Because race essentialism is a false and pernicious ideology IRL that has done much harm to a lot of people, and things which perpetuate it should be altered so they do not do so. Also, because real variability in actual living creatures is more than sufficient to make beings who fit anywhere on the "this is something a mortal being can be" spectrum, thus it is not merely laudable, but truly more realistic to embrace that variability in playable characters.* Playable characters, I would note, that are _already_ going to be weird for their race no matter what, because most people don't have class levels.



Well, first of all, the idea of Races among humans is itself an arbitrary social construct created by Northern Europeans and Western Europeans and used to justify colonialism and slavery. There is only one race  among humans and what people mistakingly refer to race is actually ethnicity.  The arbitrariness of races among human is evident when one considers that several groups now considered "white" were not always considered "white" and, in the U.S. one group, currently, considered non-white was "briefly" considered "white" on the U.S. Census during the 20th Century. 
In the game, all human ethnicities fall under the race: human.  Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings, Lizardfolk, etc. are not humans


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Greg K said:


> Well, first of all, the idea of Races among humans is itself an arbitrary social construct created by Northern Europeans and Western Europeans and used to justify colonialism and slavery. There is only one race  among humans and what people mistakingly refer to race is actually ethnicity.  The arbitrariness of races among human is evident when one considers that several groups now considered "white" were not always considered "white" and, in the U.S. one group, currently, considered non-white was "briefly" considered "white" on the U.S. Census during the 20th Century.
> In the game, all human ethnicities fall under the race: human.  Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings, Lizardfolk, etc. are not humans



They aren't, no. But we can use the population dynamics of actual humans to consider what the population dynamics of non-human species would be.

And the fact of the matter is, _actual humans_ are much, MUCH too variable to put into boxes like this. We cover vast swathes. We contain multitudes. We cannot be put into boxes unless we are dead and buried. _That_ is my point: the real, existing, _measurable_ variability within humans is already VASTLY more than +2 to one stat or -1 to one stat or whatever else. ENORMOUSLY more. If natural human variability is already so high, and all mortal races are confined to the finite span of 3-to-20 stats, then whatever central tendency there might be, _it will not be strong enough to prevent weird outliers_.

When you couple this fact with the necessary truth that _adventurers are necessarily weird outliers_, you get the unavoidable conclusion that, whatever their species' central tendency and standard deviation might be, adventurers are (almost literally) _cut from a different cloth_. Whatever the statistics which represent their species as a whole _will _fail to accurately describe the sub-population of "adventurers," because "adventurers" are _by definition_ meaningfully different from the overall population of their species.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Lanefan said:


> Because most people intrinsically know how to play one?



I feel like the last few years cast that into doubt.


----------



## Cadence

EzekielRaiden said:


> But they _aren't_ necessarily stronger than halflings, are they? A halfling can hit 20 Strength just like a goliath can. And whether you use point-buy stats, or roll-and-assign, or even strict-rolled stats, the gap between a halfling and a goliath will never be more than 4 levels' worth of training (to get the next ASI.) In fact, a fresh-faced level 1 halfling can easily have 5 points higher Strength than a goliath does, a noticeable difference. (I don't know _why_ you would make a goliath with minimum Strength, but it's entirely doable; perhaps wanting to be a more durable Wizard or something.) And even if you compare a goliath with high strength to one without, _even with rolled stats_ so a starting 20 is possible, it will _never_ take more than 3 ASIs to catch up--at which point the halfling and goliath are completely equal purely through training.
> 
> And then, from there, natural variability is already a thing that exists. Michael Phelps is physically stronger and hardier than most human beings because his genetics are slightly different (his red blood cells are smaller but more numerous, for example, so his blood is more efficient at carrying in oxygen and nutrients and carrying away waste.) Mozart was an absolute musical _genius_ who got started at age 5. Gauss was likewise a mathematical genius who (at least apocryphally) was proving meaningful results _in grade school_. Meanwhile, some folks have dyscalculia or dyslexia or dyspraxia or a host of things that impede learning, or have physical weakness outside the bounds of normal, or suffer from a congenitally weak constitution, or absolutely chronic foot-in-mouth disease (   ), etc., etc. Factors that can easily push someone well outside the "norm" for their physiology.
> 
> So...we aren't actually ending up with goliaths who are consistently stronger than halflings, not even when training is accounted for. And there are plenty of reasons why an individual person's physiological/neurological situation might be better or worse than is typical for their species. What, then, is actually gained from having players forced to use these statistics?
> 
> I can see the argument that _NPCs_ should _trend_ toward these things, because NPCs are generally sampled from the population overall, so there's enough of them for individual quirkiness to be washed out by the masses. I don't see how one can get to requiring that absolutely all PCs strictly adhere to this.
> 
> Edit: And your example kinda gives the game away here, doesn't it? You're using something where the difference is not a factor of two or three, but a factor of _one hundred_. There is no PC race that weighs 100x as much as another. The _absolute heaviest_ goliath (~440 lb) weighs only slightly more than 10x as much as the lightest halfling (37 lb.) In a world of magic. Where anyone with 16 Str can have a decent chance to _chokeslam a dragon_ that is the size of a _literal actual bus_.



Right.  And so there is no reason my 37 lb. Human* with the librarian background  shouldn't be as strong as your  300lb. Human with the dock worker background.  Both can start with the same 17 and pretty soon both will have the same 20 and be able to carry 300lbs.  Same for the Dexterity of my friend's 5' tall 100 lb archer/acrobat and your friend's 6' tall 385 lb orchid grower/gourmand.   In a magical world working in the library stacks is a great way to build up muscle and eating a huge variety of good foods and growing flowers** keeps.one quick and agile.

*Now that adult humans can finally be small in game by RAW. All four human sizes here are well within IRL ranges and so are certainly within what can be found in a magical world.

** Nero Wolfe is the famous gourmet/orchid growing example.  Odd looking back and seeing that 1/7th of a ton was considered quite large when it was written.  Updated it a bit here.


----------



## Scribe

EzekielRaiden said:


> A halfling can hit 20 Strength just like a goliath can.



And thats a problem to me.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Lanefan said:


> Because most people intrinsically know how to play one?




I didn't realize there was a correct way.


----------



## nevin

human,
elves
dwarves
halflings
orcs
aaracrokra
Cat folk
rules for creating Assimar, teifling,planetouched characters  but not creating them as races. 
merfolk.


----------



## Cadence

Scribe said:


> And thats a problem to me.




One site says the old V&V carrying capacity formula was:  
 ([S/10]^3+E/10) x body weight/2
where S is Strength and E would be Constitution in D&D.  

Something akin to that, using carrying capacity for deciding tests of strength, and making weapon damage and wieldability depend on size would make me not care.  I guess that would make Strength into some sort of Fitness?  (I'm not sure it's even vaguely worth the effort.)


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Scribe said:


> And thats a problem to me.



So...you have a problem with the other rules that already exist in the game...and that's your justification for _not_ changing some _other_ part of it in a way that is more consistent with actual IRL population statistics _and_ which eliminates the traces of legitimately problematic ideologies from D&D?

It sounds to me like you just want ability scores to be something _they never were_ in 5e, and you're pushing back against things that are recognizing what ability scores always were in this system.


----------



## reelo

Human

Other races (Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling) are found in the Class-list. 

Seriously though, I'd go with

Human
Dwarf
Elf
Gnome (replacing Halflings)

done.


----------



## Lanefan

EzekielRaiden said:


> Fiction is one of the ways by which we model, analyze, and understand reality.



If one wants to (IMO over-)think about it that way.  I'm not at the D&D table for any of that. 


EzekielRaiden said:


> Fiction which completely ignores this fact is fiction which contributes to problems in the real world.



If one allows it to.....


----------



## Lanefan

EzekielRaiden said:


> But they _aren't_ necessarily stronger than halflings, are they? A halfling can hit 20 Strength just like a goliath can.



Which is exactly the problem - a Halfling should simply not be able to hit that 20 strength but instead be hard-capped at 18; either that, or Goliaths should be able to get to 22.


EzekielRaiden said:


> And then, from there, natural variability is already a thing that exists.



Within the limits imposed by one's size and genetics, yes.

That said, each species' size and genetics can be reasonably expected to impose a different set of extreme-end limits.  Halfling strength might vary all over theplace but never outside the range of 2-18, while Goliath strength might vary all over the place but never outside the range of 5-22.


EzekielRaiden said:


> Michael Phelps is physically stronger and hardier than most human beings because his genetics are slightly different (his red blood cells are smaller but more numerous, for example, so his blood is more efficient at carrying in oxygen and nutrients and carrying away waste.) Mozart was an absolute musical _genius_ who got started at age 5. Gauss was likewise a mathematical genius who (at least apocryphally) was proving meaningful results _in grade school_. Meanwhile, some folks have dyscalculia or dyslexia or dyspraxia or a host of things that impede learning, or have physical weakness outside the bounds of normal, or suffer from a congenitally weak constitution, or absolutely chronic foot-in-mouth disease (   ), etc., etc. Factors that can easily push someone well outside the "norm" for their physiology.



Those are the sort of extreme-end cases I'm referring to.  My point is that while Michael Phelps might be an extreme exception for Human strength and endurance he might not be exceptional at all when held up against Goliaths, for whom such strength and endurance is commonplace.  By the same token, no Halfling could ever hope to achieve anything anywhere near Phelps' strength and endurance; it's simply beyond them.

Which means, an extreme-end-strength Halfling would be the same as a moderately-strong Human who in turn is the same as a very ordinary Goliath.


EzekielRaiden said:


> I can see the argument that _NPCs_ should _trend_ toward these things, because NPCs are generally sampled from the population overall, so there's enough of them for individual quirkiness to be washed out by the masses. I don't see how one can get to requiring that absolutely all PCs strictly adhere to this.



Easy - one just decides one wants PCs to in general reflect the setting populations of which they are members.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Lanefan said:


> By the same token, no Halfling could ever hope to achieve anything anywhere near Phelps' strength and endurance; it's simply beyond them.



