Morrus on... Races

I agree in that I see two options that I like: (1) Either race is irrelevant to the mechanics of your character, or (2) race is important to the mechanics of your character.

Given that we don't need special rules in a book cover scenario (1), that means that D&D should create some good rules for reflecting racial mechanics throughout an adventurer's career.

I think 4E and 5E generally did a decent job of presenting core PHB races that didn't overly favor one class over another. Every class offered something unique and useful to a character, but many times the racial characteristics were broadly defined enough not to totally favor one player's exact build. (Later on, when more builds & races were released this became less true.)

The continual problem with having races that have strong mechanical effects is it leads to people trying to "solve" the system. And then once the system is "solved" either the internet-consensus becomes, "That race is overpowered" or "No one should ever play anything but that race when building X."

A lot of people will say, "I want a Half-Orc fighter and a Halfling fighter to be equally mechanically balanced, but different." In other words, we don't want to ever be able to "solve" whether a Half-Orc is a better fighter than a Halfling.
But personally I have no problem with saying that a Half-Orc just should be better at fighting than a Halfling. I don't have a problem with that existing in my game world. I think that's okay, when presented up front. If you choose a Halfling don't go expecting to fight toe-to-toe with bigger, stronger characters unless you've got some edge on them.

In a lot of ways the discussion about race and how important it should be is similar to discussion about how 4E achieved 1:1 "balance" between martial characters and spellcasters by basically making them work the same way. The game doesn't have to go for that 1:1 equivalence in classes, nor does it in race. As long as we keep in mind some of the blunders of past editions I think a good course can be laid in that allows race to be mechanically relevant without watering down their effects.

Morrus said:

You choose a race in the same way you choose a class: it's a predefined package which describes your character; it defines your character throughout its life, and is a major factor. It's a choice just like your class is a choice. The two together create a combined package which makes an archetype.

...

I know many will disagree with me here, but I personally feel that a mid-point is just a copout. A compromise to no advantage. Giving a race a small bonus at 1st level and a couple of abilities which frankly don't matter after a few levels, assuming they ever did, is making neither decision. It's just saying "meh" - it doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

If 'race + class' = Archetype then what you're advocating is the D&D Basic Set version of the game where dwarf, elf, and gnome are classes. All fighters, clerics, thieves, and wizards are humans.

What is more impactful and gives race more meaning? Option A or option B:

A) Race: Dwarf. Racial Traits: +2 Constitution, -2 Charisma

B) Race: Dwarf. Racial Traits: Minimum of 10 in Constitution. Medium size. Speed 20ft. Speed not reduced by heavy armor or heavy load. Darkvision 60 ft. Stonecunning. Weapon familiarity with axes and hammers. +1 damage with axes and hammers. Dwarven stability - make a save with +X against being tripped or bull rushed. A dwarf is always allowed to make a Constitution Save against attacks with the Poison type for half damage even if no save is allowed. At 7th level a dwarf takes no damage and negates all effects on a successful Constitution save even if the effect says "save for half" (for effects that target Constitution) or "no save" (for poison effects). At 14th level a dwarf always takes half damage on all effects that allow a Constitution save even if he fails his save. +2 to saving throws again spells. +2 damage against orcs and goblinoids. +4 AC against giants. Trained in appraisal (free) when it comes to metal and stone objects of value. (Free) training in weaponsmith, armorer, miner, laborer/porter, siege engineer, blacksmith, locksmith, trapmaking, and stonemasonry. Automatic languages dwarven, common, orc, giant, and goblin. Favored class is fighter. Reduce by 5 feet the distance you're moved by any effect that pushes, pulls, or slides you. You can use Second Wind once per day as a free action as long as you're still conscious. +5 to morale saves. While friendly enough, elves have a -1 reaction adjustment when a dwarf takes the lead in negotiations. -1 to all skill checks when at sea (dwarves hate the sea). -1 to ride checks when mounted on a horse or larger animal (dwarves prefer ponies). Gain armor proficiency plate mail and heavy shield proficiency (free). Dwarves have 5% (1 out of 20) Spell Resistance at all times - they can learn to suppress this each morning and must do so if they want to cast arcane spells that day (i.e. dwarf fighters have this Resistance at all times but dwarf wizards have to give it up in order to cast spells).

I argue that Option B is meets the Morrus criteria way better than Option A. Further, Option B does not really benefit from a compromise that combines it with Option A. Option A reduces the fun for people who want to play against type (i.e. play the "wrong" classes) but Option B has no such effect. Option B better replicates the "dwarves are warriors" history than Option A. Option B produces distinctly dwarven wizards and dwarven thieves. Option A produces lots of battleminds (4e) who are dwarves.

