D&D General No More "Humans in Funny Hats": Racial Mechanics Should Determine Racial Cultures
Scribe
Legend
The constraints of the 5e ASI matrix are...really painful at this point with 30+ race options some of which are so wildly different.
The design space for races in D&D was always pathetically small IMHO.
Number of races option was never the problem.
Faolyn
(she/her)
You know what, I'm just going to say it: I honestly don't even know what you mean by a "layer of consideration" here. Especially since you said that by having ASI restrictions, you had another layer, which you wanted to have--but now you're saying that you don't.
Yes, you really are. "Just admit this is what you want." When I've already told you what I want. But you think you know me better than I do, so you're demanding that I admit what you believe to be true. That's bullying.
The game doesn't require anything; it's not sentient. And nobody needs to play D&D. Stop pretending that anything here is about "needs." You want races to have fixed ASIs. You want there to be racial stat penalties.
You don't need to have any racial traits in order for the races to be different; you just need to roleplay them as different.
And again, you don't know what diversity means.
"All halflings have +2 Dex" is not diversity. Neither is "All halflings have +2 Dex; all orcs have +2 Strength." It's homogeneity. It's cliche tropes. And at worst, it's also stereotypes that can carry a tinge of real-world bigotry.
"Some halflings have +2 Dex; some halflings have +2 Strength; some halflings have +2 Con; some halflings have +2 Int; some halflings have +2 Wis; some halflings have +2 Cha" is diversity. Diversity is showing how individuals can be different.
I am not playing the halfling race, or the orc race, or even the human race. I am playing an individual. To me, choosing where that +2 goes is as important as choosing my character's name, gender, appearance, sexuality, and personality.
I am basing every assumption I have made on what you and the others have written. They have decided that anyone who chooses to have a 16 is a powergamer and have refused to accept anything I have said to the contrary.
Oh and that power gamer label, BTW, includes you. Because you've repeatedly talked about how much optimization is important to you. You even mentioned all those videos and websites about it! I've never gone to one of those sites in order to build a character. Crimson should also be considered a power gamer, since I believe he called it a "puzzle" to find out the best combos.
So if you have no problem with other people calling me a power gamer, then I guess you should have no problem with me pointing out how you are one as well.
(And here, I'm sure the denials will roll on in.)
Scribe
Legend
Agreed, but if the design space is shallow, continuing to add races which exposes that shallow space, isn't a great thing.
Scribe
Legend
I don't see power gaming or optimization as some sin.
I'm aware of why I prefer the things I do, and have no issue with expressing that.
Scribe
Legend
Irrelevant. What is discussed is if there is a game driven, mechanical requirement, codified in the rules at a fundamental level that says you need a 16 in your Primary Stat at level 1.
I propose, there is not.
However the the trend of more races was going to happen in order to sell more setting and adventures.
So the major sin was always having a shallow race system, because TSR, WOTC, Paizo, and every other D&D company were pro-more-races.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
I would definitely prefer the race to be far more substantial element of the character. Return to race-as-class is often proposed jokingly, but one interesting way to do races would indeed be to have race as subclass-sized component along with your class and actual subclass, and you could gain new features from it at higher levels.
Similar Threads
