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

[Older Beholder]

The most recent character I made was a Githyanki barbarian, with floating ASI’s I put a +2 onto an 11 wisdom to make it a 13 so that I have the option to multiclass into Druid later in the campaign if the story / character arc ends up going that way.

This is just one example of what people mean when they say floating opens up more options in character creation and role play potential.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The most recent character I made was a Githyanki barbarian, with floating ASI’s I put a +2 onto an 11 wisdom to make it a 13 so that I have the option to multiclass into Druid later in the campaign if the story / character arc ends up going that way.

This is just one example of what people mean when they say floating opens up more options in character creation and role play potential.

Wow, that really cool. I have literally never seen anyone ever do that with their ASIs.

 

[Faolyn]

And you are absolutely correct. In fact, they have disallowed it. The game mechanics and effectiveness of the characters will not change if everyone at the table has a 16s or 17s vs a mixture of 14s, 15s, 16s, and 17s. The only thing that changes is races are now more similar because one dial was removed that added to their list of "what makes this race different than others."

Note, I am not saying there are no differences. What I am saying is that if you want races different from one another, you should use all the knobs and dials. If you don't, then make all the racial feats universal as well. Just let people pick and choose. But the more universal you go, the further away from the "feel" of D&D you travel.

If you want races to be different, then you, the DM (with the help of the players) need to come up with ways they are different. As I said before, come up with lists of cultural and biological quirks. Or have mechanical traits. Because the differences between a githyanki, an orc, a centaur, and a minotaur are all because of those quirks and traits, not the ASIs.

Sorry Faolyn, but just admit it is to be stronger. Forget the semantics of "powergamer." He got you. If you can't play a character that has one less + than another character, the only reason to need the extra +, is to be stronger. Not effective. I have never seen a table boil down to one characters extra +1 being needed in order for the group to survive. That's silly. The game is way too swingy to believe it actually matters.

In part, of course it is. But first off, this is no different than playing a +2 Strength race as a martial and a +2 mental stat race as a spellcaster who relies on that stat. And it's no different from putting your highest score in your prime stat anyway.

And secondly, it's not just to be stronger. It is to be able to move stats where you want. I legitimately play race/class combos across type and I don't want some of them to have a high stat of a particular type. I have a firbolg (+2 Wis, +1 Str) genielock. I didn't want them to be that strong. Going by the background I had written for them (they had been a survivor of a werewolf attack), it would have made more sense for them to have +1 Con. My kalashtar fighter (+2 Wis, +1 Cha) is strong and pretty smart, but I never saw her as being particularly charismatic. Only my Levestus tiefling (+2 Cha, +1 Con) rogue benefits from her actual ASIs--but I picked tiefling because I like them, and the subrace because I wanted her to have a cold theme, not because of the +2 Cha which helps her as a swashbuckler.

By forcing me to have fixed ASIs, I couldn't fully create two of my three current characters the way I envisioned them.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Here is a simpel question, asking about 5e Creature rules in particular (I don't have the rules for them): against a typical monster and encounter, with no bonuses or penalities applied, what is the expected chance to hit against a normal creature? What is the game designed and balanced around for it's monster / creature maths?

This is a point much clearer in a system like Pathfinder 2e, which makes it really easy to pretty much any statblock you want with at-least a 16 in your primary class stat, which according to the game maths is pretty much the minimum requirement. This is also a game which most ancestories have set ability boosts and set ability maluses, with an optional 'flaw' system which allows you to give maluses to two stats in exchange for a boost to one. Three important differences is that choosing a class itself gives a bonus to the primary ability score of the class, your background gives you two ability boosts (with one being a choice between two different ability boosts, and the other being free) and perhaps most importantly each of these boosts increments the ability score of a class by two, meaning a boost always gives a modifier increase.

(I also should point out that every ASI, including at character creation as it where in Pathfinder 2e allows you to select four scores to boost, but this doesn't matter a lot for to hit with your primary attribute).