Morrus said:

Optional details - kits, themes, feats - are, essentially, the first choice.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. By that logic, I choose the first option - race shouldn't matter.

They're fundamentally no different to a carefully selected loadout and some fluff. Your race doesn't define you, it merely gives you more stuff you can have instead of the stuff you can already have. I can't see a reason to not make all those those optional things available to everyone and just say "describe it how you want". Why shouldn't a dwarf character have developed an eladrin teleport power (taking 4E as an example)? An elf with a breath weapon? We're going "optional", right?

Click to expand...

By extension, class doesn't matter either. Why shouldn't a Fighter have a magic missile power, or a Wizard the ability to heal by the laying on of hands, and just say "describe it how you want"? We're going "optional", right?

But, assuming we're not just going to go with a free-for-all on class powers, I see no reason to have a free-for-all on race powers. That way, we get to a system where race matters just as much as class - both give you a small amount of stuff for free, and then both give you access to a range of customisation options that other races and/or classes don't get.

And sure, we could open the floodgates, go classless and raceless, and have a game that fundamentally works. But it would feel quite different in doing so.

delericho said:

By extension, class doesn't matter either. Why shouldn't a Fighter have a magic missile power, or a Wizard the ability to heal by the laying on of hands, and just say "describe it how you want"? We're going "optional", right?

Click to expand...

I don't think that's an uncommon view. There are a lot of people who don't like class based systems.

They are a D&D staple, though. I wouldn't want them to go away for that reason; they feel like D&D to me. That's a separate argument (and conflicts with) the idea of freedom of choice, of course.

But, assuming we're not just going to go with a free-for-all on class powers, I see no reason to have a free-for-all on race powers. That way, we get to a system where race matters just as much as class - both give you a small amount of stuff for free, and then both give you access to a range of customisation options that other races and/or classes don't get.

And sure, we could open the floodgates, go classless and raceless, and have a game that fundamentally works. But it would feel quite different in doing so.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Much as these are all ideas, they are ideas which would probably change D&D too much.

Lidgar said:

On the topic of ability score bonuses and penalties (and how long they stay relevant): it maters how the system scales. I think there is a tendency to think in 3e/4e terms with some of this. With a reduced scaling factor, bonuses can remain relevant longer.

Another thought is to do away with bonuses, but skew the dice (this assumes a non-point buy system).

For example, instead of a straight 4d6, drop the low for all 6 ability scores, a dwarf character could have the following:

STR: 4d6, drop the lowest
DEX: 3d6
CON: 5d6, drop the 2 lowest
INT: 4d6, drop the lowest
WIS: 5d6, drop the 2 lowest
CHA: 3d6

Although the above is essentially the same as a bonus or penalty, it is less likely to result in stacking: it assumes you do not assign your rolls as you wish to each ability, although you could assign by pairs (STR/INT, CON/WIS, and DEX/CHA).

Click to expand...

I was thinking somewhere along these lines, whereas, with the 4d6 drop lowest, with allowing Primary/Secondary abilities to swap from another ability score 1/1 instead of 1/2.
But why not simply make a the bonuses/penalties completely optional.
I realize that there should be a default, which I'd prefer the +/- variety, akin to 2nd ed. But right next to it in a side bar say, a DM may choose to drop the Bonus/penalty option system.

Although I still want some for of Racial themes/kits something to mechanically help separate races, but it's not a deal breaker.

Personally, I wouldn't mind that a race has a primary/secondary favored ability(ies) and primary/secondary weaker ability(ies), and it's simply that at character creation a method restricts or eases purchase of these ability scores. For rolling, you may swap in/out points from these scores, but they cost more/less depending on the above. instead of swapping 2 from Int to raise Dex by 1, you can do a 1 for 1. for Dex being favored for example.

I'm a fan of making races count so a dwarf feels different than a human or an elf or a halfling. I'm not in favor of that being tied to ability scores, which it often seems it strongly is.

I like 4e's attempt, but I think the underlying math of the system makes the bonuses too valuable. Playing a dwarf with a bonus to Strength will always be inherently more optimal as a Fighter than, say, playing an elf or a tiefling. And heaven forbid if you don't allocate at least a 16 to Strength for that elf/tiefling fighter or else your ability to hit will fall progressively behind the assumed curve.

