D&D 5E Humanoids, and playing monstrous races

[CAFRedblade]

Both Drow culture and environment are quite hostile. I would believe that the only lvl 0 / lvl 1 drow that exist are the house slaves. Similar are the Gith(yanki and zeri [sp?]) societies that are very martial in nature I believe, and live in a hostile environment.

 

[Sunseeker]

I would imagine it's the same reason that in the Dune universe the general "wild" Fremen commoner is far more deadly than the city dwelling Fremen (and I would say even those are more deadly than some soft, water world, commoners). Similarly, from the same universe, there are the Imperial Sardaukar from the prison planet Salusa Secundus.
The Underdark and the Astral places where the Drow and Githyanki live and grow up should have quite some influence on how tough they have to be to survive.
I would guess that when a baby were to be found and raised by common farmers, they won't be quite so tough and resilient when it grows up as the usual Drow or Githyanki.

Sure, the environment and society they live in weeds out the weak. But the weak still must exist at some point to be weeded out, and weeding out doesn't necessitate death. It may generally be the case just as adventurers generally come from the "core 4" races. However the weak can be exiled, may run away, and just generally end up somewhere that's not their homeland and not subject to the societal pressures that turn them into violent psychopaths. But even when they do, they're not becoming genetically enhanced, they're gaining class levels in "Violent Psychopath".

I honestly think it'd be more effective to say that to choose to play a Drow or a Gith, you must be at least 8th level(the number doesn't really matter, but run with me here). You don't lose 8 levels in the way LA would cost you for minor power-ups, instead your character simply has to BE 8th level, to represent the fact that it's highly unusual to see one of these races outside of their homeland at all, much less outside of their homeland and weak. So for all those games starting at 1st through 7th level, you'd have to stick with a race that is less powerful. The Drow or Gith in question would still of course have the base values on-par with a PC race that could start at level 1, so a DM could choose to let someone play a level 1 Drow or Gith, but this is one thing I think Pathfinder truly got right.

LA is not linear. The value of a few small bonuses at low levels is HUGE, but at high levels becomes inconsequential. Which makes calculating LA even more complicated. Which is why the whole darn thing needs to be avoided entirely.

Both Drow culture and environment are quite hostile. I would believe that the only lvl 0 / lvl 1 drow that exist are the house slaves. Similar are the Gith(yanki and zeri [sp?]) societies that are very martial in nature I believe, and live in a hostile environment.

Sure, but what do we frame our lvl1 PCs as? Farm boys who just started to train as their class. Can we say a Drow House slave is really that much of a step up from a human farm boy?

 

[Weather Report]

Yes, the average male drow does not have 4 HD or what-have-you, compared to a human's 1.

 

[Kavon]

Both Drow culture and environment are quite hostile. I would believe that the only lvl 0 / lvl 1 drow that exist are the house slaves. Similar are the Gith(yanki and zeri [sp?]) societies that are very martial in nature I believe, and live in a hostile environment.

I would say even the house slaves in Drow society will be forced to adapt or perish (their masters not being the forgiving kind – only being held back from killing them for a mistake by the fact that they'd need to find a replacement), therefore generally having a higher level (in whatever skills they might be able to pick up from their menial work). Relative to other Drow in such a society, they would seem to be rather weak still, though.

Sure, the environment and society they live in weeds out the weak. But the weak still must exist at some point to be weeded out, and weeding out doesn't necessitate death. It may generally be the case just as adventurers generally come from the "core 4" races. However the weak can be exiled, may run away, and just generally end up somewhere that's not their homeland and not subject to the societal pressures that turn them into violent psychopaths. But even when they do, they're not becoming genetically enhanced, they're gaining class levels in "Violent Psychopath".

Yes, exactly.

It's a bit of a nature vs. nurture discussion, really. I can see people preferring the Drow (etc) as genetically more powerful. Making that work is rather simple – just say "No low level Drow PCs!" or even "No Drow PCs!".
For the people that go for the nurture side, the option should be available (saying we are able to homebrew it, as someone said, really misses the point). Better to design things with that in mind than having them trying to figure it out half a year later and probably messing something up.

