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

[Scott Christian]

Well, you're simply wrong. It is not amount of the food that matters, it is the quality. This has been studied extensively,it is not a mystery. The protein and nutrient poor diet of the pre-modern (and some modern) agrarian societies is the reason why the people of the past were short.

I don't think that is correct Crimson. Switching to an agrarian society allowed humans to increase the number of children. It opened the door to stable diets. One could argue the health benefits of the actual physical act of hunter/gatherers might be better. You could argue they were tougher as a result. But that doesn't mean their diet was better. They dealt with much smaller populations. Hence, scoring one emu and some emu eggs is a lot of protein. It developed brain size in early man. But, overall, farming increased the population, it increased lifespan, and it decreased infant mortality. Those are strong indicators of health.
But we are talking about D&D. And those hobbit crops sure are plentiful. I mean they are all pudgy. I am sure there are wizards herding cattle with their familiars, and hunter/gatherers on their griffins. So everyone does well.

 

[Scott Christian]

Yes, I'm sure Silicon Valley has more than average amount of well educated people. This doesn't magically make a taxi driver who lives there better educated. Techie or a farmer are backgrounds. Sure certain places have higher concentration of certain backgrounds than others. This is not surprising in the least. That doesn't make it a culture than encompasses all the people in the area.

I, nor is anyone here, arguing that all the people in a culture are monolithic. But, if you are going to give a culture any benefit to game mechanics, then you need to do an aggregate. I even said we are talking about groups, not individuals. I said it twice.
If one side insists we are discussing individuals (when a rulebook is clearly trying to make groups of things: such as groups of ancestors, groups of classes, groups of professions, groups of weapons, groups of magic schools, groups of creatures, groups of armor, etc. I mean, do you know how many different types of shields there are? Yet we group them. Do you know how many different types of sailors there are? Yet we group them. You get the point. So if you insist we are talking about individuals, then perhaps you need to design a D&D supplement that only talks about individual things - not groups. But as such, the PHB and DMG group things. It is how the game works.
I personally would like to see that supplement. I think it could be neat. But in the end, the "individual" in a character comes from the player's imagination - not the ruleset.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think that is correct Crimson.

But it is.

Switching to an agrarian society allowed humans to increase the number of children. It opened the door to stable diets.

Yes. They could produce much more food. But that food was less diverse and had less nutrients, especially protein.

One could argue the health benefits of the actual physical act of hunter/gatherers might be better. You could argue they were tougher as a result.

Yes. This indeed was the case.

But that doesn't mean their diet was better.

Yes it does. This was one part of the reason why they were larger and generally healthier (when not eaten by sabre-tooth tigers.)

They dealt with much smaller populations.

YES!

Hence, scoring one emu and some emu eggs is a lot of protein.

Yes.

It developed brain size in early man.

Not sure about that being related...

But, overall, farming increased the population, it increased lifespan, and it decreased infant mortality. Those are strong indicators of health.

They had more (but poorer quality) food, thus could support larger population, That is literally the whole bloody point of farming. Everyone doesn't need to be hunting and gathering all the time, some people can just farm and feed the rest who can do other stuff. But the farmers were not healthier, this has been studied. They however led much safer lives.

But we are talking about D&D. And those hobbit crops sure are plentiful. I mean they are all pudgy. I am sure there are wizards herding cattle with their familiars, and hunter/gatherers on their griffins. So everyone does well.

Sure. And then no one needs special bonuses over others.

 

[Scott Christian]

They had more (but poorer quality) food, thus could support larger population, That is literally the whole bloody point of farming. Everyone doesn't need to be hunting and gathering all the time, some people can just farm and feed the rest who can do other stuff. But the farmers were not healthier, this has been studied. They however led much safer lives.

Healthier? If increasing population, lowering infant mortality and increasing lifespan doesn't indicate health... Then I don't know exactly what does. If we have an endangered species, and we bring their populations up, we increase their offspring's ability to survive, and increase their lifespan - we would say we increased the population's health, right?
This would even be true if their population shrunk a little. Those endangered gators in Florida used to average 8'. Now they are 6'. But there are ten million more of them. That is healthier.
But, I get what you are saying. The hunter/gatherer had a more protein rich diet, and that in turn, increased their muscle mass. Healthier. Yes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Healthier? If increasing population, lowering infant mortality and increasing lifespan doesn't indicate health... Then I don't know exactly what does. If we have an endangered species, and we bring their populations up, we increase their offspring's ability to survive, and increase their lifespan - we would say we increased the population's health, right?
This would even be true if their population shrunk a little. Those endangered gators in Florida used to average 8'. Now they are 6'. But there are ten million more of them. That is healthier.
But, I get what you are saying. The hunter/gatherer had a more protein rich diet, and that in turn, increased their muscle mass. Healthier. Yes.

Well. The health of the population and health of individual is not the same thing, so that was the root of the confusion. But we were talking about assigning bonuses to characters based on their background (or culture, but but not really) so that's about the individual. Like those eight feet gators have better strength bonus than the six feet ones, even though there's less of them!

 

[Kinematics]

"Growing up on a farm" has nothing to do with culture. If that alone would define culture every pre-modern society would be agrarian simply because of how many people it took to feed the nation. Romans would be an agrarian society, yet would roman senators be automatically be stronger than Hun priest? That would be the case if you assign Strength through culture.

