D&D General No More "Humans in Funny Hats": Racial Mechanics Should Determine Racial Cultures

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

ROLEplayer vs ROLLplayer

Why can't people be both? Why do you have to be one or the other? I love roleplaying, but I also love having an effective character. Is that wrong?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why can't people be both? Why do you have to be one or the other? I love roleplaying, but I also love having an effective character. Is that wrong?

Again, you don't need a 16 or 17 in your primary stat to be effective. That is a player choice that is not based (or at least not accurately based) on having an effective character. There are a lot of reasons a person can make that decision, but not that one.

 

[Faolyn]

Again, you don't need a 16 or 17 in your primary stat to be effective. That is a player choice that is not based (or at least not accurately based) on having an effective character. There are a lot of reasons a person can make that decision, but not that one.

If having a 16 or 17 in a stat isn't needed to be effective, then that means there's no logical reason to disallow it by forbidding a floating ASI.

 

[Scribe]

If having a 16 or 17 in a stat isn't needed to be effective, then that means there's no logical reason to disallow it by forbidding a floating ASI.

The reason is not because of mechanical effectiveness, as the balance within 5e does not assume, or require, that value to function effectively.

Then again, we would need to define 'effective'.

Having fixed values is not about denying, its about reinforcing, for world building considerations, far more than any mechanical (+1) impact.

 

[Bolares]

Déjà-vu

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why can't people be both? Why do you have to be one or the other? I love roleplaying, but I also love having an effective character. Is that wrong?

Having an effective character is not just playing wrong, but morally wrong as well. Say 23 Hail Gygaxes and burn some Point Buy character sheets to be forgiven.

 

[Faolyn]

The reason is not because of mechanical effectiveness, as the balance within 5e does not assume, or require, that value to function effectively.

Then again, we would need to define 'effective'.

And shockingly, some people might want to put this ASIs in stats that aren't their class's primary stat. Like a con artist rogue who wants a high Charisma, or a literally wise wizard, or a muscled-up bard, or a fighter who's also a juggler.

Having fixed values is not about denying, its about reinforcing, for world building considerations, far more than any mechanical (+1) impact.

When I asked you to show me the differences between all the +2 Dexterity races (halflings, goblins, aarakocra, elves, kobolds), you failed to answer.

Because the differences between those races has nothing to do with where their +2 goes, or even where their +1 goes. It's entirely down to racial traits and the cultural and biological differences you choose to create for each race.

The only way that the +2 would actually mean anything for worldbuilding purposes is if you literally only had six nonhuman races, each with a +2 in a different stat. Then you could legitimately say "minotaurs are the strong ones, elves are the dexterous ones, dwarfs are the healthy ones, gnomes are the smart ones, shifters are the wise ones, and tieflings are the charismatic ones." As it is, the having eleven or twelve+2 Strength, five +2 Dex races, none +2 Con races, three +2 Int races, three +2 Wis races, and six +2 Cha races means that the stat bonus just makes the races more alike than more different.

As it is, even the DMG states that the bonuses are there to ensure certain races are best at certain classes. It assumes what Lyxen insists is "powergaming."

 

[Bolares]

Having an effective character is not just playing wrong, but morally wrong as well. Say 23 Hail Gygaxes and burn some Point Buy character sheets to be forgiven.

The funny thing is... I'd bet gygax would care more about the effective character than the great roleplay

 

[Minigiant]

It started waaaayyyy back when races and classes existed, so please don't pretend that the very minor optional changes that we are discussing today in reaction to an unprecedented social wave:

1. Were foreseeable when 5e was created.
2. Would have been solved by a new setting.

1)
Its not crazy to thing issues and eccentricities that many fans recognize in D&D in certain areas would eventually be addressed.

They were things that could not be kicked down the road if D&D brought in new fans.

And guess what 5e did.

If 4e didn't have such splitting responses, a lot would have been addressed then.

2)

A central image of the baseline of D&D in a catered setting would have done it.

Again half the discussions come from people imagining different ideas in their head because there is no such idea of D&D looks, feels, and works according to the rules. You can't have a discussion of image if one person is imagining Lord of the Rings and another is thinking Warcraft.

Because only one of those setting has orc warlocks as common and one of them being one of the most important characters.

You can't have Strength based halfling knights if you don't have a world that says this is logical.

 

[Scribe]

And shockingly, some people might want to put this ASIs in stats that aren't their class's primary stat. Like a con artist rogue who wants a high Charisma, or a literally wise wizard, or a muscled-up bard, or a fighter who's also a juggler.

OK, so they can do that with their Standard Array, but the ASI doesnt go there, it is determined by their race.

When I asked you to show me the differences between all the +2 Dexterity races (halflings, goblins, aarakocra, elves, kobolds), you failed to answer.

Because the differences between those races has nothing to do with where their +2 goes, or even where their +1 goes. It's entirely down to racial traits and the cultural and biological differences you choose to create for each race.

Correct, those races would all share a +2 in a stat, and any remaining differences are down to the 2 or 3 special rules that those races have.

Culture and anything else beyond those special rules, can no longer be assumed to be relevant as far as the race is concerned.

All of those races are dexterous or agile in some capacity and its reflected with a +1 bonus in addition to any rule differences between those races...

The only way that the +2 would actually mean anything for worldbuilding purposes is if you literally only had six nonhuman races, each with a +2 in a different stat.

This is a great point. I certainly do not believe 30+ PC race options is improving anything, and in a system without negative modifiers, caps and an upper limit of 20 on a stat, having this many different races but only +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 to reflect the differences is insufficient.

Adding back in negative modifiers, different limits on min and max values, and allowing for higher than 20 would be a considerable improvement.

As it is, even the DMG states that the bonuses are there to ensure certain races are best at certain classes. It assumes what Lyxen insists is "powergaming."

I dont take Lyxen's hardline stance on power gaming, or optimization. I do know, that the game does not require a 16 or higher in your primary stat for your class, and a Fighter with a starting Str of 15 will function within (actually above) the tolerances expected based on Wizards own encounter building rules.

There is nothing wrong with an optimized Elf, being a better Rogue, than an optimized Orc, or whatever.