I honestly think it'd be more effective to say that to choose to play a Drow or a Gith, you must be at least 8th level(the number doesn't really matter, but run with me here). You don't lose 8 levels in the way LA would cost you for minor power-ups, instead your character simply has to BE 8th level, to represent the fact that it's highly unusual to see one of these races outside of their homeland at all, much less outside of their homeland and weak. So for all those games starting at 1st through 7th level, you'd have to stick with a race that is less powerful. The Drow or Gith in question would still of course have the base values on-par with a PC race that could start at level 1, so a DM could choose to let someone play a level 1 Drow or Gith, but this is one thing I think Pathfinder truly got right.

I could see them giving a level 1 race for those who want to play one of the rare weak exceptions, with the things that are too powerful at level 1 being gained in some other way at a later time.. Ideally as feats, or perhaps even simply gained from being a high enough level (is such a concept acceptable in D&D, you think?).

LA is not linear. The value of a few small bonuses at low levels is HUGE, but at high levels becomes inconsequential. Which makes calculating LA even more complicated. Which is why the whole darn thing needs to be avoided entirely.

Yeah, the intent was pretty interesting when introduced in 3e, but it quickly broke apart, especially with the higher LA creatures.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes, exactly.

It's a bit of a nature vs. nurture discussion, really. I can see people preferring the Drow (etc) as genetically more powerful. Making that work is rather simple – just say "No low level Drow PCs!" or even "No Drow PCs!".
For the people that go for the nurture side, the option should be available (saying we are able to homebrew it, as someone said, really misses the point). Better to design things with that in mind than having them trying to figure it out half a year later and probably messing something up.

Sure, the DM has the right to control their campaign, if they're not willing to do so well...then you get some crazy stuff.

I could see them giving a level 1 race for those who want to play one of the rare weak exceptions, with the things that are too powerful at level 1 being gained in some other way at a later time.. Ideally as feats, or perhaps even simply gained from being a high enough level (is such a concept acceptable in D&D, you think?).

I personally think there should be some form of racial advancement that can be conducted in parallel to class advancement. Maybe every 4-5 levels or so you gain something small, an improvement to a racial feature, a new minor feature that gives you access to more potent things down the road. Larger racial features could be optional feats.
Lets say you have a 4-armed race. Well initially you gain no bonuses and no penalties because of this. As your racial traits become available, you can say, choose martial or magic mastery, which gives you access to full-fledged feats that allow you to wield extra weapons or cast an extra low-level spell that doesn't require a Vocal component.

Because you're not advancing your race as a class, you're not gaining huge, game-breaking abilities. You're simply becoming more competent in what you've got.

Yeah, the intent was pretty interesting when introduced in 3e, but it quickly broke apart, especially with the higher LA creatures.

Yep...and a LA 6 creature was never on par with a fully ECL 7 PC, and it only got worse as they advanced in level. Races should either have that kernel of "base race" to them, or they should simply be unplayable, as 4e did. Either a race was playable, or it wasn't. Races that were made playable from monsters later were boiled down to that core kernel.

 

[Kavon]

I personally think there should be some form of racial advancement that can be conducted in parallel to class advancement. Maybe every 4-5 levels or so you gain something small, an improvement to a racial feature, a new minor feature that gives you access to more potent things down the road. Larger racial features could be optional feats.
Lets say you have a 4-armed race. Well initially you gain no bonuses and no penalties because of this. As your racial traits become available, you can say, choose martial or magic mastery, which gives you access to full-fledged feats that allow you to wield extra weapons or cast an extra low-level spell that doesn't require a Vocal component.

Because you're not advancing your race as a class, you're not gaining huge, game-breaking abilities. You're simply becoming more competent in what you've got.

This would solve another thing that has been off for me with races in D&D.. Their racial traits are pretty much just of some impact at the lower levels, but once you get to a higher level you notice it less and less, because the only new things you're getting are from your class. If you unlock racial traits throughout your character's career parallel to class features, it would complete the package for me.

 

[Derren]

Yes, because inevitably people will want to play that race, or WOTC will make that race playable, and that will either result in a neutered version of it, or horribly useless "level adjustments"

Or the system could be designed that way that "level adjustments" would not be useless.
But considering that a larger part of the current audience reacts to any form of increased complexity/workload, no matter for which goal, with more hostility than republicans to tax increases that (sadly) is unlikely to happen.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I've always half-jokingly suggested that kobolds should be -1 LA back during 3.x era. Let them be 2nd level sorcerers (or whatever class) right to start and they'll be slightly ahead of the curve, spellcasting-wise, but still suffer the drawbacks of koboldness their entire careers.