D&D 5E What Makes an Orc an Orc?

Crimson Longinus · Jul 19, 2020

Charlaquin said:
This is a slippery slope argument, which is logically fallacious. I have no interest in removing racial features other than ability score adjustments, as the impact they have on the viability of nonstandard race/class combinations is not sufficient to be of concern.

So who decides what is "sufficient to be of concern?"

You have decided to accept certain amount of imbalance in order to differentiate the playable species. So have I. The amount of imbalance we can tolerate is merely different, that's all.

Bagpuss · Jul 19, 2020

Charlaquin said:
The issue is not that different characters have different ability scores. The issue is that racial ability score adjustments shoehorn certain races into certain classes

This is a feature not a bug.

which is limiting for roleplay

Makes zero difference to roleplaying. It limits optimising builds, makes not a jot of difference to roleplaying. If anything it increases roleplaying opportunities. "Most of your race are miners and iron workers why did you decide to become a runecaster?"

and echoes racist tropes like the concept of the “warrior race.”

That's cultural rather than racial attribute adjustments. Could be Dragonborn prefer to be mages culturally in your campaign.

Charlaquin · Jul 19, 2020

Crimson Longinus said:
Sure. And you can't play a fire-breathing halfling either.

The ability to breathe fire doesn’t meaningfully impact one’s ability to be an effective monk. Or warlock, or Paladin, or whatever class you like.

Crimson Longinus said:
Either main score of 15 is sufficient or it is not. This is not complicated.

Sufficient for what? What are you talking about?

Crimson Longinus said:
Marginally, yes. It's not a big deal.

A +1 to your class’s primary ability modifier is not marginal.

Crimson Longinus said:
What sort of roleplay you do that requires 16 in your main ability?

If I want to roleplay an orc wizard, I can’t do so unless I accept that they will be a worse wizard than a human, or an elf, or a gnome would be.

Crimson Longinus said:
Yes, totally. This is totally what it is. Give me a break. I get that you really don't like ability bonuses, and that's fine, but trying to justify it this way is rather tasteless.

It’s the main reason I dislike racial ability modifiers. You don’t have to agree with me, but it is my position.

Crimson Longinus said:
Furthermore, they're species, they're not human ethnicities. It is not racist to say that bears are stronger than foxes.

Can we not drag up this tired red herring? All it leads to is pages of arguing about who can breed with who until we eventually come to the conclusion that the taxonomic terms we use in real life aren’t directly analogous to fantasy peoples.

Crimson Longinus said:
They both have an effect. By removing the ability bonuses you merely change which races favour which classes. And seriously. It is not a competitive game. Tiny imbalance doesn't matter. Hell, Warhammer 40K armies are far worse balanced that D&D races and that is a competitive game!

Again, competitive balance is not my concern. My concern is with allowing players to be able to play whatever combination of race and class they want without taking a hit to their baseline competence at their class role.

Charlaquin · Jul 19, 2020

Crimson Longinus said:
So who decides what is "sufficient to be of concern?"

Apologies. They are not sufficient to be of concern to me. Obviously different people will be concerned with different things.

Crimson Longinus said:
You have decided to accept certain amount of imbalance in order to differentiate the playable species. So have I. The amount of imbalance we can tolerate is merely different, that's all.

I never claimed otherwise. You’re the one making the claim that the distinction I’m drawing is arbitrary. It’s not, it’s based on actual criteria. If you don’t agree with my criteria, that’s fine. You do you.

Slit518 · Jul 19, 2020

I think some common trains among most orcs in popular media would be -
1) a pig nose
2) pointed years (similar to an elf, but possibly smaller)
3) tusks
4) hair that is coarse like a pig's
5) olive colored skin (green olives, black olives, those gray olives)
Of course this isn't universal across every medium, but it does seem to be more common than other traits/features.
Heck, even the same medium may differentiate orcs bit by bit.

Charlaquin · Jul 19, 2020

Bagpuss said:
This is a feature not a bug.

No, it’s definitely a bug. Quite a big one, for a significant portion of the player base.

FrogReaver · Jul 19, 2020

Charlaquin said:
No, it’s definitely a bug. Quite a big one, for a significant portion of the player base.

maybe make a poll. Let’s see How many prefer stat differences and how many don’t?

Charlaquin · Jul 19, 2020

FrogReaver said:
maybe make a poll. Let’s see How many prefer stat differences and how many don’t?

I don’t think these forums would be a reliable indicator of the general D&D community’s feelings on the matter. At any rate, I think WotC’s decision to include options for customizing racial ability bonuses in an upcoming product is a clear indication that there is significant demand for such options.

FrogReaver · Jul 19, 2020

Charlaquin said:
I don’t think these forums would be a reliable indicator of the general D&D community’s feelings on the matter. At any rate, I think WotC’s decision to include options for customizing racial ability bonuses in an upcoming product is a clear indication that there is significant demand for such options.

Not perfect but still better than just speculating how much demand their actually is.

And IMO WotC is being very reactionary at the moment so I wouldn’t read too much into their actions as implying there’s significant demand for that.

Guest 6801328 · Jul 19, 2020

Crimson Longinus said:
Sure. And you can't play a fire-breathing halfling either.

That's a specious argument. The ability to breathe fire (or not) does not make a certain race distinctly better/worse at certain classes than other choices would. Which is what we're talking about.

Either main score of 15 is sufficient or it is not. This is not complicated.

It IS sufficient!

So why is it so important to you that some races get a 16 in some attributes?

What sort of roleplay you do that requires 16 in your main ability?

I think you're missing the point. Entirely. The point is that as the game stands now you often have to choose between a 16 in your primary stat...which is a big deal mechanically...or play the race that fits the race you want to roleplay.

Is that trade-off the end of the world? No. But it's also entirely unnecessary.

Yes, totally. This is totally what it is. Give me a break. I get that you really don't like ability bonuses, and that's fine, but trying to justify it this way is rather tasteless.

Furthermore, they're species, they're not human ethnicities. It is not racist to say that bears are stronger than foxes.

That shows zero understanding of what the racism-in-gaming debates are actually about, but I don't even think it's necessary for this topic. I posit that racial ability bonuses are simply bad design.

D&D 5E What Makes an Orc an Orc?

Crimson Longinus

Legend

Bagpuss

Legend

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

Slit518

Adventurer

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Guest 6801328

Guest

Similar Threads