It seems completely irrational and even anti-scientific to suggest a halfling couldn't have the same endurance. Strength, sure, that's mostly leverage, but endurance? Smaller creatures often have vastly more endurance than larger ones. I mean, humans are ourselves proof positive of this.


----------



## Lanefan

Ruin Explorer said:


> It seems completely irrational and even anti-scientific to suggest a halfling couldn't have the same endurance. Strength, sure, that's mostly leverage, but endurance? Smaller creatures often have vastly more endurance than larger ones. I mean, humans are ourselves proof positive of this.



Fair point.  I stand corrected.


----------



## Mind of tempest

right I am going with the only logical option, no races which have ever been in the phb before as they suck and have been done to death I want only the unpopular hyper niche races as it would be funny.

and I would only let humans in if they are the types of humans from all tomorrows as it would get super nuts and that is what I want.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Alternate answer, assuming I don’t care how popular/successful the game is: humans and planetouched only. You can back-fill elves (and greenskins) by calling them feytouched, and you can be small or large-ish (goliath-sized) if you like. Dwarves are just a culture. Dragonborn are now dragon-blooded and are just humans with horns and a tail.

I think that covers everything but full-anthro beastfolk.


----------



## Scribe

EzekielRaiden said:


> It sounds to me like you just want ability scores to be something _they never were_ in 5e, and you're pushing back against things that are recognizing what ability scores always were in this system.



I'm not sure what you mean.

ASI was a further distinction between (some of) the races in the original PHB for 5e. Thats it.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Scribe said:


> I'm not sure what you mean.
> 
> ASI was a further distinction between (some of) the races in the original PHB for 5e. Thats it.



I mean that you are saying that ability scores should be hard-line separators of physiology, something that no amount of training, no matter how significant, can ever overcome. Ability scores in 5e have never been this, and never will be.


----------



## Scribe

EzekielRaiden said:


> I mean that you are saying that ability scores should be hard-line separators of physiology, something that no amount of training, no matter how significant, can ever overcome. Ability scores in 5e have never been this, and never will be.



I do believe that caps, and negative modifiers could have a place, yes. Halflings should never be on par with...Goliaths, or Dragonborn, or...anything beyond other Small things, like Fairy, in terms of Strength.

I mean even the new packet.

"Their size - being not unlike that of a human child - ...."

Yeah, there are cases where the physiology should mean something, and Halfling Strength, in relation to the majority of the games other races, is one of those cases.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Lanefan said:


> Which means, an extreme-end-strength Halfling would be the same as a moderately-strong Human who in turn is the same as a very ordinary Goliath.



No edition of D&D has ever modelled this. Ever. Literally 100% of editions have not represented this, or anything _remotely_ like it.

Because 12 Strength isn't, and has never been, a meaningful ceiling for halfling strength. Even in 1e, when ability score limits actually existed.



Lanefan said:


> Easy - one just decides one wants PCs to in general reflect the setting populations of which they are members.



Why should they? PCs do not behave like those populations. They do things that most members of those populations would consider _completely insane_. They take incredible risks, reach stupidly high heights, etc. They _should not_ be like normal people--because normal people _don't adventure_. “We...have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner!”



Scribe said:


> Yeah, there are cases where the physiology should mean something, and Halfling Strength, in relation to the majority of the games other races, is one of those cases.



Okay. D&D has never done that though, and it seems odd to demand that it _start_ doing so, at least in the way you've described. It is trivially easy for a halfling to be stronger than an ordinary goliath, _and always has been_. Even back in Ye Olden Dayse this was true. Only noticeably above-average goliaths (or equivalents, since I know goliaths don't exist in 1e) could ever be beyond a halfling's reach.


----------



## Lanefan

EzekielRaiden said:


> No edition of D&D has ever modelled this. Ever. Literally 100% of editions have not represented this, or anything _remotely_ like it.
> 
> Because 12 Strength isn't, and has never been, a meaningful ceiling for halfling strength. Even in 1e, when ability score limits actually existed.



A moderately strong Human is IMO in the 14-15 range.  That getting way up there for our little Halflings who in 1e would cap right out at 16.


EzekielRaiden said:


> Why should they? PCs do not behave like those populations. They do things that most members of those populations would consider _completely insane_. They take incredible risks, reach stupidly high heights, etc. They _should not_ be like normal people--because normal people _don't adventure_. “We...have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner!”



Indeed; and in saying it this way you've almost made my point for me. 

Adventurers are different because of what they DO, not because of what they ARE.

What they ARE, ideally, is a random (and thus, reflective) sampling of their species' population other than they each happen to be particularly adept at...something, whatever it may be.  They each have a special talent for something, and otherwise are mostly ordinary people.

What then sets them apart in their world is what they DO: they take that talent and put it to use in the very risky field of adventuring.


EzekielRaiden said:


> Okay. D&D has never done that though, and it seems odd to demand that it _start_ doing so, at least in the way you've described. It is trivially easy for a halfling to be stronger than an ordinary goliath, _and always has been_. Even back in Ye Olden Dayse this was true. Only noticeably above-average goliaths (or equivalents, since I know goliaths don't exist in 1e) could ever be beyond a halfling's reach.



*A* Halfling, yes.  An exceptional, unusual, one-in-a-generation Halfling.

But if the Halfling strength range is 3-16 and the Goliath strength range is 8-22 (which is probably about where I'd put them were they in my game) then the very strongest of Halflings (at 16) would be only just above the average for Goliaths (at 15).  More importantly, the average Halfling would be significantly less strong than the average Goliath.

With a simple +2 bonus, 5e never separated them to that degree at any point; but at least they waved at the concept as it went by.  Not any more.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Lanefan said:


> Adventurers are different because of what they DO, not because of what they ARE.



The two cannot be separated in a game where what you _are_--your ability scores--is often more than half of how well you _do_ things.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Lanefan said:


> What they ARE, ideally, is a random (and thus, reflective) sampling of their species' population other than they each happen to be particularly adept at...something, whatever it may be. They each have a special talent for something, and otherwise are mostly ordinary people.



I mean, that doesn't make a lick of sense. That's like saying the same about sportspeople or scientists, it's obviously false.


----------



## Yaarel

When correlating size and Strength, I suggest the following prereqs. A smaller creature can be strong. But larger creature is to some degree inherently stronger relative to other creatures. (In my preference to avoid negative numbers, 12 is average, and 10 is below average.)

*Minimum Requirements for Both Strength and Constitution: Size*
27-30: Gargantuan+
23-26: Huge
19-22: Large
15-18: Medium (Heavyweight) (Powerful Build)
11-14: Medium (Lightweight)
7-10: Small
3-6: Tiny−

For example, a player character that has 20 Strength and 19 Constitution can be Large, if the player wishes. A Heavyweight has at least a 15 in both Strength and Constitution.

In this way, a halfling can be any Strength. But larger creatures tend to be stronger.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Yaarel said:


> When correlating size and Strength, I suggest the following prereqs. A smaller creature can be strong. But larger creature is to some degree inherently stronger relative to other creatures. (In my preference to avoid negative numbers, 12 is average, and 10 is below average.)
> 
> *Minimum Requirements for Both Strength and Constitution: Size*
> 27-30: Gargantuan+
> 23-26: Huge
> 19-22: Large
> 15-18: Medium (Heavyweight) (Powerful Build)
> 11-14: Medium (Lightweight)
> 7-10: Small
> 3-6: Tiny−
> 
> For example, a player character that has 20 Strength and 19 Constitution can be Large, if the player wishes. A Heavyweight has at least a 15 in both Strength and Constitution.
> 
> In this way, a halfling can be any Strength. But larger creatures tend to be stronger.



Makes absolutely zero sense to tie CON to size.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> Makes absolutely zero sense to tie CON to size.



Being "Large" is more than being tall. It implies mass and toughness. Consider "Heavyweight" in the muscular sense, in contradistinction to the obese sense. There is fitness as well as mass.

Generally, in the Monster Manual and elsewhere, there is a statistically strong correlation between Strength and Constitution, especially with regard to larger size creatures. The larger brutes are tougher.

Moreover, "Large" humans who are over 8 feet tall, but are also athletically fit, do exist but are exceedingly rare. Many height outliers involve cancer to the pituitary gland or other illness, with overall results that are not effectively "large" in the D&D sense, and are often not high strength, requiring a walking stick to support their own weight and similar. The double prereq keeps the largest human fit sizes less frequent.

The prereqs requiring both Strength and Constitution have all of the above considerations in mind.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Yaarel said:


> The larger brutes are tougher.



In real life? No. They are not. They tend to be horrifically vulnerable, actually.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> In real life? No. They are not. They tend to be horrifically vulnerable, actually.



If suffering from an illness, that relates to their height, yes.

But some 8 feet and above are fit and healthy.

Constitution is an important consideration.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Yaarel said:


> If suffering from an illness, that relates to their height, yes.
> 
> But some 8 and above are fit and healthy.



No I'm talking about animals as well as people. An elephant is not less likely to die from an infected wound or poison than a human is. But by saying larger = higher CON you are saying it is. Nor is it likely to be better at holding its breath or running long distance (indeed, I'm pretty sure elephants are significantly worse than humans at the latter).

If you want higher HP, which makes some sense, for larger creatures, use HD, not CON.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> No I'm talking about animals as well as people. An elephant is not less likely to die from an infected wound or poison than a human is. But by saying larger = higher CON you are saying it is.



In the sense that a larger creature often requires a larger dosage to be affected by a venom, the larger creatures is more resistant to poison.

God-forbid: punching an elephant versus punching a cat. The elephant has more "hit points".


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Yaarel said:


> In the sense that a larger creature often requires a larger dosage to be affected by a toxin, the larger creatures is more resistant to poison.



But that's simply not always the case. And it that doesn't answer my points re: infected wound, holding breath, running long-distance and so on. CON is far more than just +HP and dosage-based poison saves. It's things like disease saves too - and large animals are absolutely NOT better at dealing with disease - nor a bunch of other things CON covers. Tie CON to the creature, not the size. Tie HD to the size if you want HP.


