D&D General 5E species with further choices and differences

[Remathilis]

I don't see why it would be a tax if you get elven features that are in line with power level of a Origin feat.

The argument was if you are an elf, you can pick an origin feat of your choice (such as magic initate or lucky) but if you want to be a half-elf, you sacrifice that origin feat for your species traits. Which means even if the "elf hybrid" feat is equivalent to other origin feats, you are still sacrificing those extra abilities just to get your full species traits.

You may not agree with it (I don't) but that's what was argued when the whole hybrid species debate was happening.

 

[Horwath]

The argument was if you are an elf, you can pick an origin feat of your choice (such as magic initate or lucky) but if you want to be a half-elf, you sacrifice that origin feat for your species traits. Which means even if the "elf hybrid" feat is equivalent to other origin feats, you are still sacrificing those extra abilities just to get your full species traits.

You may not agree with it (I don't) but that's what was argued when the whole hybrid species debate was happening.

maybe we can add that you can gain that feat later, with or without +1 ASI attached.
but yes, it can be looked that way, but it also can open up additional feat options(elven accuracy)

 

[Stormonu]

An in-built race/species/background improvement or unlocked ability at 3rd, 5th, 10th and 15th would be appreciated. Especially if they weren't combat-focused.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't see why it would be a tax if you get elven features that are in line with power level of a Origin feat.

well, i can either play an elf with a background feat or a human with one, but if i want to play a half-elf i have to give up my background feat to BE a half-elf in the first place, one of equivalent power of the elf or human, methinks that certainly falls under the definition of a feat tax.

 

[Horwath]

well, i can either play an elf with a background feat or a human with one, but if i want to play a half-elf i have to give up my background feat to BE a half-elf in the first place, one of equivalent power of the elf or human, methinks that certainly falls under the definition of a feat tax.

as human with elven feat, you might look completely human but with elven features added.
that might be RP important.

or you do not to RP an elf, but Perception, Darkvision and less sleep sounds fun to add.

 

[CreamCloud0]

as human with elven feat, you might look completely human but with elven features added.
that might be RP important.

sorry, but i'm failing to connect how that relates to what i said? and when have you ever needed a specific mechanical configuration of your character to claim your half-elf passes as human?

or you do not to RP an elf, but Perception, Darkvision and less sleep sounds fun to add.

uh, can i get a second run by on that sentence please.

 

[Yaarel]

And yet culture matters less, mechanically, than species--which hardly matters at all.

Like culture literally has no impact on your character. No mechanics, no ribbons, no fluff. Nothing.

If the intent actually is to make species mostly color and culture matter a ton, then 5.5e has objectively failed in this task.


Personally, I see it as a significant step back in most ways, especially because feats are so bloody limited and competing with Dull Push Numbers Up ASI benefits.

Like feat-vs-ASI has become the new "magic items are boring". You get a choice between either having an actually cool/interesting/mechanically engaging thing, or dull but objectively more powerful options.

If feats weren't competing with ASIs, or you got more feats, or feats were powerful enough to actually compete with "make your core ability score better", then sure. But as it stands? No, not really. You should almost never take feats unless they're absolutely critical, until you're at least level 12. Which most groups will never reach, because higher-level play is radically unsupported and even less balanced than low-level play.

I consider backgrounds to be the participation in various cultural institutions.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I consider backgrounds to be the participation in various cultural institutions.

I find them far, far, far too generic to serve any such capacity. "Scribe", "Merchant", "Artisan", "Criminal". What, in any way whatsoever, does this say about your culture? Every single one of the PHB backgrounds is purely generic, something essentially all civic cultures would support to some extent or another.

Where is the cultural component?

 

[Remathilis]

I find them far, far, far too generic to serve any such capacity. "Scribe", "Merchant", "Artisan", "Criminal". What, in any way whatsoever, does this say about your culture? Every single one of the PHB backgrounds is purely generic, something essentially all civic cultures would support to some extent or another.

Where is the cultural component?

How do you put culture into the PHB without assigning a default setting? You would need to create specific cultural elements (language, religion, dress, tradition, etc) for them to matter, and unless you want the PHB to define every culture of elf on Oerth, Faerun, Krynn, Eberron, Athas, etc, you would need to pick one and use that as the default option.

Now if D&D had decided to use Faerun as the default setting (for example) then you can create a sun elf culture, moon elf culture, Menzobaranzan drow elf culture, etc, you could make meaningful cultural traits. Otherwise, you either just recreate the old cultural norms (magical forest elves, crafter dwarves, raider orcs) or you are requiring a fourth setting book to complete your character.

I will admit 5.24 isn't the best system, but I understand why WotC opted for keeping culture having limited mechanical impact to prevent having to create unique culture traits for every region, subrace, or lineage.

 

[Yaarel]

I find them far, far, far too generic to serve any such capacity. "Scribe", "Merchant", "Artisan", "Criminal". What, in any way whatsoever, does this say about your culture? Every single one of the PHB backgrounds is purely generic, something essentially all civic cultures would support to some extent or another.

Where is the cultural component?

Those are the institutions that spread multiculturally, like farming, writing, and are in core rules intended for multi settings.

I also expect official settings to detail backgrounds that are unique to local cultures.

And the DM can be creating backgrounds for such local institutions as well. The design space comes with social connections known thru the background and at least implies noncombat resources thru these personal contacts.


Origins includes languages, skills, technologies, abilities developed thru experienced, all taking place among specific groups and transgenerational traditions. All of this is culture. It is up to the local settings to detail local cultures, and regional settings to detail regional culturres.