Here's an example of what I mean, using 4e as the base since that's the version of D&D I've had the most contact with of late.

My extensive houseruling of 4e would choose a single, static ability modifier that a race has and then give it a +2 to an ability score of it's choice, thus ensuring they always get a bonus to the primary stat of a class. (Yes, I realize that dilutes the benefit of human, but I am of the mindset that the +1 to your NADs is more than enough to offset this.)

In place of the ability score differentiation, I'd chop out most of the class utilities and expand the skill and racial utility powers so most of your choices come from those buckets. This means an elf is always going to feel a little different from a dwarf because a good 2 or 3 of their powers will be unique and distinctly "elven" in nature. This also gives the player the ability to decide how much they want their race to impact how their PC plays.

Of course, in the scope of 4e, how effective this works is dependent on the presence of competitive racial utility power choices. But then again, I've always been in favor of sharing powers by role or power source instead of having lots of duplicate powers with different names.

For me, the best way of running races is to say that they are (almost) merely a descriptive, but that descriptive must make sense.

So humans have every stat between 8-20.

Halflings have a dex between 10-20 and a strength between 6-14. So if you meet those requirements, you can call yourself a halfling.

This is pretty much what Hero System does. Where it breaks from the "race does not matter" camp though, is in two ways:

1) It sets an abnormal stat min/max. Personally I don't like this. If your a halfling, well you better be a strong one as your not allowed to have a lower minimum than anyone else. I find that in a stats points-buy game, you can't afford to let some people go lower than others willy-nilly.

2) It gives a 'package bonus' for races. This is something I love. If you decide to buy lots of the skills and feats that make an Dwarf "dwarfy" then you get a discount on that cost. For instance, if you get direction sense, dungeoneering, stone sense etc, you get a discount on that package as a whole. This encourages people to buy things that otherwise might not be min/maxy. Nobody is going to buy Brewing skill in a hurry, but if it is a freeby thrown in for making an extra dwarfy character, then that is just icing.

I think that D&D could do a similar thing, by giving bonuses to skills and racial feats/utilities that help in non-core ways. In my mind Stonesense\Absolute Direction\Ancestral Spirit = Good. Dwarven Weapon Training = Bad. I think that racial feats should be something that is good regardless of class, thus not making the race a must-have to min/max a class.

I like the fact that 5th seems to be borrowing from the Hero System way of doing skills to. I look forward to buying a skill like: Barfly (+2 to all social skills when inside a bar), Natural Horseman (+2 to all skills dealing with horses), Peseant Hero (+2 to all social skills in a village atmosphere), Homeland (+2 to all skills in Cimmerian Wilderness), Detective (+2 to skills involving investigating a crime). These are the type of skills that make a character great.

From a game balance point of view, where all options are actual playable options, you want initial stat caps and no racial mods, like some have said here, Humans are all 6-18 (or whatever) while Halflings are 4-14 Str, 12-22 Dex, and so on. Then give every character +2/-2 or something similar to put where they want to fit that.

Whether it's point costs or rolls, it doesn't cost you anything to have 14 Str as a Halfling compared to a Human, which is a good thing if you ever want middling-strong Halflings to exist as PCs.

NPCs can just use the racial average (or custom dice if you want variety), so PC Drow are basically average members of the race, but PC Kobolds are amazing for their kind (and PC Ogre-Magi are a little weaker than average NPCs).

Save the stat mods for the classes, levels, and years. Positive being positive.

Well I agree in some ways but like you over my 30 years of gaming have seen it all. And the arguments against my stance are valid.
My position is one of strong mechanics for races giving hefty bonuses and setting racial limits. After all you as a character want to be special. How can you achieve that if another race can be just the same as you.
My good friend and long time player tells me over and over again "This is a fantasy game!" and the rules should allow for the fantasy.
But should we allow the fantasy ruin the fun of being special? Should a fighter be a better thief then the rogue? I say never.
In conclusion I say make people choose. So many times we try to cram everything into 1 class/race selection so there is no weakness. This is truly not what our cooperative RPG is about. It is about working together as a team each person a star according to his race/class design.

I am quite dissapointed that both this and Monte Cook's debating points are starting from a point which completely ignores excellent points in 4e's design. Races in 4e have initial differences that are modest (but important at low level), as well as some "kit" - special racial abilities that are always (at every level) important, AND optional access to feats and other abilities that keep adding to the difference in meaningful ways.

This to me is the only way to execute plan B. Having +-6 at first level would just be ridiculous. Having JUST +-6 at 20th level would be boring.