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

[Crimson Longinus]

Species having ASIs is not inherently problematic. We already accept that they have huge biological differences. Halflings are small, Tortles are reptiles and have shells and Aarkochra are actual birds who can fly. So them having the sort of different capabilities that are best represented by ASIs is not a problem unless you feel that those other biological differences are a problem too. Now in the Orcs many things combined to create very problematic portrayal and int penalty was one part of the 'stupid savage aggressive brute' thing. That can certainly fixed without getting rid of species having ASIs.

Cultures of one species having ASIs is completely another matter.

 

[Stalker0]

See, I've always used the Tolkien idea that elves are basically immortal, but after a while most of them chuffed off to the Feywild or something and aren't really around in the material world anymore. 2nd ed also used this idea.

I’m also completely fine with that narrative. It accomplishes the same thing, there are no 500 year old elves in the city

 

[Haldrik]

Species having ASIs is not inherently problematic. We already accept that they have huge biological differences. Halflings are small, Tortles are reptiles and have shells and Aarkochra are actual birds who can fly. So them having the sort of different capabilities that are best represented by ASIs is not a problem unless you feel that those other biological differences are a problem too. Now in the Orcs many things combined to create very problematic portrayal and int penalty was one part of the 'stupid savage aggressive brute' thing. That can certainly fixed without getting rid of species having ASIs.

Cultures of one species having ASIs is completely another matter.

I feel WotC charts the wiser course to be extra cautious for any Humanoid.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Fair enough...

Or a mix of Background and Class? What your occupation was before adventuring made you better at certain things, which reflects in a better score, and your class boosts another stat?

Just spitballing here.

Personally, I'd say no. For example I can see any ability score being improved for a sailor, or a soldier, and fitting in with character concept and the background feature.

More importantly though, the discussions about removing racial ASIs made it clear that there are some vocal people who believe that granting a bonus to an ability that isn't their class' main stat is unfair and would not consider picking that option. Backgrounds granting an ability bonus would seem to severely reduce the character backgrounds they would regard as viable.
I like the way that backgrounds are not mechanically powerful. It means that anyone can pick any background without fear of gimping their character.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I feel WotC charts the wiser course to be extra cautious for any Humanoid.

But why not get rid of those other biological differences too? It is just due how the mechanics of the game are structured that some that some of these differences are represented via ASIs and some with other features, they are not fundamentally different things, both rely on biological essentialism (as does the entire concept of species.)

Species are biologically different from each other, that is part of the definition. Depicting different species as different from each other is not racist.

Different cultures or ethnicities of humans are not meaningfully biologically different from each other. Depicting them as essentially different from each other is racist.

It's not that hard.

I really feel that there is really weird disconnect going on this whole discussion and a lot of people have really not a solid concept of what having non-human sapient species actually by necessity entails. If you are uncomfortable with the idea of different species of sapients having different capabilities due their biology, then you should not have sapient non-humans at all.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Personally? I would just remove the +X at chargen.

The stats in DnD 5e are already quite high, everybody has the same proficiency bonus that fills the most part of the total bonus to a roll, and everybody as the same cap. You just do not need a 20 in a bunch of stat anyway and some of them are less useful than others, so some racials + X are lost anyway if your class do not use it as a prime stat.

Just give a lot of racial ribbons and small features that add to the narrative and describe the character in fiction a as much as mechanically.

The race is extra hardy? Gain 1 extra point per level, or resist poison and diseases.
The race is tall? Gain +5 range, or +5 move or the Powerful build trait.
etc

 

[Undrave]

But why not get rid of those other biological differences too? It is just due how the mechanics of the game are structured that some that some of these differences are represented via ASIs and some with other features, they are not fundamentally different things, both rely on biological essentialism (as does the entire concept of species.)

Species are biologically different from each other, that is part of the definition. Depicting different species as different from each other is not racist.

Different cultures or ethnicities of humans are not meaningfully biologically different from each other. Depicting them as essentially different from each other is racist.

It's not that hard.

I really feel that there is really weird disconnect going on this whole discussion and a lot of people have really not a solid concept of what having non-human sapient species actually by necessity entails. If you are uncomfortable with the idea of different species of sapients having different capabilities due their biology, then you should not have sapient non-humans at all.

I think there's just multiple issues being conflated... There's the race shouldn't equal culture and the racial stereotyping thing, which, in itself, makes it hard to justify any race having +X to one of the mental stats.

The other is that some players are just tried of being pressured into making then est out of your racial stat bumps. People want to play Dwarves Wizard and Halfling Paladins without feeling gimped compared to someone who went with a Elf Wizard and Dragonborn Paladin.

It's not that people don't want species with biological differences, it's that they don't want to see as much Species/Class synergies that rely on hard numbers.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's not that people don't want species with biological differences, it's that they don't want to see as much Species/Class synergies that rely on hard numbers.

Yeah, I fully get that. I just think that getting rid of the differences between the species is the most boring and unimaginative way to achieve that goal.

I quote myself from earlier:

If this is actually supposed to be some extra crunchy version then I would want the species to be more differentiated and not less.

And as the balance is concerned, redoing the rules in more crunchy format is a good opportunity change the classes so that they're not so dependent on single stat so that everyone playing that class has to have the same score in that. And I'm not just talking about some lame 'just choose which ability to use for your attack/casting' but options that bring meaty benefits other than those raw attack numbers. For example a sorcerer variant that has a con based ability to channel their own health to more sorcery points, a battle wizard that benefits from physical stats and enhance their melee attacks with their spells, a tactician fighter whose stratagems benefits from int or a commander fighter that has cha based features etc.

 

[Haldrik]

But why not get rid of those other biological differences too? It is just due how the mechanics of the game are structured that some that some of these differences are represented via ASIs and some with other features, they are not fundamentally different things, both rely on biological essentialism (as does the entire concept of species.)

Species are biologically different from each other, that is part of the definition. Depicting different species as different from each other is not racist.

Different cultures or ethnicities of humans are not meaningfully biologically different from each other. Depicting them as essentially different from each other is racist.

It's not that hard.

I really feel that there is really weird disconnect going on this whole discussion and a lot of people have really not a solid concept of what having non-human sapient species actually by necessity entails. If you are uncomfortable with the idea of different species of sapients having different capabilities due their biology, then you should not have sapient non-humans at all.

I understand what you are saying.

The problem is. These "species" are too human. Humans can anthropomorphize anything, and a ROLE-playing game requires it so as to self-identify to take on the persona of the role.

So invariably reallife ethnicities inform the descriptions of these fictional humanoid species. Thus there are "Orc shamans" that are highly problematic. Often designers intentionally and overtly borrow from reallife ethnicities to describe a humanoid species.

To essentialize any humanoid group is racism in the strictest sense, and seems inevitably abusive toward reallife cultures.

The only escape seems to be to make any humanoid customizable, thus ensuring nonessentialism.

The nonessentialism leaves D&D with the dilemna of how to offer recognizable tropes while emphasizing customizability and individuality.

To be fair, recognizable tropes are why the reallife racist paradigms happen.

Until recently, D&D has been a game about racism, literally. To simply change the dwarf from the word race to the word species is superficial at best and fixes little. Albeit it helps distance D&D away from an unfortunate vocabulary word.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hiya!



Just a guess based on the fact that it's being touted as "5e...but with more crunch". Crunch meaning "more detailed rules, adjustments, modifiers, etc".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Not all mechanics are created equal. I’m sure I’m not alone in feeling that removing racial ASIs would open more room for more interesting race mechanics instead of boring number increases.