D&D (2024) How to import "race" flavor into D&D 2024 inclusively

[Ruin Explorer]

Yes, that makes sense - no one ever gets stronger or more agile or wiser, we’re all just frozen in our early “twenties,” forever.

That's a truly terrible argument on multiple fronts.

1) Most D&D campaigns are set over the course of like, a couple of years at most. There are exceptions, but they're exceptions. The PCs will rarely age significantly.

2) People don't usually get stronger or more agile after their early to mid twenties. On a good day, they manage to keep their strength and some of their agility into their 30s or 40s. A handful of people really focusing on it might improve strength (even significantly, especially if they didn't work out in their 20s), but unless you were exceptionally un-agile at say, 23, you're not going to be more agile at 43. Also D&D really doesn't model this at all - if it did, STR would be drastically easier to raise than other stats.

3) Further, some people just get worse with age. Yeah some get a lot wiser or smarter, but an awful lot actually seem to lose the ability to think in a really rational way at some point in their thirties (you've met these people), and many others don't get any wiser, indeed some get stuck in a mindset such that they de facto get less wise. So the idea that people reliably get "better" over time is questionable in the extreme. Hell some people even get less charismatic, as they become increasingly self-obsessed or some veneer wears off.

Just an absolute losing argument on its own terms there.

If the game cannot represent that outside of the acquisition of material possessions, it has failed in its objectIve.

That's not a rational argument, that's an unsupported statement of opinion, so, okay I guess? It doesn't make any sense, especially as many games are extremely good RPGs without base stats going up much, if at all. If D&D had no advancement it'd be a reasonable point at least, but it has extremely extensive advancement, so it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

5e describes the Orc as "gray". But probably 2024 should return to "green". Green is more clearly nonhuman. Plus, having a fun Shreck vibe can only help when rehabilitating the Humanoid Orc description.

Green Orcs and Goblins are prominent in the Warhammer universe. Wizards probably wants to differentiate their orcs and goblins a bit more. I suspect they won't be going away from their own Wizards-era depiction.

 

[Vikingkingq]

That's a truly terrible argument on multiple fronts.

1) Most D&D campaigns are set over the course of like, a couple of years at most. There are exceptions, but they're exceptions. The PCs will rarely age significantly.

2) People don't usually get stronger or more agile after their early to mid twenties. On a good day, they manage to keep their strength and some of their agility into their 30s or 40s. A handful of people really focusing on it might improve strength (even significantly, especially if they didn't work out in their 20s), but unless you were exceptionally un-agile at say, 23, you're not going to be more agile at 43. Also D&D really doesn't model this at all - if it did, STR would be drastically easier to raise than other stats.

3) Further, some people just get worse with age. Yeah some get a lot wiser or smarter, but an awful lot actually seem to lose the ability to think in a really rational way at some point in their thirties (you've met these people), and many others don't get any wiser, indeed some get stuck in a mindset such that they de facto get less wise. So the idea that people reliably get "better" over time is questionable in the extreme. Hell some people even get less charismatic, as they become increasingly self-obsessed or some veneer wears off.

Just an absolute losing argument on its own terms there.

Yeah, citations needed there:

• Plenty of campaigns take place over much longer than a couple of years. Whether we're talking about the classic Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms campaigns that could span entire different spans of history, or more recent actual plays like the Critical Role folks whose adventures span 30-40 years according to the timeline, or the descriptions of the social roles held by characters going from 1-20, people are clearly going from the beginnings of their careers to the end of them - and unless we think that people's careers end in their early to mid-20s, your standard "High Priest" or "Great Druid" or "Lord" or "Ranger Lord" is going to be substantially older.
• Also, as was discussed in the Clerics thread (I think), characters aren't starting out in their early-to-mid 20s if Level 1 is supposed to represent the end of their training and the beginning of their careers, but rather starting at their species' and culture's equivalent of around 16-17.

That's not a rational argument, that's an unsupported statement of opinion, so, okay I guess? It doesn't make any sense, especially as many games are extremely good RPGs without base stats going up much, if at all. If D&D had no advancement it'd be a reasonable point at least, but it has extremely extensive advancement, so it doesn't make any sense.

I actually think this concedes my point - if advancement is core to the D&D system, then it should be represented throughout the system, so that characters can become stronger or more agile or wiser in addition to more skilled.

 

[Scott Christian]

I actually think this concedes my point - if advancement is core to the D&D system, then it should be represented throughout the system, so that characters can become stronger or more agile or wiser in addition to more skilled.

I agree that many campaigns run over the course of decades in game time. That happens. But the above I am confused about. Do you not think an increase in ability scores, and an increase in proficiency, make someone stronger, more skilled, etc?

 

[Vikingkingq]

I agree that many campaigns run over the course of decades in game time. That happens. But the above I am confused about. Do you not think an increase in ability scores, and an increase in proficiency, make someone stronger, more skilled, etc?

