• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D General What is the purpose of race/heritage?

Scribe

Legend
I'm starting to wonder if that's really all we need. I don't exactly play D&D games with deep themes, so why should I expect or desire a lot of depth to PC races?
It's something I have thought on for what I want.

1. A deep world building experience.
2. Distinct races with unique culture.
3. Archetypes which play to tropes.
4. Let me kick in doors, kill whoever is there, and take the loot.

So, 3/4 I want the depth, and for the 4th, I want combat to be engaging.

I'm pretty much convinced 5e or whatever it becomes, isn't that game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
It's something I have thought on for what I want.

1. A deep world building experience.
2. Distinct races with unique culture.
3. Archetypes which play to tropes.
4. Let me kick in doors, kill whoever is there, and take the loot.

So, 3/4 I want the depth, and for the 4th, I want combat to be engaging.

I'm pretty much convinced 5e or whatever it becomes, isn't that game.
Level Up is much more that game, for me anyway. And I can tweak it the rest of the way.
 




I mean, that's one of the reasons which I want racial features to be more impactful, and to continue to have a significant impact as you level.

I quite like how pathfinder 2e has done this. Characters who focus on racial feats get some really crazy stuff.
I've been down that discussion thread. ;)

Basically, it boils down to: A) Make cool racial feats that have mechanical impact and then people complain that this particular race makes a better fighter or wizard than the race they want to play or B) Make "ribbon" racial feats and people complain about that races are just humans in funny hats or C) Have feat style racial abilities where people complain that everyone takes the same four feats and there is no consistent lore to showcase the culture.

Or do it exactly how WotC did it and make the largest swath happy.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I've been down that discussion thread. ;)

Basically, it boils down to: A) Make cool racial feats that have mechanical impact and then people complain that this particular race makes a better fighter or wizard than the race they want to play or B) Make "ribbon" racial feats and people complain about that races are just humans in funny hats or C) Have feat style racial abilities where people complain that everyone takes the same four feats and there is no consistent lore to showcase the culture.

Or do it exactly how WotC did it and make the largest swath happy.
Or do it like Level Up, with multiple options and splitting heritage, culture and background. Works great, much better than any version WotC's tried imo.

For the record, I have zero problem with "A" either.
 

I've been down that discussion thread. ;)

Basically, it boils down to: A) Make cool racial feats that have mechanical impact and then people complain that this particular race makes a better fighter or wizard than the race they want to play or B) Make "ribbon" racial feats and people complain about that races are just humans in funny hats or C) Have feat style racial abilities where people complain that everyone takes the same four feats and there is no consistent lore to showcase the culture.

Or do it exactly how WotC did it and make the largest swath happy.
I mean even reducing the racial differences by eliminating the unique ASI increases hasn't stopped people looking for the 'best' race to play classes. All it's done is change around which the 'best' one is for it.

Ultimately, the only way to stop people picking their species purely on the mechanical meta is remove the racial mechanics completely and make them pure flavour.

Which to me is something I hate. Kinda depressing being an aarokocra if you can't fly, or a triton if you can't swim, or a fire genasi with no fire based abilities.
 

Races, like ability scores, are something I don't think you can remove from DnD. But they also don't quite have a specific design space that they fill, since theoretically background can cover all the stuff about home culture you would look to race for.

Which I think is the best use of races: to broadly define a home culture for the character (background covers what you did, not where your from) in a way that doesn't require knowing the setting. That's the thing about dwarves: if you're familiar with fantasy fiction from the past 30 years, you have a mental image of dwarves that's boht vague and flexible while being surprisingly complete. Just saying "My character is a dwarf" gives the other players a lot of implied background to work with - even if none of the details are fixed, the shape of the culture is known broadly enough.

You can play against those tropes, but you can only play against tropes if those tropes exist.

Dwarves, elves, and orcs have this by virtue of longevity in DnD (which influences all other fantasy media), and goblins have equally old and established roots on fantasy in general. Dragonborn and tieflings work off of even broader well-known tropes (the proud warrior race from, like every sci-fi and fiendishnes) so they work too. Halflings and gnomes are quite as good but are close enough, and a few other races seem to work in my own experience (goliaths, centaurs).

Animal-people races lean on animal tropes, so they works to varying degrees, although in general I find them lacking since most animal tropes imply personality but not culture.

You could detail a bunch of human cultures and this theoretically should work - but in practice I find it often falls flat because you need every player to be well-versed in all of the made-up cultures in the setting which just never seems to happen. After all, it's a pretty hard-core Tolkien nerd who can talk about the culture of Gondor since that isn't in the novels or movies. (except for some royals we don't meet many). I suppose if I had a table of big-time Wheel of Time fans I could pull it off, but asking someone who hasn't read the whole series several times to join the table would leave them lost or confused.

But dwarves - I don't care what you've read or which games you've played, you know the stereotypes about dwarves. And that's enough.
 

jgsugden

Legend
The benefit of a heritage is that it has built in story. You can associate storylines to the heritage and bring them into a PC's hooks just by having them possess that heritage.

The problem with a heritage is that it has built in story. That is stereotyping, and often has racist undertones that are in disguise.

If I were designing 6E right now, I'd break down character origins in the following ways:

Genetic Origin: You'd gain certain abilities by the nature of the body into which you were born. I'd limit how impactful these were, and I would not place any restrictions in the game on having a certain genetic origin. Whether you had 4 or 50 of these, I'd deemphasize their importance.

Cultural Origin: You'd gain traits based upon your cultural origin. I would make these a point buy system and encourage the players to help the DM design their world by creating these 'culture bombs' that the DM can place in their world.

Education: Then a character would spend time when they are young learning. It might be on a school's campus, in a workshop, on a battelfield or riding magical train rails ... but they'd gain benefits by living a young life. These would be predefined packages, much like backgrounds today.

Class: Then they'd have an origin story for their class abilities. They might go to a school, make a pact with a demon, live in a monastery, etc... Basically, they'd get their class abilities through 'higher education'.

You'd combine those four and get your starting abilities for a PC.
 

Remove ads

Top