Level Up (A5E) Changes to race (species?)

[TheSword]

Every culture should have examples of every ability.

The Orc chieftain should have high Charisma. The Orc oracle should have high Intelligence. The Orc hunter should have high Dexterity. And so on.

Let every culture be made out of a deck of backgrounds. Let each background offer an ability.

Of course, there are also very different Orc cultures, including nomadic, rural, and urban. Each is its own assemblage of backgrounds.

That will result in a lot of duplication, and a lot of pages (or lots of gaps).

Does culture really need to provide mechanical benefits or is it enough to provide language and maybe a weapon proficiency and some starter equipment like the 3e regions.

 

[Helldritch]

That is the main problem of culture. A warrior culture is not the same as an artistic culture. Yet, you will see art in a warrior culture and you will see warriors in an art culture... Upbringing would be better. Come to think of it, isn't background exactly that? Instead of just having a few skills, why not give a +1 ASI related to background instead? Acolyte? +1 to wisdom or charisma. Guild member? +1 to charisma or intel. Soldier? +1 to strength or dexterity. Folk hero? +1 Dex or Con... many possibilities in there.

Edit: @Haldrik beat me to my idea...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Every culture should have examples of every ability.

The Orc chieftain should have high Charisma. The Orc oracle should have high Intelligence. The Orc hunter should have high Dexterity. And so on.

Let every culture be made out of a deck of backgrounds. Let each background offer an ability.

Of course, there are also very different Orc cultures, including nomadic, rural, and urban. Each is its own assemblage of backgrounds.

Sure.

My argument is simply against the spurious notion that it’s somehow inherently racist to give each specific culture, eg Lantanese and Waterdhavian, an ASI.

 

[Haldrik]

That will result in a lot of duplication, and a lot of pages (or lots of gaps).

Does culture really need to provide mechanical benefits or is it enough to provide language and maybe a weapon proficiency and some starter equipment like the 3e regions.

Different cultures have different institutions, different economies, different values. Backgrounds represent these.

I feel, the DM only needs to think about the most salient features of a culture. I would just pick out a handful of backgrounds for a locale that has a distinctive culture. And only add more backgrounds to its cultural assemblage as the player characters interact more with the culture, meeting new people and coming across new institutions. Like any worldbuilding, there is wisdom to starting small and expanding outward as players start to explore.

There are times when the DM will want to write up a new Background to articulate a distinctive concept. Often a Players Handbook Background is close enough.

It is ok to quickly use one Background as a placeholder, until developing it more fully to tailor it for the specific culture. It is also ok to reuse the same Background for more than one culture. The other backgrounds that are in a culture will be the context for how a particular background fits in. So the same background can mean different things in different cultures. For example, a background focusing on a specific spiritual tradition will mean different things depending on whether the majority of the culture adheres to the tradition or a minority. Likewise, a scholar will mean different things depending on how scholastic a culture tends to be. An athlete, depending on what degree the culture celebrates physical prowess.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure.

My argument is simply against the spurious notion that it’s somehow inherently racist to give each specific culture, eg Lantanese and Waterdhavian, an ASI.

It is inherently racist. It should become blatantly obvious if you would try to assign such bonuses to say, to the French, the Chinese and the Nigerians.

 

[Haldrik]

Sure.

My argument is simply against the spurious notion that it’s somehow inherently racist to give each specific culture, eg Lantanese and Waterdhavian, an ASI.

Heh, defining an entire community with a specific ability does sound somewhat racist.

Anyway, it feels more accurate if Waterdhavians include strong citizens, and dextrous citizens, and intelligent citizens, and so on.

Let the job offer the ability.

It might well be that a significant percentage of the population are scholars, and on average the culture tends toward Intelligence. But it wont be every one. And it will be because of their training and experience.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I can see what you’re trying to do, but that method is extremely reductive.

Well, yes. It is D&D. What I'm proposing here is about as reductive as classes or saving throws.

In my opinion, if a similar approach works for the Civilization video games, there's no reason why it couldn't work in a role playing game like D&D.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, yes. It is D&D. What I'm proposing here is about as reductive as classes or saving throws.

In my opinion, if a similar approach works for the Civilization video games, there's no reason why it couldn't work in a role playing game like D&D.

Civ is about cultures, it doesn't care about individuals. D&D is about individuals.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

It is inherently racist. It should become blatantly obvious if you would try to assign such bonuses to say, to the French, the Chinese and the Nigerians.

Again, is Civilization "inherently racist"? Because it does just that.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Civ is about cultures, it doesn't care about individuals. D&D is about individuals.

Exactly. If the broad approach I'm describing works for a game that specifically deals with cultures, it should be more than good enough for a game that doesn't.