Legends and Lore - The Genius of D&D

[avin]

New article is up:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Genius of D&D)

Monte talks about what are the most important things in a character:

1st: Class (and Level)
2nd: Race
3rd: Ability Scores
4th: Customizable Elements (skills, feats, etc.)

 

[delericho]

Um... okay.

I'm not sure what to make of that column. It seems he's either saying something that's entirely obvious, or he's over-thinking things.

IME, ability scores matter a lot more than a character's race. I'm inclined to think it should be the other way around (that is, I prefer Monte's order), but I don't think it has been.

I also have something of a problem in that I think large parts of 'race' and 'class' should be customisable - perhaps even to the extent where there should be no such thing as a "class feature" or a "racial ability", but rather that there should be a huge set of powers and your race and class determine which options are available to you. (In some cases, it's fine to have "a choice between this 1 option"... this allows for greater customisation later.) In which case, the topic becomes a lot more fuzzy - does 'class' matter a great deal because it controls your customisation, or does it not matter much at all because the mechanical distinctiveness is hidden in those class powers?

Finally, I'm not convinced he hasn't cut his order off too soon. Class, level, race and ability scores were always going to be the "big ticket" items. But isn't the really interesting bit in thrashing out which of the customisable elements are most important? (Which should be more important: skills or themes? Feats or powers? Languages spoken or equipment carried? And, indeed, where do 'magic items' fit in the heirarchy.)

On the other hand, maybe it's a really good column, because instead of giving answers it provokes lots of questions...?

 

[LurkAway]

Interesting... there was some speculation that races could be deconstructed into themes or suchlike. But Monte states that class is more important than themes, and then puts Race as #2 and customizable elements are down to #4. So I think that puts to rest the idea that Race will be a theme -- at least in the core or baseline rules. This also implies to me that, for example, Monte doesn't see elves as just humans with funny ears, but have unique distinctive traits that transcends other character options.

I think this column also confirms the speculation that the core rules will be the unchanging baseline (once cemented after playtests). Otherwise, why bother to rank class, race, ability scores and customizable options in order of importance? I think part of the point of a modular game is to alter the order of importance of things. If the core assumes orders of importance, then it's not very modular and instead represents the inviolate core or baseline. Although maybe I'm reading too much into it?

 

[Tallifer]

Race is important fluff, but Abilities are more immediately and constantly important in actual play. Indeed, the most important part of Race for many players including myself is whether it supports the Abilities and Class which you want.

Now of course I want to roleplay such-and-such race, but I am rarely willing to sacrifice to much concerning my class or abilities to play that race. At least 4th edition got rid of racial minuses, so people can play a wider variety of race/class combinations.

Perhaps this article is a preview of a further revision whereby Race is further decoupled from mechanics. In Old Dungeons & Dragons a dwarf could not play a wizard, period. Non-human races were not even allowed to go above certain levels in any class. In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons only certain races could multi-class certain classes, and there were still racial restrictions on some classes. In the Third Edition the classes and multi-classes were open to all, but races received penalties to discourage them from certain options. In the Fourth Edition the penalties and restrictions were all obliterated, BUT the racial bonuses and powers still meant that certain races were better than others for certain classes.

Hopefully in the Fifth Edition, racial differences will be fluff only (unless you choose a module of restrictive rules). I want my background/culture/race/profession to be for roleplaying purposes only; and not to place mechanical limitations on my class or feats or powers. If I want a Pixie Paladin or an Orcish Mage, it should affect my character's story, personality and social standing, not his ability to do his job.

 

[Minigiant]

I pretty much agree with the order. A PC's class is his job and his race is his culture. Those two determine what the there two are. A elf fighter will be strong, dexterous, and skilled with many weapons 90% of the time. Dwarf wizards are smart, slightly tougher than those of their occupation, and know many arcane secrets.

Yes abilities and customization option are important but usually race and class chooses the bulk of it. Elf fighters usually are tough tanks that hold the line versus many foes. Sure you could make one like that but it is not the norm and chatarcter will optimized themselves to some degree.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Tallifer Wrote: Hopefully in the Fifth Edition, racial differences will be fluff only (unless you choose a module of restrictive rules). I want my background/culture/race/profession to be for roleplaying purposes only; and not to place mechanical limitations on my class or feats or powers. If I want a Pixie Paladin or an Orcish Mage, it should affect my character's story, personality and social standing, not his ability to do his job.