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> But that's simply not always the case. And it that doesn't answer my points re: infected wound, holding breath, running long-distance and so on. CON is far more than just +HP and dosage-based poison saves. It's things like disease saves too - and large animals are absolutely NOT better at dealing with disease - nor a bunch of other things CON covers. Tie CON to the creature, not the size. Tie HD to the size if you want HP.



This is D&D: mechanics that simplify for gaming purposes. A mechanic need not be "always" the case, it just needs to be representative enough.

D&D especially doesnt handle "disease" accurately. Even, it simply ignores the possibility of broken bones!

Hit points and surviving poison do correlate with size.


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> When correlating size and Strength, I suggest the following prereqs. A smaller creature can be strong. But larger creature is to some degree inherently stronger relative to other creatures. (In my preference to avoid negative numbers, 12 is average, and 10 is below average.)
> 
> *Minimum Requirements for Both Strength and Constitution: Size*
> 27-30: Gargantuan+
> 23-26: Huge
> 19-22: Large
> 15-18: Medium (Heavyweight) (Powerful Build)
> 11-14: Medium (Lightweight)
> 7-10: Small
> 3-6: Tiny−
> 
> For example, a player character that has 20 Strength and 19 Constitution can be Large, if the player wishes. A Heavyweight has at least a 15 in both Strength and Constitution.
> 
> In this way, a halfling can be any Strength. But larger creatures tend to be stronger.






Ruin Explorer said:


> No I'm talking about animals as well as people. An elephant is not less likely to die from an infected wound or poison than a human is. But by saying larger = higher CON you are saying it is. Nor is it likely to be better at holding its breath or running long distance (indeed, I'm pretty sure elephants are significantly worse than humans at the latter).
> 
> If you want higher HP, which makes some sense, for larger creatures, use HD, not CON.




If I were entrusted with destroying the worlds most popular RPG by injecting a lot of my own ideas with no oversight...



Spoiler



I might start by wondering about replacing Str and Con with a "Fitness"  ability.  And then carrying capacity, weapons useable, and hitpoints would come from that combined with a size/build category of some sort.   Could make the three physical stats be Fitness, Agility, and Dexterity.

But then it feels like "Fitness" of a sort and "Size/Build" are both related to the agility part of Dex for what humans do too?   So could have Fitness and Size/Built be two proto-stats that helped determine Str, Agility, and Toughness.  But didn't determine Dexterity (the aimy part of agility) or Stamina (the cardio/disease/poison parts of Con).   And I will admit that it feels odd to have anything called fitness that didn't relate to Stamina...

But now I'm up to five physical stats with two proto-stats...   I guess Str and Toughness could be combined (that seems to be a common suggestion).  This would give  Strength, Agility, Dexterity, and Stamina   and could just have Strength and Agility be restricted by the Size/Build of the character and not need the idea of underlying fitness show up anywhere.


_ (Note: Spoiler hides things that belong in another thread and would derail this one.)_

Anyway, Feels like a rabbit hole for the current game!  And can you imagine how this place would blow up if they proposed it?  So that's why I can see WotC just going with not caring about how size matters.


----------



## Yaarel

Cadence said:


> If I were entrusted with destroying the worlds most popular RPG by injecting a lot of my own ideas with no oversight...
> 
> (Note: Spoiler hides things that belong in another thread and would derail this one.)
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I might start by wondering about replacing Str and Con with a "Fitness"  ability.  And then carrying capacity, weapons useable, and hitpoints would come from that combined with a size/build category of some sort.   Could make the three physical stats be Fitness, Agility, and Dexterity.
> 
> But then it feels like "Fitness" of a sort and "Size/Build" are both related to the agility part of Dex for what humans do too?   So could have Fitness and Size/Built be two proto-stats that helped determine Str, Agility, and Toughness.  But didn't determine Dexterity (the aimy part of agility) or Stamina (the cardio/disease/poison parts of Con).   And I will admit that it feels odd to have anything called fitness that didn't relate to Stamina...
> 
> But now I'm up to five physical stats with two proto-stats...   I guess Str and Toughness could be combined (that seems to be a common suggestion).  This would give  Strength, Agility, Dexterity, and Stamina   and could just have Strength and Agility be restricted by the Size/Build of the character and not need the idea of underlying fitness show up anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, Feels like a rabbit hole for the current game!  And can you imagine how this place would blow up if they proposed it?  So that's why I can see WotC just going with not caring about how size matters.



The way I would do similar is having eight ability scores.

Physical:

Strength and Constitution
Dexterity and Athletics

Mental:

Intelligence and Perception
Charisma and Wisdom

Athletics gets the agile bonus to AC, instead of Dexterity that focuses on cautious precision.

 The second of each four pairings tends to be a major saving throw, where Perception is the save against hiddenness and illusion, Athletics reflex and against falling.

Each of these eight is distinctly meaningful and about equally useful during gameplay. By assigning the same score to each of a pair, a table can easily reduce these down to four abilities. For example, assign a 14 to both Strength  and Constitution for a 14 "Toughness" score.


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> The way I would do similar is having eight ability scores.
> 
> Physical:
> 
> Strength and Constitution
> Dexterity and Athletics
> 
> Mental:
> 
> Intelligence and Perception
> Charisma and Wisdom
> 
> Athletics gets the agile bonus to AC, instead of Dexterity that focuses on cautious precision.
> 
> The second of each four pairings tends to be a major saving throw, where Perception is the save against hiddenness and illusion.




I wonder if discussing which stats we'd each use in our own game if we made one is one of the the few semi-common topics that come up on ENWorld that leads to long discussions (or thread derailments) that doesn't end up with people yelling at each other in overflowing frustration and anger.  



Spoiler



I'm at four physical stats that do roughly what yours would do in my head.  For mental I've come to not like Int or Wis being stats and so would nuke those and put in Willpower.  Seven stats feels so awkward though with its lack of symmetry (like the six in D&D or nine in WoD


 _(Note: Spoiler hides things that belong in another thread and would derail this one.)_


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Cadence said:


> I wonder if discussing which stats we'd each use in our own game if we made one is one of the the few semi-common topics that come up on ENWorld that leads to long discussions (or thread derailments) that doesn't end up with people yelling at each other in overflowing frustration and anger.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I'm at four physical stats that do roughly that in my head.  For mental I've come to not like Int or Wis being stats and so would nuke those and put in Willpower.  Seven stats feels so awkward though with its lack of symmetry (like the six in D&D or nine in WoD



Y'all going to end up writing Dangerous Journeys, Gary's own attempt to "fix" D&D and then you'll be sorry.









						Dangerous Journeys - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




(And yes I do have a copy)


----------



## Yaarel

The eight abilities are helping the traditional abilities make more sense and be more balanced with each other.

Perception with "Passive Perception" are already a defacto saving throw as well as a must-have skill, and elevating it to an ability helps simplify the gaming engine.

Treating Perception as an ability allows it to use the Stealth skill to find a hidden creature, the Animal Handling skill to notice animal tracks, the Nature skill to identify a chemical, the Investigation skill for clues to some puzzle, and so on. Perception works better as an ability.


----------



## Scribe

EzekielRaiden said:


> Only noticeably above-average goliaths (or equivalents, since I know goliaths don't exist in 1e) could ever be beyond a halfling's reach.



And this is what I would want. The strongest Goliath, should always, outside of Magical Items (which I also do not like the handling of in 5e) be stronger than the strongest halfling.

I just looked up 3e Goliath and it got a nice +4 Str modifier, on top of Powerful Build. Halflings +2 Dex, -2 Str.

I just want a nod to that, but as I noted we wont agree on this, and thats fine. I've accepted that what I want in this regard isnt the direction the game went, I lost out at Tashas.


----------



## Lanefan

EzekielRaiden said:


> The two cannot be separated in a game where what you _are_--your ability scores--is often more than half of how well you _do_ things.



I disagree, in that you can have little to no talent (i.e. fairly average scores or even worse) and still become a successful and heroic adventurer; or you could be born blessed with 18s in everything and still never leave the safety of your home town.

As a character, the numbers reflect what you are.  What you then do - and how you do it - is entirely up to you.


----------



## Lanefan

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean, that doesn't make a lick of sense. That's like saying the same about sportspeople or scientists, it's obviously false.



I'm honestly not sure if you're joking or serious here.


----------



## Cadence

Lanefan said:


> I disagree, in that you can have little to no talent (i.e. fairly average scores or even worse) and still become a successful and heroic adventurer; or you could be born blessed with 18s in everything and still never leave the safety of your home town.
> 
> As a character, the numbers reflect what you are.  What you then do - and how you do it - is entirely up to you.



"Master Frodo, just think of all the great stories. And how they never gave up no matter how dark it was.  But of course they had good stats.  Do you still have your knife?"


----------



## Bill Zebub

Scribe said:


> And this is what I would want. The strongest Goliath, should always, outside of Magical Items (which I also do not like the handling of in 5e) be stronger than the strongest halfling.




So can't you just imagine...or even rule, if you're the DM...that somewhere in this game world is a goliath who is stronger than the strongest halfling?

Or, heck, just give a bunch of NPC goliaths a strength of 22.  Solved.


----------



## Yaarel

Bill Zebub said:


> Or, heck, just give a bunch of NPC goliaths a strength of 22.  Solved.



Yeah. Part of the way to create a general impression about a race is NPCs who portray a specific character concepts.

Spelljammer did similar by giving one the astral elves a 21 Intelligence score, despite being nonepic.


----------



## Scribe

Bill Zebub said:


> So can't you just imagine...or even rule, if you're the DM...that somewhere in this game world is a goliath who is stronger than the strongest halfling?
> 
> Or, heck, just give a bunch of NPC goliaths a strength of 22.  Solved.



No, I'm talking about PCs.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Scribe said:


> No, I'm talking about PCs.