To me, ability score increases on the one hand and proficiencies/proficiency bonuses (or new skills) on the other represent different albeit related things. The former represents growth in underlying physical or mental capability - lifting weights or endurance running or yoga or balance exercises or doing memory drills or meditation or puzzles - whereas the latter represents training to improve technique and knowledge bases.

I think it's important for an RPG system that wants to represent character advancement to be capable of mechanically representing both kinds of improvement.

 

[Scott Christian]

To me, ability score increases on the one hand and proficiencies/proficiency bonuses (or new skills) on the other represent different albeit related things. The former represents growth in underlying physical or mental capability - lifting weights or endurance running or yoga or balance exercises or doing memory drills or meditation or puzzles - whereas the latter represents training to improve technique and knowledge bases.

I think it's important for an RPG system that wants to represent character advancement to be capable of mechanically representing both kinds of improvement.

I guess that is my question. Do you believe D&D doesn't do that? If so, could you give me an example please? Thanks.

 

[Vikingkingq]

I guess that is my question. Do you believe D&D doesn't do that? If so, could you give me an example please? Thanks.

I think 5e does; my argument was with Horwath, who had argued that ASIs should be eliminated.

 

[Yaarel]

Nonhuman species are nonconducive for player characters. Their features are strictly anatomical and only become available as part of the maturation process. Once adult, it is impossible for them to advance any farther.

A bat would always have a Strength of 2 or thereabout. A horse would always have a Strength of 16 or thereabout. There would be no such thing as rolling abilities randomly. 4d6 would make zero sense.

For Humans − and by extension for certain species that belong to the "Humanoid" creature type who happen to be comparable to the Human species − abilities represent the capacity to learn. Thus, unlike other species, Humanoid adults are capable of advancing by means of learning, experience, and knowledge-community cultures.

What makes a Humanoid a Humanoid is the fact that its anatomy and instincts are relativized by reliance on learning. By definition, its anatomy is irrelevant and is mainly the same as a Human. The ability to learn thus to gain levels is everything. Even the "background" represents what a young character has already learned before gaining a level in a chosen class as an adult.

 

[Yaarel]

In old school D&D, Strength and weightlifting were the same thing. One could even measure Strength by how much a person can lift directly upward in a military press exercise machine. 30 pounds was Strength score 3. 180 pounds was Strength score 18. Anything higher was a "percentile" Strength. Every woman suffered a Strength score penalty.

None of this old school D&D remains true in new D&D.

But new school is still in the process of sorting out what Strength is, exactly.


Weightlifting depends significantly on Size. The "Powerful Build" feature means the species is notably larger than typical Medium Size creatures, therefore is able to carry notably heavier loads. Strength is less relevant.

Strength is something different.

Strength is athleticism. It is the ability to jump distances and climb difficulties. It is the ability to swing swords accurately. It is the ability to wrestle swiftly and adroitly. Strength is agility.

Women and men can have the same scores in Strength, because the ability encompasses a range of agile physical powers.


It isnt yet the case, but should be: a Cat should have a Strength score of 16, like a Riding Horse does. The Cat can jump and climb remarkably. The Cat is athletic.

The carrying capacity of a Cat should be a separate mechanic, depending entirely on its Tiny Size.

Size is a separate variable, and its relationship with carrying capacity needs to function mechanically separately.

Weightlifting is literally a skill that bodybuilders "train" in. This Weightlifting skill is conceptually different from the Athletics skill. It is Size that defines the maximum weight of a load that a character can carry. But gaining proficiency in this Weightlifting skill can improve it. Meanwhile the Strength bonus that represents a physically fit and capable character can also improve the Size-defined weight load.

 

[Yaarel]

For Human backgrounds, there are the "generic" medievalesque backgrounds, that tend to be multicultural, like Farmer, Guard, and Artisan. The backgrounds are only true for some reallife cultures, but more than one, and across more than one continent.

At the same time, I want to see distinct local backgrounds for each region. Examples of "regions" are these adjacent regions southward down the Sword Coast: Icewind Dale, Neverwinter (including its expansive territory), Waterdeep, and Baldurs Gate. In the cases of the last three, the main city also represents its wider region. Icewind Dale lacks a main city, but is a comparable amount of territory. Likewise around the planet Torlil, the regions divide up similarly. When setting books come out, new backgrounds help present a player-facing regional flavor.

Some backgrounds can be unique to a specific locale within a specific region.

Probably, for the 2024 Players Handbook, the generic backgrounds are sufficient for the Human species. But each Nonhuman species would also have distinctive backgrounds, carefully chosen to represent its native diversity and flavor.

Meanwhile, a character of any species can select a background from any species, or create a background from scratch (that both the player and the DM agree on).