D&D General Race Has No Mechanics. What do you play?

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Ever since WotC started to move away from traditional racial identity, and the route they have gone since, I just wish WotC would go all the way and just make a long list of linage abilities that cost 1-3 points each. The players have 10 points to pick and choose from the list to make up their character, then decide what their toon looks like. Or something like that. In the current system, halfling, orc or butterfly folk barbarians are basically the same anyway, just different skins.

 

[Desdichado]

Ever since WotC started to move away from traditional racial identity, and the route they have gone since, I just wish WotC would go all the way and just make a long list of linage abilities that cost 1-3 points each. The players have 10 points to pick and choose from the list to make up their character, then decide what their toon looks like. Or something like that. In the current system, halfling, orc or butterfly folk barbarians are basically the same anyway, just different skins.

Ironically, in my homebrew, that's what I ended up doing with classes, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to do it with races.

Which I guess I didn't mention: if I were a player and the GM said this is how races are done, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I still wouldn't be interested in doing it myself, though.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Dragonborn. You should always be yourself. Unless you can be a dragon. Then always be a dragon.

So... why play a tailless wingless scaley boi when you could play a dragon instead?

 

[Corinnguard]

So... why play a tailless wingless scaley boi when you could play a dragon instead?

Because it's the next best thing?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Ever since WotC started to move away from traditional racial identity, and the route they have gone since, I just wish WotC would go all the way and just make a long list of linage abilities that cost 1-3 points each. The players have 10 points to pick and choose from the list to make up their character, then decide what their toon looks like. Or something like that. In the current system, halfling, orc or butterfly folk barbarians are basically the same anyway, just different skins.

But the thing is, WotC doesn't need to do this for people... because with DMs Guild any person out there could write up an entire system themselves and offer it on DMsG for those that want it.

But the fact that no one bothers to even try might be an indication that it actually isn't all that wanted or desired of a system in the first place. Which of course would then tell WotC they definitely do not need to do it either. Because if 3rd Parties don't even think it's worth their time and they can't make any money off of it... why would we possibly think it'd be in WotC's interest to do so? After all... why did WotC suddenly decide that making a Bastion system of all things in the 5E24 DMG was now worth it? (Something they never really bothered with in the 3E, 3.5E, 4E, or 5E14 DMGs?) My guess would be because they saw how well MCDM's 'Strongholds & Followers' book did in the market, and showed there might actually be a true desire for stronghold systems like that.

This is the same issue with so many other things that people say that the game needs to have-- Warlords, Psions, Arcane Half-casters, species point-builds, etc. etc. etc. No one is actually proving to WotC that any of this is true by going to a 3rd party and all using one of them happily and in large numbers. They aren't showing anyone at WotC there's a true market for this stuff. But if WotC could actually see that there was a market (because everyone kept using and/or talking about 'X' 3rd Party version of The Warlord for example)... WotC might be more inclined to make one of their own.

But of course that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Dragonborn, probably. Because dragons are cool.

In theory, it's "human unless I have a reason to pick something else" but it takes so little reason that it's not all that likely that I'll stick with human.

I tend to base characters on one of two things: art and/or interesting mechanics. If it's art - it's probably fantasy art so most likely human or elf, although the algorithm knows I'm a closet scaly. If it's mechanics - well I don't have any race mechanics to play with so human unless the backstory pushes me in another direction or the art search turns up a cool-looking elf/dragonborn/something else.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think in general, if you're going for no mechanics then some races would be out of bounds, more or less for the reasons you've mentioned. How do you fit an undead or warforged in there if they have the same mechanics as everyone else, hengeyokai would also be right out.

For the goliath, I just assume that if they're typically stronger than humans that an average goliath is still heavily muscled, you don't need a strength bonus or the ability that doubles your carry weight for that.

For a hengeyokai, the only way to play that would be to play a druid and re-fluff wildshape a bit. But given the "everything else is positive" clause in the OP I'd try to get a homebrew rule where I get more uses of wildshape but am more restricted n form choice (my options are: cat and bigger cat.)

I could replicate most planetouched thematically with spellcasters, elves might want a feat, etc. Hopefully small is an option or halflings are right out.

Most interesting race features can be replicated with class features, I don't think any concepts are impossible, but I will admit some are tougher and some are easier to do.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I rarely have non-mechanical reasons to pick a race. I don't need those mechanics to be tied to the race, as long as we don't just erase the option space that an extra choice gives.

I very much don't like characters that stack special things onto special things - like a mermaid that's a vampire that's half-aasimar (with some fey heritage) learning to become a time mage/assassin...

So I'd just play a human/dwarf if I was going for a class that has colorful special effects of some sort. Or the opposite, playing a race with a fancy visual (like a lizardman! frills!) if going for a class like Fighter that lacks in the ooh aahh department.

 

[Blue]

There are plenty of factors to my character without mechanical impact, I don't mind another one. In some ways it would be freeing myself from limitations.

If we're still limited to published races, I'll go halfling. I love their everyman-ness, their sense of community, their optimism, their food-focus, and their enthusiasm.

If I'm not limited, then this is a chance to play something unusual! I have had a lot of fun playing "the other", from a intelligent giant eagle who could shape into a human-looking, to whatever. I might play a half-ogre, for the cries of "oh no!" when I enter a settlement. To some sort of faerie or fae. Depends what I can pull off with the mechanical part of the character and skin as being because of my race.

 

[Corinnguard]

But the fact that no one bothers to even try might be an indication that it actually isn't all that wanted or desired of a system in the first place. Which of course would then tell WotC they definitely do not need to do it either. Because if 3rd Parties don't even think it's worth their time and they can't make any money off of it... why would we possibly think it'd be in WotC's interest to do so? After all... why did WotC suddenly decide that making a Bastion system of all things in the 5E24 DMG was now worth it? (Something they never really bothered with in the 3E, 3.5E, 4E, or 5E14 DMGs?) My guess would be because they saw how well MCDM's 'Strongholds & Followers' book did in the market, and showed there might actually be a true a desire for stronghold systems like that.

IMO it's the same story for the new background ASIs that will be debuting in the 2024 PHB. WoTC only showed an interest in them after Pathfinder 2nd edition and Level Up came out with them.