You can't restrict it to just PCs.  Your argument is that it makes no sense for the strongest halfling to be stronger than the strongest goliath, since on average goliaths are so much stronger than halflings, but if you are only considering PCs then you are ignoring 99+% of the population, and so you can't really make statements about "the strongest".

In the real world the strongest men are stronger than the strongest women.  And yet I can _easily_ assemble a group of 6 people for whom that pattern does not hold, none of whom are the strongest representatives of their gender.

Maybe what you mean is that you think a player who chooses goliath should somehow have the right to be stronger than the player who chooses halfling, but if so that's just your personal preference and you can't really use statistical arguments about entire populations to try to make it objectively true.


----------



## Scribe

Bill Zebub said:


> Your argument is that it makes no sense for the strongest halfling to be stronger than the strongest goliath, since on average goliaths are so much stronger than halflings, but if you are only considering PCs then you are ignoring 99+% of the population, and so you can't really make statements about "the strongest".



I mean...

Its fairly well established around here that PCs > NPCs > 'common' folk of any given race.

I dont believe its confusing at all. No PC Halfling focusing on Strength, should be higher at the basic Ability Score level, than...almost any other given race focusing on Strength.

"As if a human child size."


----------



## Cadence

Bill Zebub said:


> So can't you just imagine...or even rule, if you're the DM...that somewhere in this game world is a goliath who is stronger
> 
> than the strongest halfling?
> 
> Or, heck, just give a bunch of NPC goliaths a strength of 22.  Solved.




It feels odd that a goliath PC (the hero after all?) couldn't be the strongest member of his race.

("Well, in order for your Goliath fighter to be the strongest member of  the strongest race in the world, that means the record is only 20.  And so I'm sorry, if someone in the party wants to make a 20 Str Halfling and tie you, there's nothing I can do.  If you want to not be the strongest one, I'll put a 21 Str NPC Goliath out there so you can still have that good old Goliath pride .")

* Pre-emptively insert something about the trait that lets Goliath's carry more, and a switch to half-orcs or something else that's besides the point.


----------



## MoonSong

EzekielRaiden said:


> In order:
> 
> Because race essentialism is a false and pernicious ideology IRL that has done much harm to a lot of people, and things which perpetuate it should be altered so they do not do so. Also, because real variability in actual living creatures is more than sufficient to make beings who fit anywhere on the "this is something a mortal being can be" spectrum, thus it is not merely laudable, but truly more realistic to embrace that variability in playable characters.* Playable characters, I would note, that are _already_ going to be weird for their race no matter what, because most people don't have class levels.
> I already support using this, so I have no criticism for it.
> Same as the first answer to #1, but also because culture is an idea, an ideal, a trained or learned thing, not something baked into a person's genetics. You can take two identical twins and raise them in different cultures and, guess what, their cultures will be different! Physiology can have an _influence_ on culture (e.g., as I've said in previous threads, dragonborn mature faster, lay eggs, and have breath weapons; this will affect them regardless of the culture they grow up in, and a majority-dragonborn culture will be affected by this.) But physiology does not, cannot, _should_ not _dictate_ culture.
> Setting-specific divinities are individuals with their own preferences; if they choose to favor a specific race over other races, that's their prerogative. It has little to nothing to do with the physiology of any given race, and everything to do with that deity's preferences. You may have noticed, for example, that the Romans enforced syncretism of their deities upon every culture they encountered. _Worship_ is a cultural thing, and thus taught; _divine favor_ is an individual-deity-personality thing and thus completely separate from the question of physiology.
> 
> Or, in sum? Because there are both unpleasant implications of #1 and #3 when these things are treated as _essentialism_ rather than as real and IRL measurable variability (for #1) or as the product of training/learning aka "acculturation" (for #3), and because it is _more grounded_, more like the way real things actually behave, to _not_ make these things into examples of race-essentialism. Those unpleasant implications _can_ be avoided, thus, barring some other even more pressing concern, they _should_ be.
> 
> *See, for example, the results of _Anthropometry of Flying Personnel - 1950_, G.S. Daniels. TL;DR: There is no such thing as an actually average person. Just two or three requirements (if strict) or five or six (if somewhat looser) is enough to exclude the vast majority of the population, and "exactly +2 Str, +2 Con" or whatever is certainly going to be quite strict. Or, for another example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics openly stating that, in both the 2011 and 2016 censuses, _the average Australian does not exist_, because no individual person has all of the average (or, for non-averageable things, most common) characteristics, despite this being based on the full population data of their nation (over 23 million people.)



And this is why I think that race ought to have no mechanics attached. All of it should be lore. Everything should be culture and if you really want a superpower, buy it with a feat or two (BTW I subscribe to the idea that PCs aren't any special to begin with. The idea that someone is inherently better is abhorrent to me)


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Cadence said:


> It feels odd that a goliath PC (the hero after all?) couldn't be the strongest member of his race.
> 
> ("Well, in order for your Goliath fighter to be the strongest member of  the strongest race in the world, that means the record is only 20.  And so I'm sorry, if someone in the party wants to make a 20 Str Halfling and tie you, there's nothing I can do.  If you want to not be the strongest one, I'll put a 21 Str NPC Goliath out there so you can still have that good old Goliath pride .")
> 
> * Pre-emptively insert something about the he trait that lets Goliath's carry more, and a switch to half-orcs or something else that's besides the point.




It's a weird debate, to me. Because people are so certain that they are right.

Yeah, I don't like racial essentialism. I think everyone agrees that demanding it produces bad outcomes at worst, and questionable outcomes even at best.

On the other hand, there is something ... well, a little weird ... when you think that the player who selected "Fairy" as their PC's race and the person who selected "Goliath" as their PC's race both can have 20s in strength.

And I don't really have any good way to reconcile that.


----------



## Yaarel

In my eyes:

An ability score of 18 is the peak of human possibility.

A score of 19 or 20 is literally superhuman.

When a human achieves a score of 19 or 20, it means, some superhuman influence such as magic is in play.

I prefer human NPCs to always three +1s, rather than +2 and +1. But for player characters, there might well be a unique superhuman story in play.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

As 3ft tall pixies, halflings are going to be just as unbelievable at any STR value above 6, whether that 's 12 or 20.

It's a magical world, and at least the verisimilitude-breaking stat is the weakest one (and their Small size gets in the way of grappling or heavy weapons), so it's rare to actually witness a buff halfling. If you do, just assume they ate a gauntlet of ogre strength or whatever.


----------



## billd91

Snarf Zagyg said:


> It's a weird debate, to me. Because people are so certain that they are right.
> 
> Yeah, I don't like racial essentialism. I think everyone agrees that demanding it produces bad outcomes at worst, and questionable outcomes even at best.
> 
> On the other hand, there is something ... well, a little weird ... when you think that the player who selected "Fairy" as their PC's race and the person who selected "Goliath" as their PC's race both can have 20s in strength.
> 
> And I don't really have any good way to reconcile that.



For debates about things like this, racial essentialism is, at least in part, poorly applied. Criticism of essentialism makes sense when dealing with real world ethnic and racial groups since we are all, literally, human and it's at the root of a lot of racist and chauvinist theories. But applying it to physical differences between goliaths and halflings is where the little weird aspect really comes up since they are not, and never have been, conceived as being the same species or even size. There's no real world stigma to halflings and goliaths fitting different strength score distributions and players have a reasonable ability to make meaningful choices in the character races, classes, weapons, and stat distributions they pick - something people born into the real world do not have a chance to make.

If someone wants to make the argument that the game system doesn't need to be so granular that it measures that difference, that's one thing. That's a stylistic choice in what the game should model. But arguing that it shouldn't because of some ethical/sociological/social science critical framework developed to analyze real-world problems might be another story.


----------



## Cadence

Snarf Zagyg said:


> It's a weird debate, to me. Because people are so certain that they are right.
> 
> Yeah, I don't like racial essentialism. I think everyone agrees that demanding it produces bad outcomes at worst, and questionable outcomes even at best.
> 
> On the other hand, there is something ... well, a little weird ... when you think that the player who selected "Fairy" as their PC's race and the person who selected "Goliath" as their PC's race both can have 20s in strength.
> 
> And I don't really have any good way to reconcile that.



The game just needs a disclaimer in the ability and humanoid sections.

"Adult humanoids are unique among the beings of the prime material plane in that their physical and athletic prowess (strength and dexterity) have no connection to their size (height, weight, or build)."


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Cadence said:


> The game just needs a disclaimer in the ability and humanoid sections.
> 
> "Adult umanoids are unique among the beings of the prime material plane in that their physical and athletic prowess (strength and dexterity) have no connection to their size (height, weight, or build)."




Well, it's not _humanoids_. It's p_layer characters_. You can be a construct if ya wanna. Or an ooze (HELLO, PLASMOIDS!).

Heck, I know I'm not getting D&D50 until they present my aberration option!

Oh, sorry. That'll just be another elf subtype, right? GREETINGS FELLOW HUMANOIDS! I AM AN ABOLELF! 

Anyway, the main control on it is people's conceptions of the characters. For the most part, people who pick Goliaths _want to play strong characters_, and people that pick (say) fairies and goblins don't want to play strong characters. It's mostly self-policing.


----------



## Cadence

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Well, it's not _humanoids_. It's p_layer characters_. You can be a construct if ya wanna. Or an ooze (HELLO, PLASMOIDS!).
> 
> Heck, I know I'm not getting D&D50 until they present my aberration option!
> 
> Oh, sorry. That'll just be another elf subtype, right? GREETINGS FELLOW HUMANOIDS! I AM AN ABOLELF!
> 
> Anyway, the main control on it is people's conceptions of the characters. For the most part, people who pick Goliaths _want to play strong characters_, and people that pick (say) fairies and goblins don't want to play strong characters. It's mostly self-policing.




I don't know if I'm up to dealing with this debate going off into ooze and construct land...   I guess it means that D&D world citizens don't need to worry about the robots outclassing the organic people though.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Cadence said:


> I don't know if I'm up to dealing with this debate going off into ooze and construct land...   I guess it means that D&D world citizens don't need to worry about the robots outclassing the organic people though.




