Morrus on... Races

Morrus said:

Mandatory racial level caps are a bad approach to the second choice. Everyone agrees with that, and they went the way of the dodo years ago.

Click to expand...

No, everyone does not agree with that and the Megatherium is alive and well in my 1e game. It's so alive that WOTC thinks it's a good idea to reprint the old rules.

I'd rather not see a mid-point comprising of small bonuses at 1st level and the ability to detect secret doors. Because who's gonna care about that at 10th level?

Click to expand...

Depends on the ruleset. If true seeing or the lie is easily available then detecting secret doors is not that important, but if it's less available and not at all guaranteed, such as in AD&D, then finding the secret door to the treasure room is very, very important.

I'm personally in favor of the "race is important" approach, since the "race isn't important" approach can simply use the racial mechanics, independent of the actual races they are tied to, by re-flavoring as necessary. "Racial" powers simply become another package of related abilities, not unlike class or theme.

Race is important, if you are a dwarf than you are a fraking dwarf and you do dwarfy like wearing metal likes its going out of fashion, swinging Big Fraking Axes, drinking ale all day, doing some recriational mining and making love to small bearded women.

Warder

As an extension of my reply to you earlier, I feel the primary problem here is that the aguments over how potent the choice of a race are not diametrically opposed.

While there are those who exist at those points, much as there are for any particular position, those people are in political terms the "vocal minority".

The solution IS compromise, and given that 5e is seeking to appeal to the widest range of players by providing multiple ways to play, the compromise is obvious.

The solution is that both answers, in fact every answer is correct.

Race should be important, if the DM determines it to be so. Race shouldn't be important if the DM determines it to not be. Race is moderately important if the DM decides to ride the middle.

The extreme solutions of large limitations, large bonuses/penalties, restrictions, minimums and maximums or "everything is fluff" will satisfy only a very very tiny minority of players.

So the solution is to put the power in the hands of the players, the DMs and the players their particular campaigns. Is Joe wants to be the dwarfiest dwarf to have ever dwarfed, let him take that +6 Con and -6 Cha, give him feats, both useful and flavorful that will give him an "Iron Stomach", a "Hairy Chest" and a "+2 when using maces". If Jim, in the same party wants to play the Efliest elf, but not quite the one to have ever elfed, let him take that +2 Int, -2con, and let him choose a few feats that make him feel more elfy. If Jane wants to play an against-stereotype Orc Bard who is rather run-of-the-mill physically, let her choose to take NO bonuses and have NO penalties. Let her choose to take no race-feats, let her make her character smooth talking and quick-witted.

The more power you give to the players, the less you attempt to rules-lawyer the system into one specific incarnation, the more you're going to get exactly what 5e is going for, and in fact, what every edition of D&D has really been striving for: the ability for the players to enjoy the game to the fullest.

The solution is rarely to force people into a specific box. Let people make their own box, let them cut holes in it and paint silly pictures on the outside, let them add spikes and make it mithril-plated. Let the players play the game they want to play. Don't make decisions for them, don't stuff them in a box.

Kynn said:

How about both?

What about Race matters for character "B" but doesn't matter for character "A"?

Just as I'd be able to build a sword-swinging simple-to-play fighter in 5e without worrying about skills, so should I be able to build a fighter where her race isn't important. And just as I could instead build a more complex, detailed fighter with specific skills and abilities and powers, so should I be able to build one whose dwarven race is super integral to her concept and her mechanical abilities.

Thus it seems to me that it works best as a player choice -- something that 5e is hopefully going to be good at managing.

Think back to the old Skills & Powers book -- you could be a 5-point dwarf and have like one dwarven ability, or be 50-point dwarf who almost invested more points in her race than she did in her class, and had a full range of dwarven abilities.

Click to expand...

shidaku said:

So the solution is to put the power in the hands of the players, the DMs and the players their particular campaigns. Is Joe wants to be the dwarfiest dwarf to have ever dwarfed, let him take that +6 Con and -6 Cha, give him feats, both useful and flavorful that will give him an "Iron Stomach", a "Hairy Chest" and a "+2 when using maces". If Jim, in the same party wants to play the Efliest elf, but not quite the one to have ever elfed, let him take that +2 Int, -2con, and let him choose a few feats that make him feel more elfy. If Jane wants to play an against-stereotype Orc Bard who is rather run-of-the-mill physically, let her choose to take NO bonuses and have NO penalties. Let her choose to take no race-feats, let her make her character smooth talking and quick-witted.

Click to expand...

There are good points here, but keep in mind a couple of things. If immersion is important to the group then it may become jarring to have elven brutes or 7ft. tall halflings running amok. Now sure, this depends on the desires of the group and they should have that option of which type of game to play. The thing is, they always had that option--they could choose among different game systems and pick one which met their needs.

5th edition seems to be trying to bring all of these options under one game. You cannot but look at this as a major candidate for the most ambitious game design of all times. Not only are they trying to make one system which can cater to different game types, but (if I'm understanding correctly) they seem to want people with different ideas of what kind of game to play, to coexist in the same game at the same table. I mean...good luck. If they succeed, they would be the first to do so as far as I know.

