Morrus on... Races

Minigiant · Feb 19, 2012

As a Super Johnny, Weirdo Playing, "Roleplay the Weakness", Fight Fire with Jank player, I am extremely a "race is important" guy.

I would even change this to "race is important but a character should have even major aspects that rather than banning a race from an archetype, it just changes it dramatically."

A halfling may be weaker and have worse weapon choices than a half orc and some say that should make it a bad melee fighter. But I think there should be more to the fighter than weapon option and raw strength and a halfling would obviously focus on the other aspects of the melee fighter archetype.

So whether "race is important" or "race isn't important", can we agree that characters shouldn't be so simplistic that all we are able to roleplay are steroetypes.

Ahnehnois · Feb 19, 2012

I'd like to see race playing a larger role, with stronger bonuses and penalties that stay relevant at all levels.

It shouldn't completely invalidate choices. For example, you should still be able to make a decent halfling barbarian or dwarven wizard. But it shouldn't be the same as playing a halfling rogue or a dwarven fighter, and your character shouldn't feel the same regardless of what race he is.

DimitriX · Feb 19, 2012

I think the big problem has always been the use of the term "race". D&D does not have races, it has species. A race, in biological terms, is a minor variation within a species. For instance, Caucasian, African American, Native American, Asian, and Hispanic are all races. Other than cosmetic, there are little differences between the races. D&D on the other hand has different species. A human is a human. But, a halfling is more like a spider monkey, an elf is like a chimpanzee, a dwarf is an orangutan, and an orc is a gorilla. There are significant differences between all of those species and stats should reflect that.

Of course, thinking along these lines, that means you can't have half species. No more half-elves or half-orcs (and please no half-dragons or half-undead either). Breeding a human and a chimp does not get you a half-chimp even though they share about 98% of DNA.

Morrus · Feb 19, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
I'd like to see race playing a larger role, with stronger bonuses and penalties that stay relevant at all levels.

It shouldn't completely invalidate choices. For example, you should still be able to make a decent halfling barbarian or dwarven wizard. But it shouldn't be the same as playing a halfling rogue or a dwarven fighter, and your character shouldn't feel the same regardless of what race he is.

Yeah, I may not have emphasized that above, but I'm in agreement there. The second option isn't about invalidating class choices, but it does make those choices feel different for different races. So a halfling fighter should be equally viable as a goliath fighter, but they're both very different fighters.

freeAgent · Feb 19, 2012

Race is and should be important. You destroy the fluff of a given race if you rip out the bonuses/abilities/penalties associated with the various races. A -2 to a certain ability score isn't going to stop a determined player from playing the class s/he wants to. D&D is about role playing first and foremost, and adding these sorts of bonuses and penalties into the rules adds flavor to the game.

Morrus · Feb 19, 2012

Chris_Nightwing said:
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.

The problem with level caps is that they're a "stop playing your character now" option more than a strong flavour distinction.

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?

So, in that case, the halfling plays a very different type of fighter to the half-orc. A dex-based one, rather than a strength-based one (for example). The fighter is equally viable to both.

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.

Yup; that would be a necessary implication.

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.

Fair enough. I personally see that as "race doesn't matter", but I can see your perspective of "race matters if you want it to". Perhaps if it were more setting-linked, so as to maintain some degree of verisimilitude.

Minigiant · Feb 19, 2012

Morrus said:
Yeah, I may not have emphasized that above, but I'm in agreement there. The second option isn't about invalidating class choices, but it does make those choices feel different for different races. So a halfling fighter should be equally viable as a goliath fighter, but they're both very different fighters.

I agree with this.

A racial choice wouldn't make the character stronger or weaker but different.

A half-orc is big and strong. If a half-orc fighter played to his racial strength, he'd focus on two handed weapons to better use their higher strength and wear the heaviest mobile armor to compensate for the lack of a shield.

A halfling fighter, with their more dextrous but weaker and smaller frame, would focus on their armor class. Their AC, which is boosted by their size and dexterity, could be enhanced more with a defensive feat/stance to create a "dodge tank".

Elven fighters would be mobile fighter if they emphasized their racial features. Their frailer bodies would discourage stand up melee slugfests but their nimble wrists and skill with the bow would encourage hit and run tactics.

Dwarvy dwarf fighters would be the opposite of elven ones. Toughness and stability would encourage heavy armor all out weapons brawls.

Races would less about equality and more about differentiation

Andor · Feb 19, 2012

Morrus said:
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?

Should anyone care about it at 10th level?

Sure halflings are short and weak and a human fighter might not take one seriously. If they are both 1st level, he's probably right, his racialy better strength and ability to weild larger weapons give our human a pretty solid edge.

By the time Merry and Pipin got home from the War of the Ring they were no longer 1st level. Their racial stat mods were no longer a factor. And the 1st level humans who failed to take a few years of adventuring into account learned the error of their ways pretty quickly.

I think the ability of years of adventuring and growth to trancend the limits of starting racial abilities is not a flaw.

Morrus · Feb 19, 2012

Andor said:
By the time Merry and Pipin got home from the War of the Ring they were no longer 1st level. Their racial stat mods were no longer a factor. And the 1st level humans who failed to take a few years of adventuring into account learned the error of their ways pretty quickly.

Yes, but the hobbits quite notably still weren't strong. They were more skilled. And they had fighting styles which reflected that.

I think the ability of years of adventuring and growth to trancend the limits of starting racial abilities is not a flaw.

Yes; as I said, I agree that the high level halfing fighter should be a viable option. That doesn't mean that one has to be indistinguishable from a goliath fighter, though.

But bear in mind that's just one point of view you've selected there. I also supported the opposite - that racial mechanics could mean nothing. You generate your character and say "Well, he's got a low strength and a high dex; he's focused on a dex-based fighting style; and I've given him this ability to outline his enemies in cold fire - I'm going to say he's a drow. Because the mechanics I've freely chosen for my character match the description of a drow pretty well."

In this latter approach, race is fluff. It's up to the player to match his fluff with his mechanics rather than have the fluff predefine aspects of his mechanics.

It's almost like flavouring your class, something many players already do - I've given my fighter a sword, shield, and plate armor. He's pretty strong. I'm gonna say he's a knight. It's a reverse generation approach - you make your character and then describe what you've made. That also makes it very open-ended; you can make any race at all right from the start.

Klaus · Feb 19, 2012

I want race to matter.

I want half-orc wizards whose inner ferocity is reflected in their spells.
I want a dwarf bard who can lead his companions with valorous deeds and hearty music, if not words.
I want a halfling fighter who wears chainmail and darts about the battlefield, short sword and shield in hand.
I want an elf barbarian, who rides a griffon into battle.