Organic people? What are you, some kind of Whole Foods Zealot? Hangin' out in the Farmer's Market? Chillin' with Gwyneth?

I do just fine when people are mass-produced and commercial, thank you! Perfectly acceptable to enslave and/or eat play! 







TRUST IN ME FELLOW HUMANOID. I AM HUMANOID LIKE YOU. I AM A FELLOW ABOLELF.


----------



## Lanefan

One thought that occurred to me is that the problem might lie with the game mechanics trying and failing to unify or universalize stats that really only apply within each species.

What this means: your Strength-20 Halfling is indeed strength-20 but _only in comparison to other Halflings_.  Your Strength-20 Goliath is also indeed strength 20, but _only in comparison to other Goliaths_.  Your Strength-20 Human is strength 20 _only in comparison to other Humans_.  Each of these is at the outside extreme of what _that species_ can do in terms of strength.

Where the game mechanics fall flat on their collective face is in trying to suggest that all those Strength 20s are the same when compared to any sort of universal standard (often, Humans), because realistically a Str-20 Halfling can't compete with a Str-20 Human who in turn is well outclassed by a Str-20 Goliath.  And like it or not, the same applies to each of the other five stats.

And this is why we need species-based modifiers and-or limits, both positive and negative.  The game uses stats as universal comparitors between everything and doesn't just limit itself to comparisons among a single species, meaning a universal standard is what's needed - unless the intent is to throw believability out the window (which I suppose is also possible).


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Lanefan said:


> unless the intent is to throw believability out the window (which I suppose is also possible).



Was it the Barbarian only getting slightly bruised from having a castle/meteor/planet dropped on them that suggested this might be the case?


----------



## Mind of tempest

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Well, it's not _humanoids_. It's p_layer characters_. You can be a construct if ya wanna. Or an ooze (HELLO, PLASMOIDS!).
> 
> Heck, I know I'm not getting D&D50 until they present my aberration option!
> 
> Oh, sorry. That'll just be another elf subtype, right? GREETINGS FELLOW HUMANOIDS! I AM AN ABOLELF!
> 
> Anyway, the main control on it is people's conceptions of the characters. For the most part, people who pick Goliaths _want to play strong characters_, and people that pick (say) fairies and goblins don't want to play strong characters. It's mostly self-policing.



what do you want for an aberration option?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Mind of tempest said:


> what do you want for an aberration option?




All of them!!!!

Now, I know everyone is like, “I wanna be a Mind Flayer.” 

But c’mon. Slaad is where the action is AT!


----------



## Bill Zebub

Cadence said:


> It feels odd that a goliath PC (the hero after all?) couldn't be the strongest member of his race.
> 
> ("Well, in order for your Goliath fighter to be the strongest member of  the strongest race in the world, that means the record is only 20.  And so I'm sorry, if someone in the party wants to make a 20 Str Halfling and tie you, there's nothing I can do.  If you want to not be the strongest one, I'll put a 21 Str NPC Goliath out there so you can still have that good old Goliath pride .")
> 
> * Pre-emptively insert something about the trait that lets Goliath's carry more, and a switch to half-orcs or something else that's besides the point.




And if my character concept is that my halfling is…or will someday be…the strongest person in the world, is it wrong that every other PC could tie her?

I’m sorry but I just can’t get behind “your character’s existence lessens my enjoyment of my own character” as a design principle.


----------



## Bill Zebub

…and even if you cap halfling strength at 16, there’s always that level 20 halfling barbarian threatening the self-esteem of goliaths everywhere.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Snarf Zagyg said:


> All of them!!!!
> 
> Now, I know everyone is like, “I wanna be a Mind Flayer.”
> 
> But c’mon. Slaad is where the action is AT!



you do know that would be harder to do than playing a half dragon which they do not let you do, they would need a dragon born a pc-sized aberration.


----------



## Cadence

Bill Zebub said:


> And if my character concept is that my halfling is…or will someday be…the strongest person in the world, is it wrong that every other PC could tie her?
> 
> *I’m sorry but I just can’t get behind “your character’s existence lessens my enjoyment of my own character” as a design principle.*




I could be mistaken, but it feels like some folks playing fighters feel less happy when the wizard PC exists at their table ;-)   (Even if that's to glib a way of phrasing it, it seems like dealing with linear fighter quadratic wizard and everything since have been design choice things.)

And I'm certain there are folks who don't enjoy when the ultra-optimized rule exploit characters are possible and dominate all three pillars over their character that has a back story and maybe even some weaknesses.  (Is avoiding trap choices and really unbalanced options a design principal?)

And aren't there others who might be perfectly happy with their just below average size rolled character, until the one with a couple 18s and no bad ones shows up  and is noticeably much more capable. (Is this why point buy and array were made as design choices?)


----------



## Bill Zebub

Cadence said:


> I could be mistaken, but it feels like some folks playing fighters feel less happy when the wizard PC exists at their table ;-)   (Even if that's to glib a way of phrasing it, it seems like dealing with linear fighter quadratic wizard and everything since have been design choice things.)




Yeah I don’t understand that attitude. 




Cadence said:


> And I'm certain there are folks who don't enjoy when the ultra-optimized rule exploit characters are possible and dominate all three pillars over their character that has a back story and maybe even some weaknesses.  (Is avoiding trap choices and really unbalanced options a design principal?)




Or that one. 



Cadence said:


> And aren't there others who might be perfectly happy with their just below average size rolled character, until the one with a couple 18s and no bad ones shows up  and is noticeably much more capable. (Is this why point buy and array were made as design choices?)




Or that one.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

MoonSong said:


> And this is why I think that race ought to have no mechanics attached. All of it should be lore. Everything should be culture and if you really want a superpower, buy it with a feat or two (BTW I subscribe to the idea that PCs aren't any special to begin with. The idea that someone is inherently better is abhorrent to me)



"Special" is not the same as "better," and differences in performance are not the same as differences in inherent worth. Michael Phelps has both the massive training and dedication to be an Olympic athlete (or at least he did, he may be retired now?), and the small but meaningful advantage of his genetics, which give a tiny, tiny edge over others....but when you are already at the peak, the top 0.01%, those small advantages become much more significant. That doesn't mean Mr. Phelps is a more valuable human being than you or me.

Olympic athletes collectively are a special kind of people. Even if they don't win a single medal, to be part of the Olympics is an honor and something that should, by definition, mean you don't match the generic statistics for human beings. Physically stronger, hardier, more flexible, etc. Recognizing that training and selection pressure combine to shift the population statistics for Olympic athletes compared to general humans is not some elitist garbage elevating them as inherently more noble; it is simply a recognition that they are choosing a life that makes them different in some ways, and that succeeding at that life necessarily filters out some people who make the attempt but don't measure up.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Bill Zebub said:


> Yeah I don’t understand that attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or that one.
> 
> 
> 
> Or that one.



When you play a cooperative game, are you content to be confined to the sidelines while someone else does all the work and, consequently, deserves all the credit? E.g., say you were playing doubles in tennis, except your partner is Serena Williams, who hits the ball for you all the time because she knows, correctly, that she's better than you at tennis and that you personally will win more if she does all the work. Would you be enjoying your game of tennis?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Now, I know everyone is like, “I wanna be a Mind Flayer.”



I think a "Ceremorph" race option similar to the Dhampir could work (but with some psionic spellcasting instead of spider climb and deathless nature).


----------



## Yaarel

EzekielRaiden said:


> When you play a cooperative game, are you content to be confined to the sidelines while someone else does all the work and, consequently, deserves all the credit? E.g., say you were playing doubles in tennis, except your partner is Serena Williams, who hits the ball for you all the time because she knows, correctly, that she's better than you at tennis and that you personally will win more if she does all the work. Would you be enjoying your game of tennis?



But the situation is more off.

There are players who come across as demanding "low magic" and refuse to allow their Fighters to have nice things ... but then try to sabotage the Wizards because they do have nice things.

In the tennis game analogy, it is more like a teammate who refuses to learn how to play tennis, and then makes Serena Williams feel unwelcome precisely because she is good at tennis.

This self-sabotage along with envy is the attitude that his hard to sympathize with.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I think a "Ceremorph" race option similar to the Dhampir could work (but with some psionic spellcasting instead of spider climb and deathless nature).



In theory, "partial ceremorph" is literally the player character in the upcoming new Baldur's Gate game? IIRC you get implanted with the tadpole early and the game is at least partially about getting the damn thing out so it doesn't eat your brain and turn you into a mindflayer.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Yaarel said:


> But the situation is more off.
> 
> There are players who come across as demanding "low magic" and refuse to allow their Fighters to have nice things ... but then try to sabotage the Wizards because they do have nice things.
> 
> In the tennis game analogy, it is more like a teammate who refuses to learn how to play tennis, and then makes Serena Williams feel unwelcome precisely because she is good at tennis.
> 
> This self-sabotage along with envy is the attitude that his hard to sympathize with.



I have not seen such "self-sabotage" in play. Have you?


----------



## Yaarel

EzekielRaiden said:


> I have not seen such "self-sabotage" in play. Have you?



Who I game with? No, of course, not.

Online complaints? Lots.

It happens often here in ENWorld.

A Fighter fan complains that a Wizard has too many options, especially at high tiers. When the response is, let the Fighter have options too, the Fighter fan says, that is too magical for the Fighter. In other words, self-sabotage.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Yaarel said:


> Who I game with? No, of course, not.
> 
> Online complaints? Lots.
> 
> It happens often here in ENWorld.
> 
> A Fighter fan complains that a Wizard has too many options, especially at high tiers. When the response is, let the Fighter have options too, the Fighter fan says, that is too magical for the Fighter. In other words, self-sabotage.



