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

[Haldrik]

Living in a world of magic, is like living in a world of genetic engineering.

Ultimately, there is no such thing as a species. Because on any given day, there can be thousands of new species engineered by choice.

Parents can decide what abilities their kids will have, to give them the best health, the best opportunities, or banally to keep up with the latest fashions.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

Isn't that represented by simply assigning more points, or a higher roll, to Charisma when generating a chieftain?
Same to Int for an Oracle.
Bonuses represent general trends but individual variations and training has more impact. - An orc oracle may not be as beefy as an orc warrior, but is probably beefier than a gnome oracle.

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.

Almost all PHB backgrounds will fit in almost all cultures.

It strikes me that the culture a character comes from may well colour their attitude and how they are played, but may not require any actual mechanical bonuses.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Your post argued that to make an entire culture more Intelligent − every member without exception − is realistic.

No, it didn’t.

This falls apart the moment you actually build a fantasy setting and assign these bonuses to cultures therein. Parallels to real cultures are nigh impossible to avoid, and in many existing setting completely intentional parallels exist. People are already making a connection with the Orcs and the POC, and that is way weaker connection than seeing Chult to represent Africa etc.

You’ve rather badly missed the point of the criticisms about Orcs in D&D. Orcs being strong isn’t the reason they’re problematic.

 

[Haldrik]

Isn't that represented by simply assigning more points, or a higher roll, to Charisma when generating a chieftain?

An Orc Chieftain − or even the child of a chieftain family who is being groomed to become the next chieftain − might have Charisma 20.

A 3d6 ability score generation, by itself, cannot achieve a 20. To say an entire Humanoid race is unable to have a 20 falls into the trap of the reallife racist assumptions that WotC and others are trying remove from the game.

Almost all PHB backgrounds will fit in almost all cultures.

I dispute the generalization. For example, not all cultures have sailors.

The DM can decide which Backgrounds seem more salient when describing a culture in broad brushstrokes. There will always be individuals who come from a Background that is different from the salient ones.

It strikes me that the culture a character comes from may well colour their attitude and how they are played, but may not require any actual mechanical bonuses.

Even if so, there will be many times when the DM will want to customize the Background to better articulate a specific cultural concept. Likewise there will be many times when a player will want to customize the Background to better articulate a specific character concept. The player customization to will have meaningful implications within the wider cultural context.

 

[Stalker0]

Introducing optional racial levels, like in Arcana Unearthed, would be interesting. For example, a dwarf character could add a couple of racial levels to become a more "iconic" version of the dwarf, enhancing things the species is already good at, making her tougher, adding tremorsense, etc...

yep I always liked the concept. Consuming levels is likely too much, but perhaps they could be an additional generic class option or feat

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You’ve rather badly missed the point of the criticisms about Orcs in D&D.

I have not. The parallel here was not that orcs have ASIs, the parallel was that people notice an association to real world group, and with cultures that association will be way more apparent.

D&D. Orcs being strong isn’t the reason they’re problematic.

Indeed it isn't, as orcs are actually a different species that are biologically distinct from humans so them all having tendency to be stronger makes sense. However making similar claim about human cultures or ethnic groups is racist, as those are actually all members of the same species, and as culture is a social construct, not every member of it would share the same features. Thinking that they would is racist. Assigning ability modifiers to cultures is racist, full stop.

 

[EscherEnigma]

I'm reminded of Shadowrun, actually.

For those unfamiliar, in character creation in Shadowrun you assign a "rank" (A to E) to five categories, and that determines how many points you have to spend in that category.

So one PC might rank their species high, which gives them access to troll, while another racks that low making them a baseline human. Other rankings determine (IIRC) ability scores, skills, magic potential, and wealth (very important to concepts like Rigger).

D&D, being a class/level system, obviously doesn't match nicely. But if you took all that stuff before class (stats, racial abilities, background features and skills, etc) and did something similar, you allow unequal backgrounds and races, while also making it easier for a PC to de-emphasise aspects that aren't important to that character.

Or to put it another way... Having an "overpowered race" is less if a problem if that means you have less "powerful" options in other categories.

This could be made backwards compatible by saying "default, species and culture are combined to take the A and C ranks, point-buy is B rank, and backgrounds is D rank" or something. Then moving forward you can create new options that, in the aggregate balance out, but are (individually) more complicated and "powerful".

 

[Haldrik]

Assigning ability modifiers to cultures is racist, full stop.

I have to agree.

When I see a fictional culture that lacks an Intelligence bonus, that clearly represent a reallife culture, there is no way to understand this except as an insult.

 

[Kinematics]

1) Race should have attribute differences. However it should not have all attribute differences, and arguably the attribute differences should be minor — a single +1 if the race has other notable benefits, like dragon breath or fey ancestry; possibly more for the bland human, though I might instead provide more skills or tools as it acts as more of a 'curious' race.

2) Culture should not be "from Waterdeep" or "from Icewind Dale" or whatever. It should be more generic and abstract, so that it can apply to basically any world setting. Rather, you're from a mercantile nation, or a culture developed under harsh climate conditions, or a warlike culture, or a crafting culture, etc. You're not from 'a place', but from 'a type of place'. The purpose of culture is to define a broad set of skills and behaviors.

For example, a mercantile nation may prize good negotiating skills, and thus a person from there is a good negotiator, whether he's a barbarian or a wizard or a halfling or an orc. A country with rigid formal structure may settle differences with duels, and thus everyone learns at least the basics of using a standard set of dueling weapons. Etc. This is the stuff you grew up learning and playing, and is also stuff that is likely to cause a culture clash when you go somewhere else. The good is that you gain bonuses. The bad is that those bonuses may cause problems for you if you use them somewhere else (ie: storytelling hooks or plot hooks).

These can be described using stereotypes (elf culture, or dwarf culture, or goblin culture, etc), but it would be better to describe the culture as its own thing, rather than who's associated with it. For example, if geblings are an insectile race that shares the mining and crafting descriptions you might in a standard setting associate with dwarfs, you don't want to describe them as having a 'dwarf' culture; it just doesn't make sense, and points to weaknesses in your worldbuilding. You instead want it to sound as natural as possible.

3) Background is personal, unlike culture. It's how you lived your life, the sort of people you associated with, the hobbies that you took a personal interest in. It's where you developed your life philosophies, interpersonal connections, and learned what you would live or die for.

I would consider Background the other section that could provide attribute points. This is, after all, what you personally focused on in your life, not the generic prevailing cultural preferences. This should have a higher attribute bonus than race, so I'd be inclined to put the +2 here.

 

[aco175]

I can see how a culture may push me to spend my build points a certain way. I find that species have limits. I accept that my pixie cannot be as strong as a minotaur, or my centaur cannot climb as well as a squirrel PC. Each of these has a flavor that makes me pick them and if they come with a drawback, that is already factored into my decision.

I can see the argument about cultures and races having real world perceptions, but I do not think I want my game to force me to spend my build points a certain way. If I want a strong orc PC, I put my 15 there and get the +2 strength. I accept that if I want a smart orc I only get the 15 to place there and can take a feat at 4th level.