Morrus on... Races

As far as ability point modifiers and race, it really depends upon how the rules are written. For 1eAD&D, ability modifiers were a great idea for diversity, because you were rarely going to ever modify your initial rolls. In 2e, it became less of a good idea and by the time 3.X came out and the upper limit of ability scores was left to the imagination the modifiers were quite frankly useless beyond 3rd level. It had become a sacred cow, with no use whose implementation in 4e just went on to prove it.

Race should be absolutely a factor in what your character can accomplish, not in a class way (ie your race and class become all but synonymous. I'm looking at you dwarven fighter, elven wizard and halfling thief/rogue.) but, more along the lines of the fluff in LotR, where elves have better vision and hearing. The problem is implementation where those bonuses are enough of a factor that the other races can never catch them without them becoming overpowered. (so small bonuses to spot/search/etc are not the way to go either while the 1e versions of certain races were the ONLY ones to be able to do certain things was a good mechanic, but a poor restriction on character ability.) Perhaps an increasing percentage per level/level group ala the 1e thief and their abilities?

I don't know how they can achieve this, I don't know what I want, but I know what doesn't work. But then again, I'm not paid to figure it out, the folks at WotC are.

The difference between race and species is correct. Although you can have hybrids from the species. A cross between a donkey and a horse produces a mule. A tiger and lion hybrid is a tigon. Both examples are sterile so there's no offspring for such creatures. There are cross species offspring that are able to reproduce such as domestic cats with wild cats. Likewise, a hybrid offspring of an elf and human should be a half-elf.

justawhit said:

The difference between race and species is correct. Although you can have hybrids from the species. A cross between a donkey and a horse produces a mule. A tiger and lion hybrid is a tigon. Both examples are sterile so there's no offspring for such creatures. There are cross species offspring that are able to reproduce such as domestic cats with wild cats. Likewise, a hybrid offspring of an elf and human should be a half-elf.

Click to expand...

Well, not in D&D terms. Race has its own meaning, as do a hundred other normal English words. That's not what "class" means, either. Or "medusa" and "gorgon" for that matter.

2B or Not 2b...?

Morrus said:

Race isn't important

This school of thought resists large mechanical differences between races. That's not to say the proponents don't consider an elf and a dwarf to be different - but from a character generation point of view, the choice shouldn't be restrictive. So the world at large may be filled with tall, slender, dextrous elves and short, hardy dwarves - but a player character is one in a million and can be a tall dextrous dwarf, a short clumsy elf, or an attractive, charming half-orc if that's what the player wishes to play.

Generally - as far as I can see - those who hold this position advocate small initial racial ability adjustments, but nothing they'd consider a "penalty" (although I've long maintained that there's no difference between a lack of bonus and a penalty other than nomenclature to latch on to).

I'd go further. If this is the position, then I'd eliminate racial mechanics altogether. You generate your character, and then you describe it how you want. You can use your ability scores to direct that description - that fluff - but the description is up to you. So your character can easily be a charming, dextrous dwarf, a stocky, clumsy elf, or a mighty, weightlifting halfling. Whatever you want it to be. It can be an anthropomorphic dog, a saintly reformed devil, a quarter-dragon-half-tiefling-quarter-badger. Your race is literally a descriptive choice decided fully by you (with DM input, where appropriate).

There's a complementary side argument to this point of view. It doesn't come up often, but I've seen it. This argument advocates this position based in perceptions of real world racial and gender discrimination. It equates differentiation between fantasy races to discrimination between real world ethnic or gender-based groups. While I can see the case for no racial mechanics in D&D, I can't personally see it as based on this particular argument. I believe that discrimination against real people exists; differentiation between fantasy races is something else entirely.

Race is important

This approach says that your choice of race should be a fundamental decision. That a gnome should not be as strong as a half-orc even after a lifetime of bench-presses. That dwarves are hardy and drow are dextrous. 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.

In this situation, I'd take the racial choice to the opposite extreme. It would be vital. If you're a half-orc, people are gonna darn well know it! So I'd make the initial racial bonuses and penalties +/-4 (or for those who hate being 'penalized' I'd make the base score 6 and give all races big bonuses except for some in certain areas - but that's just nomenclature, as I mentioned above) and I'd alternate class and race advances at each level. So you'd get something every level, but every odd level would make you more elvish and every even level would make you more bardish. Or whatever.

Furthermore, in this situation, I'd limit ability score adjustments by race. So the halfling couldn't work out enough to become as strong as a half orc in the same way an otter can't become as strong as an elephant.

What about a mid-point?

So the above two positions represent two points on a scale. Two extremes, if you will. And, if I'm honest, I would personally be happy with either.

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. It is certainly far closer to the first position than the second; although some editions of D&D have used various mechanics like racial level caps, favoured classes, racial kits, themes, and feats to provide additional detail.