Taking this into account and also magic items that factor into the game's maths, generally against at-level enemies a typical character can have anywhere between a 30 to 45 chance to hit against enemies. Many things factor into the game's encounter maths, but it's pretty easy to calculate all these things out. And because plus ones are pretty important in Pathfinder 2e, not having at-least a 16, or more likely an 18, in your main class ability score is going to potential cause trouble. But the system as set up makes it easy, and doesn't force ancestories to only certain classes (some ancestories, mind, do have toruble fitting into larger achetypes or using multi-class dedications, but that's going way too away from something we can adequately compare 5e too).

5e, as far as I understand, typically has a much higher average chance to hit, without requiring magic items that give boosts to hit, etc. But how much is that prejudiced on, say, having certain ability score spreads at certain levels?

And how is balanced avoided by not having those spreads due to restrictions around ASIs?

Basically, when in the game, as you go up in levels, are you expected to have certain modifiers to effectively play your class? Are you supposed to have +2 for tier 1, +3 for tier 2, +4 for tier 3, +5 for tier 4? Or are the expectations higher?

How does this interact with feats, which for many tables are primarily chosen with ASIs?

I think the answers to those questions will make it easier to judge where floating ASIs are ""powergaming"", rather than anything else.

Another thing as well is that getting penalities on monsters or boosts to characters in Pathfinder 2e is easier than in 5e for a variety of reasons. I left this out of the comparison, but it does provide some extra detail why, by default, that's the typical chance to hit against an at-level enemy.

I also want people's opinions on what modifier for the various different tiers and levels of play makes an unviable character, and what chance to hit. Especially taking into account that, for spellcasts, they basically get one spell per turn.

 

[Older Beholder]

Wow, that really cool. I have literally never seen anyone ever do that with their ASIs.

As a concept I like that a ‘path of the beast’ barbarian might be able to eventually learn to control that innate power to wild shape. I’ve also added a bit of flavour in that the beast manifestation of claws/bite/tail when raging take on the appearance of the last monster he slew.

As a background I took criminal, with an idea of having a troubled past as a bandit/ stand over man for which he is now trying to make amends for.
Now, maybe we’ll end up in an urban city focused campaign and the whole Druid concept won’t come up/ make sense, but it’s nice to have the option.

Just to bring things back to the topic, I’m finding Githyanki probably fits under the human with funny hat, in that they were once humans in some respect.

The campaign is a wuxia themed home brew, so after discussing with the DM we’ve stripped the planar element from the race, having them humans that were enslaved by mindflayers long ago works fine. Honestly, you can do a lot with just the invisible mage hand cantrip to represent psionics to make the race feel unique.

 

[Scribe]

Here is a simple question, asking about 5e Creature rules in particular (I don't have the rules for them): against a typical monster and encounter, with no bonuses or penalties applied, what is the expected chance to hit against a normal creature? What is the game designed and balanced around for it's monster / creature maths?

If you have a 16 in your Primary Stat, with your proficiency bonus, you have a 65% chance to hit against a save/AC of 13 which is the assumed AC at CR 1/4.

Basically, when in the game, as you go up in levels, are you expected to have certain modifiers to effectively play your class? Are you supposed to have +2 for tier 1, +3 for tier 2, +4 for tier 3, +5 for tier 4? Or are the expectations higher?

This chance to hit will remain consistent as you go up the expected AC levels, assuming you put your ASI points into your primary.

How does this interact with feats, which for many tables are primarily chosen with ASIs?

Feats are not accounted for AT ALL. If you use feats, you already blow out the 'expectation' of a 65% chance. A combination of Standard Array (15) plus ASI (Racial, Human or Floating = 17) + a Feat (Athlete +1 = 18) for being a Variant Human PLUS Bless? 75% chance to hit.

An Ancient Silver Dragon has an AC of 22. You have in that scenario a 30% to hit a CR 23 Creature, at level 1.