I suspect they will fail at this, but still put out an amazing product that achieves part of what they were going for. I do *not* think they will be able to make it so that different people with different ideas of what game to play, will be able to function in the same game at the same table. In that respect, giving an "anything goes" approach to racial importance will likely be one of the hurdles.

barlie said:

There are good points here, but keep in mind a couple of things. If immersion is important to the group then it may become jarring to have elven brutes or 7ft. tall halflings running amok. Now sure, this depends on the desires of the group and they should have that option of which type of game to play. The thing is, they always had that option--they could choose among different game systems and pick one which met their needs.

Click to expand...

This is addressed by the DM deciding what is or isn't going to fly in their campaign setting. If a game doesn't have a "everyone meet up and decide how we're going to work this" stage, then either they are choosing to allow everything, or they're going to have problems when people start saying "hey wait I didn't want to allow that."

D&D may be a specific game, but it is far from a specific system. There is a framework to be sure, but that framework is very flexible and can easily be built upon. The massive differences between 1e and 4e, from table to table are a perfect example of how while the baseline system is often the same, the games themselves can have radically different features to them. Both because of at-the-table rulings and how Wizards designed that particular edition.

If they succeed, they would be the first to do so as far as I know.

Click to expand...

Certainly a "wait and see" approach is justified, but then, that's the approach many have taken towards every edition, towards every game. Wizards may fail, in which case you are under no obligation to play the game, they may succeed, in which case the same applies. As you said yourself, there are many games out there, if D&D does not satisfy you in it's current incarnation, there are alternatives.

I suspect they will fail at this, but still put out an amazing product that achieves part of what they were going for. I do *not* think they will be able to make it so that different people with different ideas of what game to play, will be able to function in the same game at the same table. In that respect, giving an "anything goes" approach to racial importance will likely be one of the hurdles.

Click to expand...

I have been part of many betas for video games. Developers love to talk the talk and promise the moon, but when it comes down to it they rarely deliver on these things. However, often times they achieve a great deal in their ideal direction.

5e may not strike the perfect balance of modularity to bridge the gaps between editions. But it may go a long way towards unifying them, even if it does not achieve unification(which honestly, is more a player issue than an edition issue).

As a player/DM, I tend towards the 'races matter' description. I would like to see a certain flexibility possible on this however. I wouldn't want my preference pushed down anyone's throat. I'm not sure I would want race mattering to affect ability scores in anything except a minor way, however. I don't think 'important part of character creation' and 'only small or no bonuses to character scores' are mutually exclusive.

I would like to see the possibility of elves becoming more elfy and dwarves more dwarfy (applied to all races but in their own flavoursome way, across the board) as a character progresses through the levels.

As member of ENWorld I do find it amusing how Morrus' opinion pieces find themselves in the "News" forum as opposed to general forum or New Horizons forum.

While I understand that others may want races differentiated solely by fluff, my preference on this is fairly clear: race should be very important. In fact, I would almost go as far as to say that the more important race is mechanically, the better.

What I disagree with is the notion that a middle ground would be the worst option. For me the absolutely worst option is the lack of mechanical differences. The middle option is... well, middle and the large differences are the best option. In that sense, high mechanical differences are my preference, but the middle option would be a compromise I would be willing to accept. No mechanical differences would be something I would not be willing to countenance, since there are plenty of other options out there that don't have that deal breaker.

What I don't understand in the piece is that you say you want strong distinctive differences that make a difference throughout your adventuring career, that any middle ground between this and 'decide what you like, it makes no mechanical difference' is the worst possible choice, but then you reject the idea of class preferences/level caps because they are too extreme.

If you never want a halfling to be as strong as a half-orc, do you mean: if they both are Fighters, if they are both *not* Fighters, or no matter what classes they are? A halfling Fighter will probably have to be stronger than your average half-orc eventually, if Strength is essential to being a good Fighter. If you're going toe-to-toe with a half-orc Fighter, how severely penalised should the halfling be in Strength terms?

The way I see it, if you want those strong mechanic differences to exist, without having to stymie the specific class career of a certain race, you need to give every class suitable ways to perform effectively that reflect the race's niche. I think 4th Edition went some way to this, but due to the stat-power tie-ins, not quite enough. If every race can be a Fighter of unlimited level then how do they fight? Half-orcs should be all about Strength and big weapons and damage, halflings should be about dodging, Dexterity, somewhat roguish fighting. Your idea of 'race advancement' could provide this, but you'd have to have either broad racial abilities to complement many classes, or a suite of race-class specific powers (with 4th Edition tried to do with feats). I'm more in favour of allowing people racial advancements if they want them, but not forcing them to do so if they prefer to broaden their class instead.

shidaku said:

D&D may be a specific game, but it is far from a specific system. There is a framework to be sure, but that framework is very flexible and can easily be built upon. The massive differences between 1e and 4e, from table to table are a perfect example of how while the baseline system is often the same, the games themselves can have radically different features to them. Both because of at-the-table rulings and how Wizards designed that particular edition.

Click to expand...

See that's the thing. The different editions are indeed different systems, and this is particularly true with 4e. The bases are most certainly similar, but they're not compatible without tinkering. It takes some knowledge and some work to make them compatible. You can see this if you've played a particular edition, but wanted to implement certain things from another edition that wasn't available in your own. You had to be careful the implementation wasn't game breaking (if your group is concerned about such things). I like to keep this tinkering to a minimum. When I purchase a set of rulebooks, I sign on to play the game, and possibly to make a few modifications, but I don't sign on to be an amateur game designer.

But that might be a bit besides the point. Racial importance has never drastically changed in terms of overall weight in the editions I'm familiar with (2e, 3rd, and 4th)