D&D General All Dead Generations: "Classic Vs. The Aesthetic"

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm struggling to see how humanoid creatures, as currently represented in 5e, are inherently interesting or extremely differentiated from humans.

Many of them aren't. This is party because there are just too many of them. To fill different hitdice levels Gygax went through thesaurus and thus we have dozens of vaguely defined creatures. Same is true for PC races too at this point. I always seriously limit the amount of different intelligent creatures that I have in my settings, so I can define and differentiate them better without them becoming absurdly narrow caricatures.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Their function is that of people. The person you buy armor from may be an ogre. The person who guides you around the city may be an elf.

The bandit who attacks you as you walk through the wilderness may also be an ogre or an elf.

Then why are they ogres or elves? Why aren't they just more humans? Differences need to have weight in order to be differences.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It would be beneficial for those classes to have. It wouldn’t make them inherently better at being those classes, as having a +2 to the class’s primary ability does.

This doesn't make sense. It's the same thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think defining and elaborating on, say, goblin cultures and their worldviews would be welcome in the contemporary game, but it stands in stark contrast to the position that they need to be different (i.e. inherently evil) to serve as fodder for the PC combat machine. Is the point of elaborating difference for the sake of creating vivid and deep alternatives to the human societies in a given setting, or is it just to provide monsters for the pcs to kill?

Also, @Crimson Longinus, you mentioned Klingons in the other thread, but I don't get how that's not the 'humans but in rubber masks' situation. Klingons are represented as having a particular culture, but that culture is basically comprehensible by the human characters as it is just an exaggeration of certain features of human culture. Unlike the Q or the Borg that are more truly alien.

Klingons exist in a setting, and a big part of their character is their relationships with other polities in that setting. But D&D isn't a setting, at least not to that degree. It's a toolkit that can be used to make many settings. How do you describe orcs in the setting-free core books that keeps them from being just like everyone else?

 

[Argyle King]

It would be beneficial for those classes to have. It wouldn’t make them inherently better at being those classes, as having a +2 to the class’s primary ability does.

I know you weren't responding to me here, but I support getting rid of the +2s and such and instead replacing them with unique abilities.

In a similar way, I support D&D magic items having cool effects and personality rather than supporting the +N treadmill.

I think both are also better for actually achieving the 5E design goal of bounded accuracy.

 

[Argyle King]

This doesn't make sense. It's the same thing.

I can see how representing racial differences with something other than pure numbers might work.

 

[Nefermandias]

Then why are they ogres or elves? Why aren't they just more humans? Differences need to have weight in order to be differences.

Hence rubber mask.

 

[Charlaquin]

This doesn't make sense. It's the same thing.

It is not at all the same thing. +2 to your class’s primary ability has a significant effect on pretty much everything you do. A wizard with 16 Int is just a better wizard than one with 14 Int, even if the latter has +2 Dex compared to the former. On the other hand, a wizard with 13 + Dex natural armor is not necessarily better than a wizard without that, but can hide in light obscurement from natural terrain or whatever (assuming they both have 16 Int).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It is not at all the same thing. +2 to your class’s primary ability has a significant effect on pretty much everything you do. A wizard with 16 Int is just a better wizard than one with 14 Int, even if the latter has +2 Dex compared to the former. On the other hand, a wizard with 13 + Dex natural armor is not necessarily better than a wizard without that, but can hide in light obscurement from natural terrain or whatever (assuming they both have 16 Int).

Of course the natural armour wizard is better! Having higher AC is better than not having it, this should be obvious. You just have arbitrarily decided that it is not he sort of better that matters for you.

 

[Charlaquin]

Of course the natural armour wizard is better! Having higher AC is better than not having it, this should be obvious. You just have arbitrarily decided that it is not he sort of better that matters for you.

He has better AC, yes, but that’s not necessarily more valuable to a wizard than the ability to hide in fog or whatever. Unlike having +1 to basically every d20 roll you make, +1 to all of your save DCs and an extra prepared spell, which is necessarily more valuable than either.