Ah. Well, I rarely see that specific combination myself. I usually see only one side (Fighter fan who wants Fighters to have nice things) or the other (Fighter fan who doesn't want magic to be that powerful.) Even for folks who look like it, there is a nuance, such as, "I don't want them to be spellcasters but they should still get their own nice things, things that just work by different rules," more or less.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

EzekielRaiden said:


> In theory, "partial ceremorph" is literally the player character in the upcoming new Baldur's Gate game? IIRC you get implanted with the tadpole early and the game is at least partially about getting the damn thing out so it doesn't eat your brain and turn you into a mindflayer.



I was thinking more of a "Gnome Ceremorph" situation, where Ceremorphosis is already complete, but you somehow kept your previous personality (or at least major parts of it).


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens

Yeah, I don't think it's the Fighter players complaining that Fighters should be realistic and kept away from the fancy folk's party upstairs...


----------



## Mind of tempest

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I was thinking more of a "Gnome Ceremorph" situation, where Ceremorphosis is already complete, but you somehow kept your previous personality (or at least major parts of it).



it still would be god awful to balance


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Mind of tempest said:


> it still would be god awful to balance



Not really. Like I said before, just base it off of the Dhampir lineage. Give them a Bite attack that lets them regain hit points, telepathy, and the ability to cast Detect Thoughts once per day at 5th level.


----------



## Yaarel

EzekielRaiden said:


> "I don't want them to be spellcasters but they should still get their own nice things, things that just work by different rules," more or less.



These are the Fighter fans who I do sympathize with.

I feel every class and every character needs to contribute roughly equally to the combat pillar.

By the same ethic, this includes Fighters contributing roughly equally to the social pillar and exploration pillar.


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> But the situation is more off.
> 
> There are players who come across as demanding "low magic" and refuse to allow their Fighters to have nice things ... but then try to sabotage the Wizards because they do have nice things.
> 
> In the tennis game analogy, it is more like a teammate who refuses to learn how to play tennis, and then makes Serena Williams feel unwelcome precisely because she is good at tennis.
> 
> This self-sabotage along with envy is the attitude that his hard to sympathize with.




_Thought A_

I thought tennis leagues were sorted by ability in the US.  If you're noticably better than everyone you play with you move up.  If noticably worse you move down.


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> But the situation is more off.
> 
> There are players who come across as demanding "low magic" and refuse to allow their Fighters to have nice things ... but then try to sabotage the Wizards because they do have nice things.




_Thought B_

In the multi-player format EDH/Commander in MtG, the self-sorting of players by desired power level is a huge thing.  Among groups that get along, the ethos seems to be that a rough consensus power level of the decks is agreed on and the goal is to win your fair share of games with a deck you enjoy.  (Ok, win slightly more than your fair share).

So if there are four players in your regular group and you are winning 1/2 or more of the games, you should probably tone it down as you seem to have misread the consensus power level.  If there isn't someone dominating, and you hardly win, then you should probably increase your power level a bit so that it actually functions as a 4 player game (some things can get thrown off if one of the players might as well not be there). [The exception here is competitive, where your goal is to stomp everyone else into the ground.]

If the agreed on power level is competitive, then there are certain cards that should probably be banned or the game is degenerate and most people hate it.  If the agreed on power level is more casual, then those same cards might not be a problem because they don't have all the things that go with them that break them - but there might be other cards that are too strong and aren't fun at that level.  So some different rules are needed depending on the level that is being aimed at.

It wonder if D&D is a bit that way too.  There is a bunch of motivating literature/movies/games/shows that might have a sweet spot of tier II and low III.  And there is a bunch that might have a sweet spot of upper III or IV.  If the DM and all the players but one are aiming for one of those tiers, it feels like the one off person might be the one to readjust if their vision just doesn't fit.   And it's possible what the group is aiming at might just need some different options in the rules than what some other group needs.

In MtG, one of the things that happens is new sets of cards come out.  And if WotC misjudges the power level of those sets it can warp what everyone was doing.   I mean, sure the groups could just self-adjust like they always have, but everyone wants to play with the brand new thing.  Especially if it is apparently designed to be for EDH/Commander.    I wonder if big changes to D&D core rule books have a similar affect.  They can really warp what folks were playing, and sure they could just say no... but who likes to say no to what is in the core rule books?


----------



## Lanefan

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Was it the Barbarian only getting slightly bruised from having a castle/meteor/planet dropped on them that suggested this might be the case?



No, in that such a thing couldn't happen in any game I run.  If you can't avoid getting hit by something that big I don't care what your h.p. total might be - squashed is squashed.

When the thing being dropped is something smaller and thus somewhat more avoidable, sich as a Giant's boulder, hit points do an OK job of abstracting how well you avoided a direct hit even though you still took a glancing blow.


----------



## Yaarel

@Cadence

Yeah.

D&D can be great for self-selecting a sweet spot that one enjoys.

This is part of the reason why tiers are important to me. Each tier has its own sense of what amount of power is appropriate. It is also why I feel it is important to have five tiers rather than four, because the mid levels have their own feel. The tiers correspond to the proficiency bonus and feats.

Levels: Tier
1-4: Student
5-8: Professional
9-12: Master
13-16: Grandmaster
17-20: Legend
21-24: Epic

Each of these tiers is its own kind of game. Grandmaster on up are superheroish.

Apparently, most 5e campaigns wind down around level 8. So, for many players, it is important to get the first two tiers right, the student and the professional.

That said. There are many players who want high level gaming. So we can think about how to make the upper tiers, from master on up, more fun to play.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Lanefan said:


> And this is why we need species-based modifiers and-or limits, both positive and negative.



We don't actually need them. For the same reason we don't need gender-based limits--something D&D also _used_ to have.


----------



## Lanefan

EzekielRaiden said:


> When you play a cooperative game, are you content to be confined to the sidelines while someone else does all the work and, consequently, deserves all the credit?



And at the same time takes all the risk; and yes I've seen (and been annoyed at) many a player who is quite happy to roll this way.

The risk-taker who does everything almost always burns out like a shooting star before long; and the corpse can then be looted by the sideline-stander who carries on until finding another willing risk-taker.  Lather-rinse-repeat: short-term boredom (or inattention) for long-term gain.


----------



## Cadence

EzekielRaiden said:


> We don't actually need them. For the same reason we don't need gender-based limits--something D&D also _used_ to have.



Gender based athletic differences seems a lot lot lot smaller for humans than some of the differences between size groupings of humans.  

But sure, we don't need the sized based ones either.


----------



## Lanefan

Yaarel said:


> This is part of the reason why tiers are important to me. Each tier has its own sense of what amount of power is appropriate. It is also why I feel it is important to have five tiers rather than four, because the mid levels have their own feel. The tiers correspond to the proficiency bonus and feats.
> 
> Levels: Tier
> 1-4: Student
> 5-8: Professional
> 9-12: Master
> 13-16: Grandmaster
> 17-20: Legend
> 21-24: Epic
> 
> Each of these tiers is its own kind of game. Grandmaster on up are superheroish.
> 
> Apparently, most 5e campaigns wind down around level 8. So, for many players, it is important to get the first two tiers right, the student and the professional.



Two things here:

First, I always like to think "Student" is for most classes the stage that happened just before you started your adventuring career; if for no other reason than to explain the jump in abilities between a commoner and a 1st-level character.  Maybe 1-4 could be called something like "Line Worker" or "Neophyte". 

Second, every edition - and 5e's no exception - has had a fairly clear "sweet spot" level range where things just plain worked; and for no edition yet has that sweet spot extended above about 14th level.


Yaarel said:


> That said. There are many players who want high level gaming. So we can think about how to make the upper tiers, from master on up, more fun to play.



Thing is, how can a designer do that without wrecking the sweet spot range where things already work well?  3e tried it by upping monster power commensurate with PC power, leading to something of a treadmill effect; that didn't work.  4e tried it by flattening the curve between levels such that the 1-30 power difference in 4e was less than the 1-20 difference in 3e, and for some reason that didn't work.  5e - well, I'm not quite sure what 5e did but it still seems not to have worked.  And 0e-1e-2e didn't really bother trying; the DMs were pretty much on thieir own after about name level (9th-10th for most).

The only thing I can think of, but it wouldn't be popular, would be to dial down the power level overall - mostly by reducing the power gain at each level - such that a "new" 20th-level character would have about the overall power of what we now see as a 10th or 12th.  Then, design for 1-20 as before and thus make the designed range and the playable range much more similar.


----------



## Yaarel

Lanefan said:


> Two things here:
> 
> First, I always like to think "Student" is for most classes the stage that happened just before you started your adventuring career; if for no other reason than to explain the jump in abilities between a commoner and a 1st-level character.  Maybe 1-4 could be called something like "Line Worker" or "Neophyte".



To be clear, these are "adult" students, college students. I consider level 1 to be roughly 20 years old or its equivalent.

If 5e had a "level zero", it would compare to highschool, somewhere between ages 13 to 19. Now that background feats are a thing, it is probably viable to pick race and feat without selecting a class. Then choose a class to level in after some zero level encounters.



Lanefan said:


> Second, every edition - and 5e's no exception - has had a fairly clear "sweet spot" level range where things just plain worked; and for no edition yet has that sweet spot extended above about 14th level.



Part of that breakdown of the sweet spot in earlier editions was simply piling on different kinds of mechanics, whose syngergies together eventually broke the gaming engine − without really understanding how the ecology of a gaming engine works. 4e is the first edition that understood the gaming engine, which is why its mechanics were tight like computer code. 5e reacted antithetically to 4e, but it too has a sense of how a gaming engine works.

The goal, is to get an even better understanding of the game engine ecologies at each higher tier. To keep the engine running smoothly.



Lanefan said:


> Thing is, how can a designer do that without wrecking the sweet spot range where things already work well?



Improve 5e by treating each four-level tier as its own kind of game. With its own kind of flavor and crafted mechanics. If the student and professional tiers are working well, let them continue to work well. Think about the upper tiers separately.



Lanefan said:


> 3e tried it by upping monster power commensurate with PC power, leading to something of a treadmill effect; that didn't work.  4e tried it by flattening the curve between levels such that the 1-30 power difference in 4e was less than the 1-20 difference in 3e, and for some reason that didn't work.