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

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. Favoured classes aren't terrible, but they're a weak approach to the second choice. Class limitations are compelling in the face of this argument, and - damn - they're a powerful flavour tool. But, yes, they're too restrictive.

So I don't feel that a midpoint is something I personally want to see. Of course, I know that's what I'll get - all indications so far are that 5E will have a +1 ability bonus for class, and a +1 bonus for race; this sounds pointless to me. But it's just an opinion piece.

I'd like to see one of the two above major choices. I honestly don't mind which. I like both, for different reasons. But I do feel I'd like to see a strong decision: race matters, or it doesn't (mechanically speaking). 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? Your elf and your dwarf are identical by then in terms of race. Their class powers and ability scores overwhelm their racial identity. At that point, race is about role playing and fluff; so why not just state that from the start and stop fiddling about with teeny bonuses?

So one or t'other. Race is very important, or race isn't important at all. Either just fluff, or strong mechanics throughout the entire career. I frankly like both options. But I don't like the mid-point. And no racial level limits or class restrictions.

Am I totally off-base? What do you think? How would you like to see race treated in D&D?

Click to expand...

Ah-hem. Not everyone agrees that Manadtory Racial caps were a bad approach, as WotC's reprints of AD&D 1e and the growing OSR movement can attest.

Pro:
Ability Score minimums for classes,
Race class restrictions, and
Race level caps.
Human-o-centric world.

First, fantasy is a period close to 1,000 AD earth. So no emos allowed. Play SIMS if you cannot handle Vikings. And to digress a degree: Norse mythology from the period is where Elves and Dwarves originate. The story goes they "went away" because of powerful Human gods - i.e. Christianity.

Second, would someone care to explain why an Elf wizard as old as dirt and as powerful as legend does not pwn everyone - without resorting to my three points above? Humans can't do it because we bicker and plot amongst ourselves, and the only race I have seen in-game do it. (Even today we are neutered to the point where we fear our own opinions let alone take any courageous action on them, but I digress again.) A short-lived Human hero is just as apt to get a dagger in the belly during a feast in his honour as die of (relative to an Elf) young age.

Third, ability scores used to mean something. 17 minimum CHA for a paladin (restricted to Humans) used to mean something _AT_ character generation. It wasn't fluff and story exposition. And when a paladin made an appearance in the story, you knew he had 17 CHA and, because you rolled ability scores yourself, you knew how rare that was. And a 17 in CHA meant something. Rules as written now it's 2D.

At present, as it is, no one knows anything. All the flavour is MMO vanilla.

I run an epic campaign with race limitations. I have one player who wanted to play a restricted race-class. It led to a discussion. (Hey - this is shared fantasy after all.) The back story was genuinely compelling and fit. So he became the "first of his race" character and did it. I DO EXPECT OTHER PLAYERS to have initial reactions that involve distrust of this character's "professed" class because they know "my" world. But they also know heroes must rise to moments the DM provides.

Am I ashamed or weepy I let the player play with a "restricted" character? No. Did it break my rule? No - it enhanced it. RPGs are a social activity and out-of-game dialogue with the player is as important as in-game interacting with the character at the tabletop. That player knows he has a very special character and will act accordingly.

I think you let the players (including the player called DM) to scale down the _suggestions_ contained in the Core Suggestion Books as a social activity. I recall AD&D 1e actually emphasizing this very important social aspect in written communication of "it's your game."

As far as anyone having a real world objection to racial profiling of a literary (Norse-religion) race that only exists in fantasy, then perhaps role-playing in fantasy or historical worlds is not right for the player who, IMHO, may be bringing personal issues to the table.

IF the player has to say "I play an Elf" the profile for the race is broken. Stereotypes. Use 'em. Not just any Dwarf can wield magic or every race can be a Human hero. Race is important to the fantasy.

I'll go back behind the screen now.

My players' weBlog: http://www.vecol.net/RPGPL/

Races Matter!
Basically the some of the parts is greater than the whole. If a race is just descriptive then it is harder to visualize and make an interesting character. Also if there are just bland bonus's the same applies. I would also argue that a RPG is all about fun, and some players are more interested in the 'build' aspect than the roleplay; cater for both!

For instance I use goblins (rather than halflings) and I have massive penalties for size -3 damage, -3 hit points (I play a grim & gritty varient), they do get some nice bonus's to counter that.

I do have elves and they you might argue are middle of the road, elf: +1 Cha, +1 Dex, -1 Size. But the key thing I think about when assigning a bonus is how it is going to affect the culture, and that effect is massive! For instance I give elves a +1 charisma bonus, what does that mean? It means the Elven nation is the fashion capitol of the world, it means they are traiders an merchants, (I base their culture of the French). With thier poor size, and high dex, it means as far as weapons go they use light weapons & archery, etc, etc.