L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Last edited by a moderator:
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Race Class Combos, Design, Roleplaying and the fear of the new
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
I'll just note that Tolkien, despite his disparagement by gamers trying to be all cool and modern, had an answer for that. (Of course he did.)
But good post.
Celebrim
Legend
I'm at a loss to understand what the problem you are trying to solve actually is.
It's not merely Gygaxian to define races as being better or worse at one thing or the other relative to humanity. It's an almost universal trope of science fiction and fantasy. It's not clear to me that there is another way to define what it means to be a different race, as however we define it there will always be better or worse synergies between the racial definition and the character's skills, profession or class. To the extent that that any way to make these definitions of race not define a species as better at one thing or another, it's not clear to me that D&D either has or would be improved by the level of granularity that it would take.
Are you suggesting that, for example, Wookie's should not be mechanically defined as being large and strong, because if you do so it will make Wookie's particularly well suited for doing things that require or benefit from having strength and size? Are you suggesting that it is wrong to have lore around Wookie's being large and strong, and consequently also wrong to have Wookie's mechanically be large and strong, because the result of either is this vaguely defined term "racial essentialism"? Because I understand why racial essentialism might be wrong to apply to human ethnicities because 'race' in that context appears to be an artificial construct, but I'm having a hard time understanding how you could even have 'Wookieness' and thus 'Wookies' or 'Dwarven' and thus 'Dwarfs' if there wasn't in fact racial essentialism involved.
If racial essentialism can't be applied to a Wookie or an Eladrin, then neither actually exist. Yes, I know neither actually exist in reality, but if racial essentialism doesn't exist in the fiction, then neither do they exist in the fiction. And, at the least, it would seem to me that there basic lack of existence in reality, should leave us not really worried too much about applying a definition of race to the imaginary beings.
It's not merely Gygaxian to define races as being better or worse at one thing or the other relative to humanity. It's an almost universal trope of science fiction and fantasy. It's not clear to me that there is another way to define what it means to be a different race, as however we define it there will always be better or worse synergies between the racial definition and the character's skills, profession or class. To the extent that that any way to make these definitions of race not define a species as better at one thing or another, it's not clear to me that D&D either has or would be improved by the level of granularity that it would take.
Are you suggesting that, for example, Wookie's should not be mechanically defined as being large and strong, because if you do so it will make Wookie's particularly well suited for doing things that require or benefit from having strength and size? Are you suggesting that it is wrong to have lore around Wookie's being large and strong, and consequently also wrong to have Wookie's mechanically be large and strong, because the result of either is this vaguely defined term "racial essentialism"? Because I understand why racial essentialism might be wrong to apply to human ethnicities because 'race' in that context appears to be an artificial construct, but I'm having a hard time understanding how you could even have 'Wookieness' and thus 'Wookies' or 'Dwarven' and thus 'Dwarfs' if there wasn't in fact racial essentialism involved.
If racial essentialism can't be applied to a Wookie or an Eladrin, then neither actually exist. Yes, I know neither actually exist in reality, but if racial essentialism doesn't exist in the fiction, then neither do they exist in the fiction. And, at the least, it would seem to me that there basic lack of existence in reality, should leave us not really worried too much about applying a definition of race to the imaginary beings.
Sacrosanct
Legend
Well, Gygax had level limitations for one reason only: it's a human centric world, and humans should make up the majority of adventuring groups. It was a mechanical stick to achieve a story-based goal. It's an unfortunate (IMO) reality that many gamers will always gravitate towards maximizing bonuses, and that's why we see dragonborn paladins and wood elf monks in droves. I wish that weren't the case. I wish we as a general group could have someone show up at the table with a half orc wizard and not worry someone else at the table will mock or insult them for not having an optimized PC. I think the only way to do that is to get rid of racial stat adjustments altogether.
That is, in my opinion, I get the greatest joy in choosing a race based on role-playing and story factors, and not mechanical factors.
That is, in my opinion, I get the greatest joy in choosing a race based on role-playing and story factors, and not mechanical factors.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Although I don't mind the current implementation, I would also be perfectly happy with a system in which the various races got ribbons only. No stat bumps, and no special abilities that have a significant impact on mechanics. You wouldn't need a STR bump to play a Wookie: if you want to play a strong Wookie you just allocate your highest score to STR. That would totally eliminate the pressure to min-max with race. But you can also play a weak Wookie if you so choose.
Although...that makes me think, stat minimums might be interesting. E.g., "Wookies cannot have below Str 12; if your Str is less than 12 replace it with a 12." Think about how this would effect race choice: if you were going to prioritize optimization over roleplaying you'd pick a class that doesn't need Str, in order to get the bump. So there would be an incentive (admittedly slight) to create Wookie wizards and rogues.
MechaTarrasque
Hero
I have long thought that they should move the stat bonus into the 1st level of the class (with the restriction that a PC can only get one of them), so that it is more important that you are fighter that just happens to be a gnome, not a gnome that just happens to be a fighter. I have also started to consider that backgrounds would be a better place for the stat adjustments.
What should races give you? Abilities. Let the gnoll bite and the eladrin teleport, but since so much of the race's power is freed up since they don't have stat adjustments, you can make more powerful abilities.
Of course, the fly in the ointment is humans, and outside of the idea that humans should get some kind of extra benefit when multiclassing, I don't have anything very good to offer.
What should races give you? Abilities. Let the gnoll bite and the eladrin teleport, but since so much of the race's power is freed up since they don't have stat adjustments, you can make more powerful abilities.
Of course, the fly in the ointment is humans, and outside of the idea that humans should get some kind of extra benefit when multiclassing, I don't have anything very good to offer.
Arilyn
Hero
I am fortunate that this has never been a problem with my gaming group. We have had half-orc wizards, dwarf bards, high elf melee combatants, and yes, even a gnome paladin. Sticking to mechanical factors is limiting. Gygax's plan to make a human centric-world backfired, in my opinion, leading to all thieves being halflings...Mechanical bonuses make sense but we are free now to mix things up. The advantages of "maximizing" racial/class blends are not enough to worry about.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
