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

[Corinnguard]

i mean, the difference there is "ancestral feat" is its own entire category of feat, and you get ancestral feats specifically (on top of whatever other feats you'd normally get, like class/skill/general/etc) at 1st level and every 4 levels thereafter (or even more commonly then that with the ancestral paragon variant rule). that, and you get a heritage (which is basically a subrace).

it has much more in common with a5e heritages, really (though it's still quite different from those).

A PF2 ancestry is the equivalent of an A5e heritage. A PF2 heritage otoh is the equivalent of an A5e culture.

The neat thing about heritages and cultures in A5e is that they can be mixed and matched. You could have a character of human heritage growing up in a dwarven culture.

 

[Lanefan]

If a Dragonborn's breath weapon was removed as a racial mechanic, where would it be moved to if the RPG still had it? Would it become a skill that only a Dragonborn can learn? Or would it be treated as a ranged weapon that only a Dragonborn can wield?

And would NPC Dragonborn keep the breath weapon as a species-based feature?

If yes, that makes this whole idea a non-starter.

 

[Lanefan]

Let's look at it a different way: instead of a race coming with mechanical elements, what if you have to have those mechanical elements in order to be that race? IE in order to play a dwarf, you must be proficient in Craft and have the feat Stable (from your background or whatever) and have a minimum of a 13 con (from rolling or point buy). Being a dwarf confers no further mechanical elements, but it does mean you get to play a dwarf and all that entails from a setting and lore perspective. Would you play a non-human then?

Yes.

Species having hard-line pre-requisites ends up functionally the same as species having baked-in abilities, only using different mechanics to arrive there.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

A PF2 ancestry is the equivalent of an A5e heritage.

i mean, they share the same design space and represent the same thing, yes, but they still work fairly differently.

A PF2 heritage otoh is the equivalent of an A5e culture.

i mean...kind of? i compared them to o5e subraces because they're typically more biological or physical then cultural, but i guess subraces and cultures fill a similar design space from a purely mechanical perspective.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I see people advocating for stats on a Minotaur’s horn damage but no one seems to care about a tiefling’s horns.

Or a Dragonborn’s tail-slap?

I’m curious

What makes these cosmetic features cosmetic-only with no mechanics attached?

 

[Reynard]

I see people advocating for stats on a Minotaur’s horn damage but no one seems to care about a tiefling’s horns.

Or a Dragonborn’s tail-slap?

I’m curious

What makes these cosmetic features cosmetic-only with no mechanics attached?

I think it is about core functionality. The minotaur is kind of defined by its charging gore attack.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I see people advocating for stats on a Minotaur’s horn damage but no one seems to care about a tiefling’s horns.

Or a Dragonborn’s tail-slap?

I’m curious

What makes these cosmetic features cosmetic-only with no mechanics attached?

technically i did put a tail sweep in my earlier dragonborn statblock, though i would guess that the difference between minotaurs and tieflings being advocated for a horn attack or not is that minotaurs are specifically derived from an animal known for using their horns that way: the bull, whereas demon/devil horns are more typically a 'superficial' trait and often aren't depicted as being shaped apropriately to being used in that way.

 

[Mecheon]

I hate to drag stuff up from a while ago, but...

Whether they came with the bonuses or not I personally wouldn't pick either one; as I probably wouldn't even be in a game where such wacko species were available as PCs (other than by very unlikely die rolls as rare oddballs).

In what world are centaur and bird people 'wacko' species? They're stock fantasy and absolutely generic enough that you'll see games changing them up to give their own spin on both, same they do with elves and dwarves. D&D has weirdo races like absolute mainstays the Gith, but centaurs and birdfolks aren't them.

Regardless though, to the original question, yeah, I'd play other stuff. I told my friend about D&D and her first questions were "can i be khajiit", not caring about mechanics and showing that the aesthetic of being a sneaky cat person was what mattered. Aesthetic is absolutely something folks will care about and I'm surprised it hasn't gotten much saying in this thread. Mechanics matter, lore matters, but aesthetic absolutely also matters. That drawing of 'what is this thing' absolutely is going to affect people's perceptions of what to play and, even divorced from mechanics, if you present a neat enough picture of a different option? Folks will go and play it

 

[Micah Sweet]

Pixies are race I don't think you can do "cosmetic only." I am not sure about Dragonborn -- I feel like there is a lot there outside their breath weapon that still make Dragonborn what they are.

According to WotC, "looking like a dragon" is a big part of what they are an a major selling point. I'm sure it is to some folks.

 

[Scribe]

I see people advocating for stats on a Minotaur’s horn damage but no one seems to care about a tiefling’s horns.

Or a Dragonborn’s tail-slap?

I’m curious

What makes these cosmetic features cosmetic-only with no mechanics attached?

I wasnt providing an exhaustive list.