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

[cbwjm]

Again I'm going to mention players guide to Xoth. They had different cultures and each race which inhabited a specific region could belong to 1 or more "cultures" so you might have race which lives in a region that has civilised (i.e. settled) cultures while some of them still adhere to their nomadic roots. The nobility of these cities could perhaps be decadent after generations if rule. I think this is a good way of managing cultures by making many cultures within a kingdom or other region.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Hunter-gatherers were indeed smaller than modern people but larger than pre-modern farmers. I just recently researched the diet of ancient Egypt. They had an abundance of bread due having massively powerful farming industry as the floodplains of Nile are super fertile. But their diet was nutritionally rather bad. They almost never ate meat, sometimes fruits, almost everything else was some sort of grain product. The same applies to pretty much all pre-modern farming-based societies. Medieval peasants ate meat super rarely any meat either.

 

[cbwjm]

You make it sound like the ancient Egyptians were making do with grains but they had plenty of access to fruit and vegetables as well as meat in the form of birds and fish. While bread and beer was a mainstay of their diet, their diet was more varied than you're making out.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You make it sound like the ancient Egyptians were making do with grains but they had plenty of access to fruit and vegetables as well as meat in the form of birds and fish. While bread and beer was a mainstay of their diet, their diet was more varied than you're making out.

It is not that they didn't eat other things at all (though meat was super rare for commoners.) But when you have easy access to cheap and plentiful grain you'll use it whenever you can.

 

[cbwjm]

It is not that they didn't eat other things at all (though meat was super rare for commoners.) But when you have easy access to cheap and plentiful grain you'll use it whenever you can.

Yes, and they did eat a lot bread, no denying as that was often used a payment, but they still had a varied diet. Meat such as beef might have been rare for commoners outside of festivals, but they still had other meat or protein sources. I'm not saying they had it every day, but by saying they ate hardly anything other than grain products give a skewed overview of their diet. It was a lot more varied than "They almost never ate meat, sometimes fruits, almost everything else was some sort of grain product."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Again I'm going to mention players guide to Xoth. They had different cultures and each race which inhabited a specific region could belong to 1 or more "cultures" so you might have race which lives in a region that has civilised (i.e. settled) cultures while some of them still adhere to their nomadic roots. The nobility of these cities could perhaps be decadent after generations if rule. I think this is a good way of managing cultures by making many cultures within a kingdom or other region.

Exactly. My own game is a bit more complex in CharGen than 5e DnD, and your Origin is a combination of Ancestry, Upbringing, and Occupation. A Human Banker from a small farm town in Eastern Washington would have a Rural Upbringing, which gives them a single rank in a couple skills and sets up some of their potential Contacts. How Occupation works, exactly, especially in terms of specificity, isn't set in stone yet.

 

[Haldrik]

What the Players Handbook calls "race" is inseparable from "culture".

Everything from language, to skill and weapon proficiencies, to ability improvements, to special traits, look like the same mechanics that backgrounds and feats grant. Certain mechanically loaded concepts, like vampire or dragon, work better as classes that advance across levels, or as feats with level prereqs.

Suppose "race" splits into: culture + species.

Essentially, "species" seems little more than a place on the character sheet to put "physical appearance", such as skin color and average height. Because skin color, hair color, and eye color, plus height and weight, are things that a player chooses arbitrarily anyway, according to personal taste and character concept, species itself doesnt matter mechanically.

Besides physical appearance, everything seems like optional choices that backgrounds can supply, including proficiencies in language, skill, tool, singular weapon, and non-combat minor-feature ribbon. Even horns or claws are a weapon proficiency, mechanically.

Certain mechanics relating to height and weight might imply mechanics. Small size disadvantages heavy weapons. Large might hypothetically grant a size bonus to damage, albeit not necessarily. For the most part, the player character can default to Medium size. Even a halfling player character can be a tall 4 feet, rather than the "average" 3 feet. An ogre player character might be unusuaully short at 7 feet, or else young and still growing. During character building at level 1, to be Large or Small is a player choice, that seems more like part of a feat, whether a benefit or a cost, that a player likes and chooses.

Similarly Speed modifiers, whether a benefit or cost, seems more like part of feat. Compare how Monk and Barbarian learn to walk faster.

Even Darkvision looks like a cantrip that any culture can learn. Compare how Warlocks learn how to do it.

Notice how a species that has tough, scaly, natural armor is only a feat. For the Dragonborn species, Dragon Hide (Xanathars) is an optional feat choice that a player may or may not want.

Even Wings work more like a feat, that according to other editions of D&D has a level prerequisite, or else like a prestige class or a path.

An ability score improvement comes from a feat, whether the feat grants +2 to one ability score, or +1 to two ability scores. A halffeats can swap with one of these +1s.



In sum, a "species" is simply a place on the character sheet to put physical appearance. Language is cultural, and depends on the setting. Everything else is cultural backgrounds that supply proficiencies and ribbons, ideals and flaws. Additionally, both species and backgrounds can suggest certain feats that a player might want to choose to further develop the concept of the species.



When designing a species, the flavor depends entirely on the setting. Each setting guide can supply a default version of a species that represents a "typical" member of the species within this setting and that preselects the choices of skin color and average height, plus mechanically an ability improvement, feat, and a "species background" that correlates with the species in this setting. The player can swap each of the mechanical units − feat, halffeat, proficiency/ribbon − for an other that is more desirable to individuate and personalize a character concept.

 

[Undrave]

Exactly. My own game is a bit more complex in CharGen than 5e DnD, and your Origin is a combination of Ancestry, Upbringing, and Occupation. A Human Banker from a small farm town in Eastern Washington would have a Rural Upbringing, which gives them a single rank in a couple skills and sets up some of their potential Contacts. How Occupation works, exactly, especially in terms of specificity, isn't set in stone yet.

Ooh... Upbringing might be a better term than 'culture'! Not a bad idea!

 

[Undrave]

Random idea but what if we just gave every player a free feat at level 1 and made up some Species feat, including some that are just '+2 to a stat tradtionally ascribed to them'?

 

[Haldrik]

Random idea but what if we just gave every player a free feat at level 1 and made up some Species feat, including some that are just '+2 to a stat tradtionally ascribed to them'?

I am strongly leaning toward that solution.

At level 1 ("level 0"), every character gets a free feat. The human uses this feat for any feat. Other species suggest certain "typical" feats that a player can choose, but the player can still use this feat for anything, depending on the concept of this unique player character.

Notice to improve one ability score by 2, or two ability scores by 1, is still a kind of feat that a player can choose.