D&D 5E What Makes an Orc an Orc?

[Jfdlsjfd]

There aren’t many campaigns where if you say your playing a wizard your “friend” will try and one up you.

No, but you'll feel it everytime you cast a spell and the DM asks "what's your DC?" and it's one less than the other wizard in the group. It will even out if you play to the highest level, but apparently only a handful of groups do that. Even if it is not mechanically meaningful, some will feel it and it can be bothering to them (I never said it was all the people on earth, ever, just that SOME players COULD be bothered by it, without any intent to quantify their number). The "friend" doesn't need to do something to "try and one up" you, he just needs to make sensible stats assignment and be of the same class as you (which happens often with large groups).

 

[Guest 6801328]

If we're judging that racial abilities that improve the performance of one class over another are acceptable, the discussion is simply over where on the optimisation spectrum you personally draw the line.

Totally agree. There are people who couldn’t care less about optimization, and people who will take ANY edge they can get.

But I do think there is a second question (other than optimization incentive) to ask, which is how much a given racial ability contributes to the unique feel of that race. To me, racial ability score bonuses have a high degree of imbalance, but a low degree of flavor. They’re the opposite of good design.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, but you'll feel it everytime you cast a spell and the DM asks "what's your DC?" and it's one less than the other wizard in the group. It will even out if you play to the highest level, but apparently only a handful of groups do that. Even if it is not mechanically meaningful, some will feel it and it can be bothering to them (I never said it was all the people on earth, ever, just that SOME players COULD be bothered by it, without any intent to quantify their number). The "friend" doesn't need to do something to "try and one up" you, he just needs to make sensible stats assignment and be of the same class as you (which happens often with large groups).

Why would there be another wizard? That's boring party. You should discuss withe the group beforehand so that everyone makes a different class so that you get a diverse party and everyone has a good niche.

But as I said earlier, the real issue is the main stats being too important and this is a problem beyond the races. It is boring if everyone have just the same predictable cookie-cutter statlines. Sacrificing one point of main stat modifier in order to get something else should be valid choice, and the game would be better if it supported that.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

No, but you'll feel it everytime you cast a spell and the DM asks "what's your DC?" and it's one less than the other wizard in the group. It will even out if you play to the highest level, but apparently only a handful of groups do that. Even if it is not mechanically meaningful, some will feel it and it can be bothering to them (I never said it was all the people on earth, ever, just that SOME players COULD be bothered by it, without any intent to quantify their number). The "friend" doesn't need to do something to "try and one up" you, he just needs to make sensible stats assignment and be of the same class as you (which happens often with large groups).

Yes. And in a mature group no one uses a bonus to lord over others. Especially a plus one.

And fighters are better with swords...

The other side of things is that you would have other characteristics to make up for it so to speak if keeping up with others is that important.

and it is for some. And for those who care less, they get the bonus of being able to play unique less used combinations.

There are all sorts of admonitions about how you should play a hill dwarf nature cleric some people do. Fine. But when I bust out with a tiefling cleric, it’s novel. It’s a path less trod and novel.

people are trapped only by themselves.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Totally agree. There are people who couldn’t care less about optimization, and people who will take ANY edge they can get.

But I do think there is a second question (other than optimization incentive) to ask, which is how much a given racial ability contributes to the unique feel of that race. To me, racial ability score bonuses have a high degree of imbalance, but a low degree of flavor. They’re the opposite of good design.

I feel that their flavour value is pretty high. Legolas is inhumanly agile, Chewbacca is inhumanly strong and Spock is inhumanly smart. I want this to be represented and I want the abilities to actually mean something instead of just being arbitrary bonuses that do not really represent anything in the world. If high strength score on the character sheet does not correlate to a person being strong in the fiction, then I'd rather get rid of the ability scores altogether. Everyone can just have their boringly expected bonus and we can just call it 'Basic Bonus' or something.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I feel that their flavour value is pretty high. Legolas is inhumanly agile, Chewbacca is inhumanly strong and Spock is inhumanly smart. I want this to be represented and I want the abilities to actually mean something instead of just being arbitrary bonuses that do not really represent anything in the world. If high strength score on the character sheet does not correlate to a person being strong in the fiction, then I'd rather get rid of the ability scores altogether. Everyone can just have their boringly expected bonus and we can just call it 'Basic Bonus' or something.

So, I feel like you have been arguing both sides of this. On the one hand you say that a 14 or a 15 is just fine and isn’t really a handicap, and on the other you say that the difference between that and a 16 or 17 is vital to playing certain character concepts. Which is it?

And if it really is necessary to have the higher score:

1) Why is it unacceptable to simply wait for the ASIs? (Chewie and Spock aren’t 1st level.)

2) Alternatively, what’s wrong with giving everybody floating bonuses to assign wherever they want?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, I feel like you have been arguing both sides of this. On the one hand you say that a 14 or a 15 is just fine and isn’t really a handicap, and on the other you say that the difference between that and a 16 or 17 is vital to playing certain character concepts. Which is it?

And if it really is necessary to have the higher score:

1) Why is it unacceptable to simply wait for the ASIs? (Chewie and Spock aren’t 1st level.)

2) Alternatively, what’s wrong with giving everybody floating bonuses to assign wherever they want?

Because then everyone is the same. Sure, Spock is high level, but that is only part of why he is smart. And Chewbacca is not stronger than Wicket because he is high level, he is stronger because he is a Wookiee and Wicket is an Ewok.

I don't think this is really that difficult concept, even though you would not agree. Part of the fluff of certain species is that they're better at certain things than others. Mechanics need to allow them to do that or it is a lie. It is not about a specific score, it is that difference being mechanically represented.

 

[Charlaquin]

Do that while wrapping it in the D&D logo & you'd very soon be moving on to 7e.

For an examination of how radical system change went the last time they tried it, refer back to 4e.

5e is in a very different place than 4e was. 4e was very popular among new players but struggled to grow the brand because the old players mostly jumped ship. 5e, however, has been so successful at bringing in new players that all the players who abandoned 4e could leave again and it would hardly make a dent in the player base this time.

 

[jasper]

It's in the title. If we want to avoid racially charged languages in our descriptions of intelligent humanoids (and I sure think we should at least try), what does a "race" write up look like in the PH? Lore and mechanics, what differentiates an orc from a human, or an elf, or a gnome? Is it just physical appearance and lifespan? What are the mechanical widgets we're ok with, and how are those widgets explained in the lore? If we're not tying stat bonuses and/or penalties to the race, than what makes the races mechanically different from each other, and how do we present those differences? I'm really curious about what D&D is going to look like in a few years, and thought it might be fun to bandy around ideas. I don't really want to take a side, as I have all the material I need to play any way I want if the future isn't to my liking, but I am curious. This would work with any race that people might want to use for PCs, so Kobolds, Goblins, Gnolls, et al are all on the table.

"Race" means what normally means but is also a game term. You have to look at "race" as game term some times. The same with "Humanoid"
And due to the TITLE. Could some one do a folk song of "Modern Major Orc" Or what makes a man to What makes an Orc?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

5e is in a very different place than 4e was. 4e was very popular among new players but struggled to grow the brand because the old players mostly jumped ship. 5e, however, has been so successful at bringing in new players that all the players who abandoned 4e could leave again and it would hardly make a dent in the player base this time.

As much as I don't like the proposed changes to the ability bonuses, it is commonly incorrectly assumed that the lesson from 4e was 'don't ever change anything' whereas it more likely was 'don't change everything at once.' Small changes here and there are generally well tolerated. (I just wish that change this time would be getting rid of the alignment rather than the racial ability bonuses.)