5e, as far as I understand, typically has a much higher average chance to hit, without requiring magic items that give boosts to hit, etc. But how much is that prejudiced on, say, having certain ability score spreads at certain levels?

A +5 at level 1, grants you 65%, and this is maintained at every level but 9, assuming you start at 16 and put your stat increases into your primary.

So this is the fundamental question. Do you need to hit 65% of the time?

"Balanced" has been discussed a few times, but nobody cares to define it.

Xanathar says our Level 1 PC fights a 1/4 CR Enemy. If I crack open MToF and check, I see examples to grab a few.

Abyssal Wretch
Derro
Star Spaw Grue

Wretch AC 11, HP 18, Bite (+3 Hit, 5 Damage)
Grue AC 11, HP 17, Bile (+3 Hit, 6 Damage)
Derro AC 13, HP 13, Spear (+2 Hit, 3 Damage)

I set a Level 1 PC against a Wretch on the following site.

D&D

You will notice in the pictures below, the Party defaulted to a Blood Hunter, with 14 Str, 14 Dex, and ran the simulator. It claimed I won out of 25 fights, 68% of the time.

So is that 'balanced'? Should a level 1 PC be expected to win against a 1/4 CR monster nearly 70% of the time, when that is what they are suggested to fight in a random encounter as per Xanathars tables?

You tell me I guess.

Does that +1 going from 15, to 16 or 17 make all the difference?

Lets just say I remain utterly unconvinced of any requirement for a 16 for a PC to be effective at their role based on the guidelines provided by Wizards themselves...

EDIT: I make no claims that my math is without flaw!

 

[Lyxen]

Sorry Faolyn, but just admit it is to be stronger. Forget the semantics of "powergamer." He got you. If you can't play a character that has one less + than another character, the only reason to need the extra +, is to be stronger. Not effective. I have never seen a table boil down to one characters extra +1 being needed in order for the group to survive. That's silly. The game is way too swingy to believe it actually matters.

Exactly, not only is the game very swingy due to the d20, but if you are playing a competitive game, DMs worth their salt will adjust the difficulty of encounters to the actual PC.

At this stage, I'll drop the "powergamer" label (if anyone's in doubt, there are many kinds and degrees of this, minmaxer, optimiser, powergamer, munchkin, etc.), I just think that it's a power option that creates a bit of power drift, and while I agree that it's a bit, the very large flexibility that it gives makes it much easier to combine with other options. And everyone knows that it's never one option that creates the drift (as these are usually fairly well balanced on their own), it's always the combos that create the problems.

 

[TheSword]

Abilities don’t make different races appear differently at the gaming table, outlooks on the word do.

If a race lived predominantly undergound how would that change their mindset and behavior?​

If a race lived 10 times longer than humanity, how would it change their mindset and behavior?​

If a race was smaller than everyone else around them, how would it change their mindset and behavior?​

As soon as you start talking and behaving as if your characters have differences all of a sudden they will feel different. You can give someone all the mechanical variation you like, but if players don’t play them differently they’ll always just be humans in a suit.

 

[Lyxen]

Abilities don’t make different races appear differently at the gaming table, outlooks on the word do.

Abilities matter if the differences are significant, which is the case in a game like Runequest, but no longer in D&D in particular since negative ability modifiers disappeared for PCs. However, they certainly matter a lot, Orcs have an Int of 7 and Drows an Int of 11 (and Mind Flayers an Int of 19). I'm pretty sure that if they are played by the DM according to their stats, it will matter a lot compared to their outlook, or rather the outlook will have been colored a lot by the stats.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If a race was smaller than everyone else around them, how would it change their mindset and behavior?​

I think that depends quite a bit on whether them being smaller actually affects their capabilities. If halflings are superhobbits that are actually massively stronger than their size would indicate that's kinda different situation than if they are small and relatively weak.