Sorry, I couldn't disagree more. I would rather Ability penalties come back. I like the rules to suit the fluff. If all races are on equal footing why have them. I also like the idea certain races suit certain roles/classes/abilities that help define their culture. By all means change this to suit your game, but there should be basic mechanics to typify race. You should be able to 'play against type', but it should also feel that way. If the lack of mechanics means all are equal then this is not the case.

Perhaps race, being ranked 2nd, will have more options to make it more important throughout the all important levels - not just at creation.

Myself - I would love to see Talent Tree-like options for race and class.

 

[LurkAway]

I pretty much agree with the order. A PC's class is his job and his race is his culture.

Regarding racial culture, I am not a politically correct person by any stretch of the imagination, but I would reference labels like 'stereotype' and, well, 'racist' to put a contrast to 'iconic' racial traits.

For example, I'm OK with racial rules that "stereotype" dwarves as being masters at stonework, but what if an orphaned dwarf grows up on a human farm and never saw an underground tunnel in his entire life, or if a mountain dwarf neglected his stonework errands for weapon mastery training?

Also, I think a racial bonus to diplomacy for half-elves is too forced and contrived ("Gee, that Tanis Half-Elven is such a likeable guy, so I bet that ALL half-elves are born diplomats"). OTOH, I don't have a problem with elves being slender because I figure its part of their genetic morphology, and not a stereotype of elven eating habits. (If it was the latter, I might just create an elf who grew fat on human food)

So I don't have a problem with making races feel distinct, but if the story of the character transcends the racial stereotype, I'd like the rules to transcend the stereotype without penalty.

And if the racial rules are more flexible in that way, I'm not sure how much they deserve to be listed as of 2nd importance. But I don't know if it's even all that useful to be listing these things in order of importance in the 1st place.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

The most important thing for a character *is* the theme, or rather, the vision you have in your head when you start creating them.

This means, for me at least, that customizable elements are the most important. Classes are straight-jackets for themes - multiclassing and more unusual classes came about because they were too restrictive. Races are usually crucial to a character's theme, and should offer more background choices than ongoing effects in play. Ability scores are just for numbers, but of all the things mentioned, their limitations on one's theme don't bother me: this is mostly logical, weak guys won't wield greatswords. Being a 'Human Wizard' though, should not prevent you from being an expert on the forest who knows how to fire a bow.

 

[delericho]

This also implies to me that, for example, Monte doesn't see elves as just humans with funny ears, but have unique distinctive traits that transcends other character options.

Oh, I hope so. I've always been more than a bit bothered by the "humans with funny ears" bit - too often, it seemed like modern D&D (3e and 4e alike) had 101 bizarre races, most of which were just humans with particular racial ability score adjustments.

The most important thing for a character *is* the theme, or rather, the vision you have in your head when you start creating them.

I'm pretty sure that when Monte talks about 'themes', he means the mechanical element by the same name in 4e. Rather than theme in the wider sense of plain English.

In mechanics-speak, I'd place theme near the top of those 'customisable elements'. In plain-English, I agree with you.

(At one time, I thought a race/class/theme trio would make for a very strong game. However, I'm inclined to think that the themes, if they exist at all, should be strictly setting-specific... which makes them a poor choice for a supposedly-generic Core Rulebook.)

 

[LeStryfe79]

1. Class
2. Abilities/ Customization (tie)
4. Race

Mechanically, Race in D&D is more like a layer on top of everything else, as opposed to a foundation for a character. Of course, this is greatly dependent on which edition you are playing. Race is clearly least important in 3rd or 4th, and customization didn't even exist in 1st. Obviously Race was more important in AD&D, but I highly doubt WotC is going to completely disregard the last 12 years of the game, so I have no idea what Monte is talking about.

From a fluff standpoint, I think any order is valid depending on the individual. However, every game I've played in the last dozen years or so has easily placed more importance on abilities/customization than race. I also think this drift is an unintentional means of applying contemporary moral standards to ancient settings(racism = bad).