I keep writing up and discarding replies, first to @Crimson Longinus, and now to you. The main problem is that the argument that you're making does not match the argument that I am making. The terms are not being used in the same way, so the arguments are not being made about the same things.

First: I am referring to the mechanic that I have called Culture. I have called it culture because it broke off from the idea of separating portions of the current rules on races, and particularly subraces, and it felt like a reasonable label for the mechanic. It's not the same as the general idea of culture in the modern world, especially casual usage, even though it has broad similarities. (The third point better elaborates on this.)

Second: I have already stated these same points in previous posts, trying to make sure that people understand the very narrow scope that I am using this term in. Since it seems to constantly be misused in false equivalencies, perhaps relabel it Mechanic C. Remove the associations with casual modern use of the term 'culture', and perhaps it will be easier to grasp.

Third: My most recent post tried to be explicitly clear that society and community and Culture (or Mechanic C) are different things. Roman senators were generally not raised under an Agrarian Mechanic C, even if they lived in an agrarian society. A society is made up of multiple communities, and communities are made up of multiple Cultures. That they share similar descriptors does not mean that they are the same thing. Perhaps it's best understood in that named cultures (eg: American culture, Silicon Valley culture, etc) are actually a conglomerate of cultures, and that Mechanic C is more about teasing out the specific underlying cultures that a conglomerate culture is composed of.

Fourth: I have not personally advocated for attribute bonuses within Mechanic C, as that was not the primary purpose of the proposed mechanic. In fact, it interferes with the discussion of the real issues the mechanic is intended to address (as seen with the current arguments about that). If you want to discuss the Culture Mechanic/Mechanic C that I proposed (as opposed to other mechanics described as 'culture' that others may have proposed), please leave the attribute aspect out of it.

Fifth: The Silicon Valley example: Merely living or working in Silicon Valley (taxi drivers, fast food workers, etc) does not make you part of Silicon Valley's culture. Once again, people are conflating culture with "where you live" or "where you work". And even Silicon Valley culture isn't really a match for Mechanic C. Rather, it would perhaps be a location that contains a notable component of a certain Intelligentsia of Mechanic C (I don't have a more refined descriptor for it offhand).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Kinematics

You can't call it 'culture' if that's not what you mean. I already told you that this whole discussion is mainly happening because the real world connotation of word 'race.'

Furthermore, what you describe could easily be handled under the background and as the process the background mechanics could be expanded. The term also already describes what you mean.

 

[aco175]

Every D&D Humanoid species, needs to be treated sensitively, as if a reallife Human culture.

I find this to be a problem. I was thinking this is a game and needs rules like a game. Races in the D&D game are different than other races- they are not Earth/Human cultures. I can see where some inject the orcs/africans or maybe the elf/english thing to bring light or awareness to something I never thought about before. I do not have a problem with elves getting +2 Int or Dwarves +2 Con since they are not Earth humans.

If we are making a game based on Earth Humans we would have a valid point on racism. If you look hard enough, I'm sure you can find racism in every game or situation you walk into, but I liked the game 5 years ago when it came out and still like it today as is. If we want to go this far, we should only allow humans as a playable race.

For the 'Level Up' discussion, should we be looking at the PHB races only and leave the others alone for now? I ask because most of my games only play PHB and leave the monster races in the MM. Not sure if this would cut down or focus the discussion.

 

[KnightOfTheGrey]

I might suggest considering the mechanical effects of racial stat mods. Most classes in 5e get attack bonus/damage bonus off of one stat, so it feels like you're handicapping yourself by playing a race that doesn't get a bonus to the stat that your class runs off of, and you end up with a more limited player character space as a result.

If the default ability score generation system were simplified point-buy like in Pathfinder 2 (where the point-buy costs are linear, classes give you stat mods as well as race, and everyone's got the same stat caps during ability score generation) racial stat mods might feel less limiting.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Well, you're simply wrong. It is not amount of the food that matters, it is the quality. This has been studied extensively,it is not a mystery. The protein and nutrient poor diet of the pre-modern (and some modern) agrarian societies is the reason why the people of the past were short.

I think that you're both arguing past each other a little. Yes, medieval farmers were smaller than modern people, partly due to dietary limitations.
However hunter-gatherers of the same time period were also smaller than their potential, also because of their diet. In terms of proportions, they had more protein relative to carbs. However the amount of food does matter: Protein doesn't help you grow if it needs to be metabolised for the energy to keep you alive. Getting not enough food is generally even worse than just having a bad diet.

I might suggest considering the mechanical effects of racial stat mods. Most classes in 5e get attack bonus/damage bonus off of one stat, so it feels like you're handicapping yourself by playing a race that doesn't get a bonus to the stat that your class runs off of, and you end up with a more limited player character space as a result.

If the default ability score generation system were simplified point-buy like in Pathfinder 2 (where the point-buy costs are linear, classes give you stat mods as well as race, and everyone's got the same stat caps during ability score generation) racial stat mods might feel less limiting.

That was the main argument in the thread suggesting the removal of Racial ASIs.
However, races have other physical capabilities, Like the wood Elf's keener sight and faster movement. These also give mechanical bonuses that work better for some classes than others.
If a player feels they are handicapping themselves if they don't choose to play a race who's abilities synergise with their class, they are likely to feel exactly the same even without the racial ASIs.