4e does work well at high tiers. The critique about the monster math was noticeable in the first place because its math is so tight. And correctable.



Lanefan said:


> 5e - well, I'm not quite sure what 5e did but it still seems not to have worked.



5e is − by design − tough to break. It is less balanced than 4e, but more robust, so DMs can do more stuff on the fly without crashing the game. One forumer, @Tony Vargas described 5e as like pounding a pile of sand with a hammer.



Lanefan said:


> And 0e-1e-2e didn't really bother trying; the DMs were pretty much on thieir own after about name level (9th-10th for most).



I think of the old school (0e, original and basic, 1e and 2e) like early forms of life on planet Earth.



Lanefan said:


> The only thing I can think of, but it wouldn't be popular, would be to dial down the power level overall - mostly by reducing the power gain at each level - such that a "new" 20th-level character would have about the overall power of what we now see as a 10th or 12th.



I like high level gaming. If you want to stop at level 8 or 12, no problem. But dont hold me back.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Lanefan said:


> Two things here:
> 
> First, I always like to think "Student" is for most classes the stage that happened just before you started your adventuring career; if for no other reason than to explain the jump in abilities between a commoner and a 1st-level character.  Maybe 1-4 could be called something like "Line Worker" or "Neophyte".



"Zero levels" or "Novice"/"Apprentice" content should absolutely be a thing, yes. I have strongly advocated for such things since the beginning of the D&D Next playtest: there should be supportive, positive, _present in the PHB_ rules for creating "novice" characters who are still learning the ropes and may not even have all their "baseline" abilities yet (e.g. the possibility of needing to _acquire_ some of your background benefits.)

From there, you'd have "Journeyman," where you're formally initiated into your skills. You may not have learned every standard skill of your craft, but you're competent enough to ask for day-wages in it (which is the root of the word "journeyman," coming via French from the Latin _diurnus_.) Then you'd advance to "Expert," having learned all the standard skills to a high degree of competence; "Master," someone who _could_ teach others the craft if desired; and "Grandmaster," someone who could teach _other masters_. If each of these were 5 levels, that would get you to 20 (Journeyman 1-5, Expert 6-10, Master 11-15, Grandmaster 16-20.) 5e doesn't cover beyond 20, but further useful terms would be Legend[ary] and Epic, naturally.



Lanefan said:


> Second, every edition - and 5e's no exception - has had a fairly clear "sweet spot" level range where things just plain worked; and for no edition yet has that sweet spot extended above about 14th level.



I mean, I'd argue 4e actually did go beyond that, but the things people found trouble with were different, and in fact quite fixable with an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, update. But that's a discussion for a different thread.



Lanefan said:


> Thing is, how can a designer do that without wrecking the sweet spot range where things already work well?  3e tried it by upping monster power commensurate with PC power, leading to something of a treadmill effect; that didn't work.  4e tried it by flattening the curve between levels such that the 1-30 power difference in 4e was less than the 1-20 difference in 3e, and for some reason that didn't work.  5e - well, I'm not quite sure what 5e did but it still seems not to have worked.  And 0e-1e-2e didn't really bother trying; the DMs were pretty much on thieir own after about name level (9th-10th for most).
> 
> The only thing I can think of, but it wouldn't be popular, would be to dial down the power level overall - mostly by reducing the power gain at each level - such that a "new" 20th-level character would have about the overall power of what we now see as a 10th or 12th.  Then, design for 1-20 as before and thus make the designed range and the playable range much more similar.



Well...what you just described IS what 4e did. If three levels in 4e is (approximately) equal to 2 levels in 5e, then a level 21 character in 4e is equivalent to a level 14 character in 5e. "13 is the new 20" is pretty close to what you're talking about here. Note that I don't say this because I think you are _wrong_. I say it because I think you are _right_, just conflating "4e had problems" (which it _absolutely did_, both external and internal, both induced from outside and completely self-inflicted) with "because 4e did it, it must not have worked."

Spell levels 7, 8, and (especially) 9 are where the wheels truly come off. Where reality has to use metaphorical _safe words_ in its relationship with full spellcasters. The kinds of things a 9th level spellcaster can do--stopping time, creating pocket planes, literally enforcing their wishes on reality--are stuff that even legit actual superheroes struggle to do, if they even get the chance. 4e decided those things should belong in Epic tier. I think that decision was correct.


----------



## Scribe

EzekielRaiden said:


> We don't actually need them. For the same reason we don't need gender-based limits--something D&D also _used_ to have.



Not the same actually, at all.

A Halfling is quite literally a small child as far as stature, mass, leverage, physiology goes.

Its not comparable to male/female dichotomy that was present and rightfully removed, at all.


----------



## Branduil

Scribe said:


> Not the same actually, at all.
> 
> A Halfling is quite literally a small child as far as stature, mass, leverage, physiology goes.
> 
> Its not comparable to male/female dichotomy that was present and rightfully removed, at all.



Halflings aren't real, their physiology is whatever their creators say it is. An actual child would simply die in their first combat encounter, so it's understandable people do not want to play halflings who are "realistic" for their size.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Branduil said:


> Halflings aren't real, their physiology is whatever their creators say it is. An actual child would simply die in their first combat encounter, so it's understandable people do not want to play halflings who are "realistic" for their size.



Yeah. Halflings could just have proportionally stronger muscles for their size than humans, like chimpanzees.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Scribe said:


> Not the same actually, at all.
> 
> A Halfling is quite literally a small child as far as stature, mass, leverage, physiology goes.



As already noted, halflings are not real, and their physiology is what we say it is. They have a height similar to children. Beyond that, they are whatever we wish for them to be. We are already talking about a world where being struck by a flamethrower belched out of the face of a bus-sized flying lizard has a decent chance of simply leaving an ordinary, albeit highly trained, human injured enough to need a night's sleep.

We are not talking about IRL human physiology to begin with. Why should a creature invented by our imaginations--which necessarily defies parts of physiology and biology as we know it--have any specific characteristics at all, unless we are expressly told so?



Scribe said:


> Its not comparable to male/female dichotomy that was present and rightfully removed, at all.



Why not? I already said it clearly has parallels in race essentialism, an ideology that really exists, which is actually harmful to real people, and which its proponents _do in fact use TTRPGs to advocate_.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Everything *except* human.
Take away the yardstick.
Let weird flags fly.

Break the chains to pseudo-medievalism and "no way could that happen in real life.."


----------



## Cadence

Branduil said:


> Halflings aren't real, their physiology is whatever their creators say it is. An actual child would simply die in their first combat encounter, so it's understandable people do not want to play halflings who are "realistic" for their size.






AcererakTriple6 said:


> Yeah. Halflings could just have proportionally stronger muscles for their size than humans, like chimpanzees.






EzekielRaiden said:


> As already noted, halflings are not real, and their physiology is what we say it is. They have a height similar to children. Beyond that, they are whatever we wish for them to be.




That all sounds great.  So we could do that simply by saying in the halfling description "Halflings and Gnomes often surprise those who think they are human children.  They are vastly stronger for their size than a human child - in fact an adult Halfling or Gnome is just as strong as an adult Human , Orc, or Dragonborn!"


----------



## Scribe

Branduil said:


> Halflings aren't real, their physiology is whatever their creators say it is. An actual child would simply die in their first combat encounter, so it's understandable people do not want to play halflings who are "realistic" for their size.



lol then why have them in any way?

Humans with funny hats it is.


----------



## Cadence

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Yeah. Halflings could just have proportionally stronger muscles for their size than humans, like chimpanzees.




I don't think we can say they have proportionally stronger muscles for their size than humans.  
Doesn't a human the size of a halfling in D&D has the same range of strength and dex as one the size of an olympic gymnast, a basketball player, or an offensive lineman?  Is it  moving towards adulthood that makes one strong in D&D, not size or working out or whatnot?


----------



## Lanefan

Gammadoodler said:


> Everything *except* human.
> Take away the yardstick.
> Let weird flags fly.
> 
> Break the chains to pseudo-medievalism and "no way could that happen in real life.."



For me, that pushes it into "no longer D&D" territory.  It's something else - not necessarily a bad something else, but still something else.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Scribe said:


> lol then why have them in any way?



Because people like them. Because they add color and interest, emphasizing that this is a fantastical world. Because their physiology, while not being determinative of the limits of what they can achieve, can still be an influence on their behavior, interests, preferences, language, architecture, etc., etc. Because there may be interesting stories to tell which leverage the differences that remain even when ability scores are not the primary differentiation between them (since, as I have already argued, there are more and IMO better ways to differentiate goliaths from halflings.) Because they may offer the author a chance to provide a creative new take on a classic concept, leveraging audience familiarity for some kind of benefit (consider Dark Sun's dark re-imagining of most races, including halflings, who are terrifying jungle "cannibals.")

I'm sure I could go on. Point is, there are many reasons.



Scribe said:


> Humans with funny hats it is.



It really isn't.

Now, if you'd actually like to have a _discussion_ about this, rather than simply a duelling of crappy assertions, I'd be quite happy to engage. But if you're merely going to belt out a tired, one-line, no-thought argument, what's even the point of posting it?


----------



## Gammadoodler

Lanefan said:


> For me, that pushes it into "no longer D&D" territory.  It's something else - not necessarily a bad something else, but still something else.



I'm curious about that. Is it the "no more humans" or the "everything else"?

If you're still strapping on your best sword and shield before going underground to fight dragons with a small party of compatriots..

If it was just a setting with no humans instead of the rulebook..


----------



## MoonSong

EzekielRaiden said:


> "Special" is not the same as "better," and differences in performance are not the same as differences in inherent worth. Michael Phelps has both the massive training and dedication to be an Olympic athlete (or at least he did, he may be retired now?), and the small but meaningful advantage of his genetics, which give a tiny, tiny edge over others....but when you are already at the peak, the top 0.01%, those small advantages become much more significant. That doesn't mean Mr. Phelps is a more valuable human being than you or me.
> 
> Olympic athletes collectively are a special kind of people. Even if they don't win a single medal, to be part of the Olympics is an honor and something that should, by definition, mean you don't match the generic statistics for human beings. Physically stronger, hardier, more flexible, etc. Recognizing that training and selection pressure combine to shift the population statistics for Olympic athletes compared to general humans is not some elitist garbage elevating them as inherently more noble; it is simply a recognition that they are choosing a life that makes them different in some ways, and that succeeding at that life necessarily filters out some people who make the attempt but don't measure up.



