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

[Vaalingrade]

because those mechanics ARE all they have in 5th ed. There is SOO little actual content and world development in 5th ed, that the different races are simply a picture and a stat block. If you take away the stat block, then they are literally nothing. You can say theres a group of humans who like to live in the woods and be naturey, and now you have elves without pointy ears. When there are no rules or distictions, then nothing matters and its all the same.

So my teifling... doesn't have horns and a tail and cool eyes due to devils in the family tree?

And there are humans who horns and a tail and cool eyes due to devils in the family tree?

Good to know!

I mean good to know that this really is a terrible point of argumentation people should stop trying to advance since--again--it's disprovable by looking at the books.

This is like trying to tell people water isn't wet while wading in a kiddie pool.

 

[Lanefan]

But isn’t the premise that sure there are mechanics; but not from racial traits?

It would seem like the intent of the OP is….what race do you pick knowing it won’t give you any mechanical benefits?

Yes, that seems to be the intent.

The problem arises when you then allow PC-playable species that come with baked-in mechanical benefits simply due to what they are: changeling (disguise ability) and aarakocra* (flight) being two fairly obvious examples...or which come with baked-in penalties simply due to what they are e.g. centaur (can't climb, can't fit in places).

* - how the frikkety-frak is that spelled anyway? No matter how I type it, it still looks wrong.

 

[Lanefan]

+10? You’re making up numbers in your head.

Narrative: getting an audience with the elven King because you are an elf and he refuses to give audiences with humans

That's also a mechanical advantage IMO, in that simply due to your species (and completely agnostic of class, background, etc.) you can do something other PCs cannot: because you're an Elf you either auto-succeed or have a huge bonus when the question of "Can we get an audience with the King" arises.

 

[Lanefan]

I know this very likely doesn't apply to you, but "just roleplay it" is kind of an OSR mantra as a way to discredit newer play styles as just wanting "kewl powers".

I'm a big fan of "just roleplay it" but WotC insists on inserting these annoying social mechanics.

Let me tell you, that this post is the most Neotrad thing I've seen you say.

To the bolded: whatever that means. (I've no real idea what that series of terms is supposed to mean and tend to just glaze over when I see them)

 

[Lanefan]

How different? Norse people are generally different than southeast Asian people. Should they have mechanical differences?

Humans are considered mechanically generic, but one could argue there could be a slight difference in the typical height ranges as Norse are on average noticeably taller.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not even sure how to answer that beyond just: no. You're absolutely wrong.

But I'll try. You asked why throw race (and potentially class) under the bus for background. Because your background can already do what race did, and maybe even class in some rules-lighter versions of the game. Picking your race is like a template that gives you potential roleplaying hooks and some minor mechanical customization. That's also exactly what background is. They are literally the same thing. If you want more than one template with some roleplaying hooks and minor mechanical customization, you can take more than one background and it would be exactly the same.

My background is baker (or butcher or candlestick-maker, whatever), with some hobby-level knowledge of small-boat sailing (or horse riding, or swimming, or whatever) and an inherent ability to draw what I see in front of me.

All of that is utterly unrelated to either my species or my class.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

That's also a mechanical advantage IMO, in that simply due to your species (and completely agnostic of class, background, etc.) you can do something other PCs cannot: because you\re an Elf you either auto-succeed or have a huge bonus when the question of "Can we get an audience with the King" arises.

Then we have a different idea of what narrative is.

 

[Lanefan]

Why would a centaur have problems with stairs? They’re as smart as a human and wouldn’t have a horse’s difficulties.

The trick here was that the Centaur hadn't always been a Centaur; it was something else, just recently reincarnated.

So yes, it did have to kinda learn how to use this funny new body on the fly. EDIT to add: also, my horsey-crowd player told me that horses do have trouble with stairs, particularly when descending, unless they've been trained to it.

I don’t think I’ve seen a ladder in play in the past 30 years. And I’ve been gaming multiple times a week for the past 10.

OK, climbing a rope, then. Surely you've seen that; it comes up frequently in our games, even the high-level ones.

Centaurs are medium sized, so they should be able to fit anywhere a human can.

A Human can wriggle/crawl through a tunnel that's 2' wide x 3' high. A Centaur? Not a chance.

That, and a very strong case can be made that both horses and Centaurs should be classed as 'large', given that when full-grown they weigh half a ton or more.

I have never seen a stealth penalty for centaurs, but they could wear soft shoes if it was likely to come up.

Perhaps - nobody ever thought of that with the one I DMed.

I’ve also never seen a centaur with a major bonus to charge attacks.

The craziest one was when they made the Centaur invisible before the enemies had seen it, then stood back and watched it charge. The result rather resembled bowling, only the pins didn't see (but much to their confusion, did hear!) the ball coming.

 

[Lanefan]

Then we have a different idea of what narrative is.

Or a different idea of mechanics and how they work.

There is no appreciable difference in play between the two following scenarios:

1 "The King will usually only grant an audience to Elves; since you're an Elf you'll get that audience for sure, but anyone else would have to make a very difficult persuasion roll to even get let into the palace" (mechanical advantage to Elf via getting to bypass a roll)

2 "The King will usually only grant an audience to Elves; and since you're an Elf you'll get that audience for sure." (narration only, no mechanics mentioned, but the mechanics are still present under the hood; the mechanics rear their head when Joe the Human asks if he can also get an audience and has to make a persuasion roll just to get into the palace)

The DM declaring auto-success (or auto-failure) on something doesn't mean there's no mechanics involved; it just means there's no dice involved in this particular instance, which is different. And the moment one's species gives different probabilities of success at something than another species, you've got species-differentiated mechanics.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Or a different idea of mechanics and how they work.

There is no appreciable difference in play between the two following scenarios:

1 "The King will usually only grant an audience to Elves; since you're an Elf you'll get that audience for sure, but anyone else would have to make a very difficult persuasion roll to even get let into the palace" (mechanical advantage to Elf via getting to bypass a roll)

2 "The King will usually only grant an audience to Elves; and since you're an Elf you'll get that audience for sure." (narration only, no mechanics mentioned, but the mechanics are still present under the hood; the mechanics rear their head when Joe the Human asks if he can also get an audience and has to make a persuasion roll just to get into the palace)

The DM declaring auto-success (or auto-failure) on something doesn't mean there's no mechanics involved; it just means there's no dice involved in this particular instance, which is different. And the moment one's species gives different probabilities of success at something than another species, you've got species-differentiated mechanics.

Yeah, no, we disagree on what narrative is.