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

[Faolyn]

Not at all, this was the part that I actually agreed with, I just pointed out that if all you are giving are "quirks", you will just be having humans in funny hats, and that it's very different from what I see as the right way, to give much more than that and in particular unique powers and abilities to the races and derive the race's usual cultures from this, as has been done in probably every good fantasy book and movie of the genre ever since it was created. Because it makes the worlds really fantasy worlds, rich and vibrant, with differences and surprises, not a bland mix of quirks that everyone ignores.

Dude, you called it a rant.

 

[Scribe]

Well, Scribe claimed that +3 wasn't better than +2, which isn't any sort of proof that I'm aware of.

I did not, why willfully misinterpret things?

 

[Faolyn]

I did not, why willfully misinterpret things?

You have said that a 16/17 isn't "needed." You are saying that a +3 is therefore not better than a +2. Why deny what you've said?

 

[Scribe]

You have said that a 16/17 isn't "needed." You are saying that a +3 is therefore not better than a +2. Why deny what you've said?

You may want to work on that logic.

 

[Tonguez]

That's kinda the point.

There really isn't a reason to have sparkly humans. Especially if humans get a feat.

If you are gonna to do Assimar, you would need to go full celestial on their race.

Because what if they are Aasimar destined from a death god or a war god's celestials. Aasimar are just as valid to have different cultures and foci as any other race.

Yeah, notice I didnt specify which cantrips to give them - you want a Death Aasimar then use Sparkly Human with Toll the Dead cantrip, War Aasimar give them Sacred Flame.
The point though is that with culture being the defining feature then why bother with 30 ‘races’ that are all just “Alt.People” with mix n match feats, selectable size and carefully allocated ASI that can do what any other races can do?

 

[Faolyn]

You may want to work on that logic.

I have: you seem to think that a +3 isn't better than a +2, just because you can function with a +2.

 

[Scribe]

I have: you seem to think that a +3 isn't better than a +2, just because you can function with a +2.

Oh I've commented on the apparent value of a +1 many times.

3 is after all, larger than 2.

Need, function, desire, all have nothing to do with 3 > 2 being a true statement.

 

[Faolyn]

Oh I've commented on the apparent value of a +1 many times.

3 is after all, larger than 2.

Need, function, desire, all have nothing to do with 3 > 2 being a true statement.

So then there's no problem with a person having a a 16/17 in an attribute, right?

 

[Scribe]

So then there's no problem with a person having a a 16/17 in an attribute, right?

No, there is no problem, just as there is no requirement.

Thats it. That's all I am saying.

There is no mechanical requirement for floating.
There is no balance requirement for floating.
There is no crunch requirement for floating.
There is no character fluff/lore/story requirement for floating.

3 remains greater than 2 though.

 

[Faolyn]

No, there is no problem, just as there is no requirement.

Thats it. That's all I am saying.

There is no mechanical requirement for floating.

Correct, since no classes have stat requirements anymore, except for multiclassing. Which is why you were able to play a tiefling paladin in what I'm assuming is 3e, since 4e tieflings got a Charisma bonus and paladins in 2e were both human-only and required a 17 Charisma, which meant it would be impossible to play a tief pally.

There is no balance requirement for floating.

Incorrect. Many tables still roll for stats. Mine does, even though I find I prefer point buy. Even with point buy or stat array, there's a general need for an individual to be really good at something. Many DMs--including myself--don't bother with 6-8 average encounters and prefer to have a fewer number of tougher encounters. Many DMs--such as one of the others at my table--set very high DCs for skills (my DM regularly sets DCs as 20 and 25 for things that I would set at 15 or 18).

There is no crunch requirement for floating.

Incorrect. A +3 gives a higher chance of success than a +2 does. This affects both your attack bonuses and your save DCs. If you don't put a +2 in the attribute that governs these things, then your character is less mechanically effective.

There is no character fluff/lore/story requirement for floating.

Incorrect. Maybe your characters don't need a +3 for story purposes, but are you honestly trying to claim that nobody else's characters do either? Plus, being forced to put the +2 in a specific attribute may very well go against a player's concept.

So you might want to check your logic, because three-quarters of your claims are incorrect.