I have a rebuttal to that, but it isn't appropriate for this forum. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.


----------



## Scribe

EzekielRaiden said:


> Now, if you'd actually like to have a _discussion_ about this, rather than simply a duelling of crappy assertions, I'd be quite happy to engage. But if you're merely going to belt out a tired, one-line, no-thought argument, what's even the point of posting it?



I already have, we simply will never agree as I noted days ago.

If your solution is 'physiology doesnt matter, they are not real' then its simply not a conversation. In that scenario, yes, they can certainly be whatever you need them to be.

I'll continue to view it as I do, as there hasnt been a single argument since Tasha's, that has been convincing.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Cadence said:


> That all sounds great.  So we could do that simply by saying in the halfling description "Halflings and Gnomes often surprise those who think they are human children.  They are vastly stronger for their size than a human child - in fact an adult Halfling or Gnome is just as strong as an adult Human , Orc, or Dragonborn!"



Sure. But that would make a lot of people angry.


Cadence said:


> *I don't think we can say they have proportionally stronger muscles for their size than humans. *
> Doesn't a human the size of a halfling in D&D has the same range of strength and dex as one the size of an olympic gymnast, a basketball player, or an offensive lineman?  Is it  moving towards adulthood that makes one strong in D&D, not size or working out or whatnot?



Why not? Why can't they? There's nothing that prevents them from having proportionally stronger muscles.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Scribe said:


> If your solution is 'physiology doesnt matter, they are not real' then its simply not a conversation. In that scenario, yes, they can certainly be whatever you need them to be.



But I never said--and have never said--that physiology is _completely unimportant_.

I am simply saying that physiology is not absolutely determinative of what characters are capable of achieving, beyond certain relatively niche things like dragon breath, impossible luck, innate but limited teleportation abilities, flight, etc.

Whereas you are, very explicitly, making the argument that _not_ having hard-and-fast limitations on what someone can do, simply because their physiology would be less physically adept in our world, causes absolutely all characters to be 100% perfectly identical with no differences _at all_. You have made this assertion in an extremely dismissive, non-discursive way ("Humans with funny hats it is.") I am saying that an actual discussion is, in fact, possible here.

To put my money where my mouth is and _demonstrate_ why I think this is false, I will bring out my classic soapbox of dragonborn. Being _extremely_ brief: MUCH faster development, better at healing (at least in 4e), different means of dealing with body heat, egg-laying, high-protein diets, elemental halitosis, etc. These factors_ should_ all bear out in their art (painting, poetry, music, etc.), their material artifacts (architecture/civic engineering, clothing, furniture design), their language (metaphors, accents), their food (materials, preparation methods, flavors), etc.

Not one of those things has any meaningful impact on whether a dragonborn can achieve superlative success through mighty thews or shrewd thought or wise words. Yet all of them individually, and certainly when taken collectively, make for a meaningful distinction from humans in general, and any specific human culture one might consider. Dragonborn might not be keen on chairs, for example, if they have tails (classically they do not, but tailed dragonborn art is at least as old as 4e dragonborn if not older)--this would make them more similar to Eastern cultures IRL where one usually reclines on floor-cushions rather than having knee-level frame furniture. Dragonborn wouldn't design prisons with ordinary metal bars as their primary deterrent because, y'know, _elemental halitosis_.

Unless there is something _more_ to the dismissive "humans with funny hats" description, the only thing preventing fantasy races from being distinct from one another is laziness on the part of the people describing them, be it the game's makers or the person running a specific table.


----------



## Cadence

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Sure. But that would make a lot of people angry.




They'll be angry anyway. 


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Why not? Why can't they? There's nothing that prevents them from having proportionally stronger muscles.



That might have been true when humans were just medium in the game.  But now humans in the game can be the same size as the halflings and gnomes - and just like halflings and gnomes the humans who have the game classification small have no restrictions on their ability scores.

So it feels untrue to say halflings and gnomes are proportionally stronger than humans in general because they are now just the same as humans of the same size.    So I guess I should adjust my previous suggestion to say:

"'Small' humanoid adults (Halflings, Gnomes, some Humans) often surprise those who think they are human children. They are vastly stronger for their size than the human children who will grow up to be 'medium' - in fact a 'Small' humanoid adult is just as strong as an any 'Medium' adult humanoid such as Orc, Dragonborn, and some Humans!"


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Cadence said:


> They'll be angry anyway.



5e was specifically designed as trying to win back the people scared away by 4e. I think WotC is still trying to avoid scaring them off by getting rid of so many Sacred Cows. 


Cadence said:


> That might have been true when humans were just medium in the game. But now humans in the game can be the same size as the halflings and gnomes - and just like halflings and gnomes the humans who have the game classification small have no restrictions on their ability scores.
> 
> So it feels untrue to say halflings and gnomes are proportionally stronger than humans in general because they are now just the same as humans of the same size. So I guess I should adjust my previous suggestion to say:
> 
> "'Small' humanoid adults (Halflings, Gnomes, some Humans) often surprise those who think they are human children. They are vastly stronger for their size than the human children who will grow up to be 'medium' - in fact a 'Small' humanoid adult is just as strong as an any 'Medium' adult humanoid such as Orc, Dragonborn, and some Humans!"



Say that Small humans also have that genetic quirk for some reason. It's a fantasy world. It doesn't have to adhere to real world genetics.


----------



## Cadence

AcererakTriple6 said:


> 5e was specifically designed as trying to win back the people scared away by 4e. I think WotC is still trying to avoid scaring them off by getting rid of so many Sacred Cows.




The Sacred Cow about size and strength has already been hamburgerized. This is just being honest about it ;-)   But fair point.



AcererakTriple6 said:


> Say that Small humans also have that genetic quirk for some reason. It's a fantasy world. It doesn't have to adhere to real world genetics.



When we're talking about a group that exists in the real world it feels like we'd want to wordsmith it really carefully (so I wouldn't say 'genetic quirk').

Maybe it is best to just gloss over it and not say anything.


----------



## Bill Zebub

I really have to learn to stop arguing with people who won't let go of topics that are done and settled.


----------



## Lanefan

Gammadoodler said:


> I'm curious about that. Is it the "no more humans" or the "everything else"?
> 
> If you're still strapping on your best sword and shield before going underground to fight dragons with a small party of compatriots..



No, it was this bit...


Gammadoodler said:


> Break the chains to pseudo-medievalism and "no way could that happen in real life.."



No Humans isn't any fun either, but removing a) a pseudo-medieval/ancient setting and b) any connection to reality is a bridge too far.


----------



## Scribe

EzekielRaiden said:


> Whereas you are, very explicitly, making the argument that _not_ having hard-and-fast limitations on what someone can do, simply because their physiology would be less physically adept in our world, causes absolutely all characters to be 100% perfectly identical with no differences _at all_.



Nope. I've simply said have ASI in addition to other rules.


----------



## Gammadoodler

Lanefan said:


> No, it was this bit...
> 
> No Humans isn't any fun either, but removing a) a pseudo-medieval/ancient setting and b) any connection to reality is a bridge too far.



To be clear, the latter bullets are some potential positive (to me) results of removing humans rather than goals pursued independently.

Mostly just tired of folks 'proving' what fantasy characters and societies are like based on often poorly executed Wikipedia research. Simpler to make a case of "this isn't earth; things don't work the same way they do on earth" when you don't have PCs that directly reference players' lived experience.

I don't have a problem with medievalism as a conscious choice. I tire of its place as the lazy default. And I think that once you remove reference to historical humanity, there is more room to explore how fantasy cultures would operate and organize themselves. Economic and political systems can get a lot more interesting and experimental.

I understand that, for some, these are grounding elements that help folks get on the same page efficiently. I think this is both a feature _and a bug, _as I think it also puts mental blockers in place that are not necessary in a fantasy game.


----------



## Branduil

Gammadoodler said:


> Everything *except* human.
> Take away the yardstick.
> Let weird flags fly.
> 
> Break the chains to pseudo-medievalism and "no way could that happen in real life.."



I would love a D&D setting with no humans. I've felt for a while that having humans in a fantasy settings inevitably results in a "humans normal, other races monocultures" situation even if unintentional. One solution is to just make the setting (almost) exclusively human (Game of Thrones), but the other would be to eliminate humans as the "baseline" human readers inevitably magnetize to, and force people to relate to fantasy peoples on their own terms.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Scribe said:


> Nope. I've simply said have ASI in addition to other rules.



Were you not specifically arguing that _without that specific element_, nothing would be enough?

That is, I am saying that that element is superfluous (not merely "unnecessary," since _nothing_ is "necessary" in a TTRPG), insufficient on its own, and rationally connected to a pernicious and harmful ideology. Unless I have very much misunderstood, you are saying that it is in fact _necessary_, that the other things cannot even in principle do the job on their own.


----------



## Lanefan

Branduil said:


> I would love a D&D setting with no humans. I've felt for a while that having humans in a fantasy settings inevitably results in a "humans normal, other races monocultures" situation even if unintentional. *One solution is to just make the setting (almost) exclusively human (Game of Thrones), *but the other would be to eliminate humans as the "baseline" human readers inevitably magnetize to, and force people to relate to fantasy peoples on their own terms.



I'd very seriously consider the bolded if I thought I could get away with it.  I'm really not sure how well it'd go over, however.


----------



## Scribe

EzekielRaiden said:


> Unless I have very much misunderstood, you are saying that it is in fact _necessary_, that the other things cannot even in principle do the job on their own.



I do not believe its necessary, but do not agree that its harmful, and as such see no reason to not include it.


----------

