D&D General How many mechanical features does a race need to feel "right"?

[Minigiant]

If race is an option then race should have enough mechanics to regularly feel not like another race while playing.

It is not about quality but quality and impact.

 

[aco175]

At what point would certain races eliminate other races that are in competition with them? Why are monsters- monsters? Mostly because they do not look like us or act like us. This leaves us with humans, elves, dwarves and halflings. Tieflings and Dragonborn likely would have been hunted to extinction. This is likely a 1e/2e position.

In order to have races be equal, there should be enough to make them different and fill a role/need. Do we need a flying race, or another one? If you think yes, then add one. When your homebrew races are picked over the PHB ones, you have gone too far. I do not think there need to be more PHB races.

33 races in the new book as official is more than twice what I would think. We are doing away with ability score tweaks. We do not need a large, strong race or a smart race or a quick, small race. Everyone could be just variant human at this point.

 

[DND_Reborn]

On the other hand, my experience is that almost everyone does play their race, even when they forget about mechanics.

Then between us, we have everything covered. Can I have half of your players and you take half of mine?

 

[TwoSix]

A bit of a thread-jack, but what I find more interesting is how little I see races played as races and not just a set of traits and mechanics...

I hardly ever see it with my own players nor in games I have seen other groups run.

For the most part, if I try to picture a scene in a game, the PC races could be just about anything...

Which is why it's weird people make a big deal out of it. A race has to be WAY out of the norm to even make a dent in the overall experience of the game.

We all play it as window dressing anyway (cue comments of "Not our group!"), so why is the rules prescription for it so important?

 

[Baron Opal II]

Prompted by the discussion/debate over in the List of All 33 Races in MMotM thread, I'm curious:

For your tastes, how many mechanical features does a race in D&D need to feel "right", worthwhile, not-oversimplified, or whatever? One? Three? Five? More? None?

Does it matter what the features are? Do they need to include ASIs? Do they need to include movement? Save modifiers? AC modifiers? Proficiencies? Advantage or Disadvantage? Languages? Feat-like abilities? Innate spellcasting?

Good question!

I would think perhaps two or three would be sufficient. Mostly what I want is what makes [X] different from [Y], usually in a biological sense. I don't mind if there are cultural aspects in the racial description because that culture is what is encountered at the beginning of the game. Once the PCs travel that cultural aspect can be changed. If it's a theme that dwarves are excellent at crafting in general then the dwarves of the mountains can know Stonecunning and the dwarves at the coast know Woodwise. Whatever.

I have no problem with an attribute adjustment as part of biology, although I do limit it to physical attributes. Given that I don't use ASIs for gaining levels, starting attributes will change little, and the B/X bonuses, gaining a +2 to something doesn't seem to have the consequences that other people mention (not having orcs wizards because of inefficiencies, &c.).

But ultimately I want a description to state how they are different from humans. If they aren't any different, then there is no point in having them.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Then between us, we have everything covered. Can I have half of your players and you take half of mine?

Nooo! I love my players!

 

[jmartkdr2]

Which is why it's weird people make a big deal out of it. A race has to be WAY out of the norm to even make a dent in the overall experience of the game.

And some of the races being offer seem like they should, but they can't because "balance."

We all play it as window dressing anyway (cue comments of "Not our group!"), so why is the rules prescription for it so important?

IMO, the difference comes form roleplay a lot more than mechanics, which is why "racial traits are all ribbons" is a valid (if lukewarm) design concept. Dwarves don't need any mechanics for people to play them as dwarves.

But if slime-people use the same rules as dwarves, that would be ... odd.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Nooo! I love my players!

I don't know if I would go as far as "love", but for the most part I like mine pretty well.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As many as needed.

My approach would be simulationism, tempered by some balancing. But perfect balance is not needed, this is not a completive game. Decide what the species is like, then give them rules that simulate that. If this means they're slightly better at something than some other species, so be it. However, it would be best if the traits of species wouldn't be too heavily clustered supporting specific classes. Each species should have something that is useful regardless of which class they choose. But not everything needs to be optimal, and it is perfectly fine to have some features that are 'wasted' on certain classes.

 

[Kobold Stew]

For my tastes, it's however much will be needed to make playing the race a meaningfully different experience.

1. I'd like each race/lineage to have something that makes playing the race distinct that ties to some mechanics. The gnome's magic save; half-orc's relentless endurance, and lizardfolk natural armor all check this box; Dwarven stonecunning, or Elvish Keen senses, Trance, Fey Ancestry, and Weapon training do not. If it were more rare, Darkvision would fit here too.

2. I'd like physical size to be a more meaningful variable (so that playing a small character means you are physically weaker than a medium character, and did more than indicate how tightly you could squeeze and whether you can use a heavy weapon.) 5e chose not to pursue this because of (claims/perceptions of) balance between the races; I'd be much more interested if there was a flat -4 to strength, and there was no sense that needed to be balanced out.

3. If something points to a niche, then I want that niche to infect other character builds, rather than support the niche. (The best example of this is the Goblin in 5e, where with Nimble Escape every class gets to play a little like a rogue; the High elf's free cantrip can have this effect).

4. I'd like there not to be multiple languages that are only spoken by a single species (a Halfling or Gnome language adds little to the game; goblinoid and draconic are much richer). There are lots of changes to languages I'd like, though.