Level Up (A5E) Changes to race (species?)

[aco175]

Species are biologically different from each other, that is part of the definition. Depicting different species as different from each other is not racist.

Different cultures or ethnicities of humans are not meaningfully biologically different from each other. Depicting them as essentially different from each other is racist.

It's not that hard.

I was trying to follow the logic you have, but this part seems to have thrown me. You seem to say that different species is not racist. I'm thinking that orcs are a different species than human and can be presented with different abilities. I can see that having different cultures of human be racist if they are presented to have Earth-like abilities. Mostly since the people giving the abilities have bias one way or the other. I'm not seeing that having orcs with +2 strength and -2 intelligence as racist unless I'm trying to make them like an Earth culture.

I do see where describing orcs as large, brutish, Africans is wrong. Same as if I described them as large, brutish, Scandinavians.

 

[Scott Christian]

My guess is this:
All the people that find it racist to have different species have different ASI's will not be happy until you remove them from race/species.
All the people that don't see the ASI's as racist won't be happy if you negate the differentiation of the species by removing the ASI.
All the min/maxers won't be happy until they can play something that gives them an advantage over other players. A pixie that starts with a 20 strength.
All the verisimilitude players won't be happy if the mechanics don't represent some semblance of RL physics. Something five pounds can't lift 500 pounds.

The one thing everyone agrees on - change some of the racist language and art.

Looks like there's only one thing to change that will make everyone happy.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If that is how they're seen, they should not exist. It means that there is no way to depict sapient non-humans without it being problematic. Either the non-humans can be different from humans without it being problematic or they cannot so they shouldn't exist. There really isn't other logical positions on this.

It is vanishingly rare for something to be quite this simplistically binary.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Not all mechanics are created equal. I’m sure I’m not alone in feeling that removing racial ASIs would open more room for more interesting race mechanics instead of boring number increases.

I'm all for newer ways of achieving the same sort of goal (re: give a particular species/sub-species of a 'race' inherent advantages and disadvantages) that doesn't involve simple numbers adjustments. Alas, I don't think anyone will do so for...well, various reasons, but the most likely is that one persons experience/interpretation of a 'good thing' or a 'bad thing' for a sub-species might very well be different than others.

That said, the simple +1/-1 Ability Score adjustment are MUCH easier to ignore or change than some other method that involves a more complex or nuanced system. I mean, saying "Stout Halflings have +1 to their Constitution, but -1 to their Intelligence" is MUCH easier to change than if they have a 'good' special ability and a 'bad' special disability. "Oh, there are no species/sub-species adjustments in my campaign. Everyone get's a free +1 to a stat, but if they take it they have to take a -1 to another". Easily done. "Oh, no species/sub-species have any Special Abilities or Special Disabilities in my campaign"...not so much, and doing so would likely reduce every 'race' to be, effectively, "just dudes in funny suits".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Undrave]

Yeah, I fully get that. I just think that getting rid of the differences between the species is the most boring and unimaginative way to achieve that goal.

I quote myself from earlier:

Well... what if not ALL species gave you an ASI? Maybe Orcs and Goliath are general stronger and they give you a +2 to STR or CON, but that just takes the place of another feature. It still doesn't solve the pigeonholing stuff quite a lot, but I think opening the idea that some species give ASI and some instead give you a different benefit could open up design space.

Or...

We treat those ASI the same way we treat those given by the class and you can just trade them away for a feat at level 1?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well... what if not ALL species gave you an ASI? Maybe Orcs and Goliath are general stronger and they give you a +2 to STR or CON, but that just takes the place of another feature. It still doesn't solve the pigeonholing stuff quite a lot, but I think opening the idea that some species give ASI and some instead give you a different benefit could open up design space.

Or...

We treat those ASI the same way we treat those given by the class and you can just trade them away for a feat at level 1?

Man...

I know I’m not a humble person, but like, I feel like y’all are sleeping on the solution that I have already presented in several threads.

That is:

Your race and class (and possibly background) give you 1 or 2 Associated Ability Scores. From your AASs, you pick 2 Ability Scores to gain a +2.

This means that a Goliath Wizard can easily have +2 Strength and +2 Intelligence, as can a Gnome Fighter.

If we absolutely must keep the math the same, make it a choice of a +2 and a +1.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Your race and class (and possibly background) give you 1 or 2 Associated Ability Scores. From your AASs, you pick 2 Ability Scores to gain a +2.

This means that a Goliath Wizard can easily have +2 Strength and +2 Intelligence, as can a Gnome Fighter.

If we absolutely must keep the math the same, make it a choice of a +2 and a +1.

Why not just say that you get (e.g. for goliaths) +2 Strength and +2 to any other score of your choice? Players will naturally put the free bonus in a score associated with their class -- and if they don't, well, that's a choice they can make.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why not just say that you get (e.g. for goliaths) +2 Strength and +2 to any other score of your choice? Players will naturally put the free bonus in a score associated with their class -- and if they don't, well, that's a choice they can make.

Seems less fun, and doesn’t make your class
feel like part of why you are the way you are.

IMO, floatinge ASIs are just unsalvageably boring. Better to just increase the point buy and get rid of them, and encourage a more generous rolling method than the default one.

The other issue is that many people don’t want their bookworm Goliath to even have a strength bonus (thus races getting 2 AASs), and would make a Con/Int or Dex/Int Wizard instead. (Assuming Wizards have Int and Dex as their stats).

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Seems less fun, and doesn’t make your class
feel like part of why you are the way you are.

Different strokes, I guess.

IMO, floatinge ASIs are just unsalvageably boring. Better to just increase the point buy and get rid of them, and encourage a more generous rolling method than the default one.

This I think is something crunchy enough to discuss. The issue with increasing the point buy or encouraging more generous rolling is that any racial Strength (or whatever) bonus stacks on top of it, which puts us right back into the territory of goliaths being the optimal fighters. Wording the floating bonus the way I did avoids that problem.

The other issue is that many people don’t want their bookworm Goliath to even have a strength bonus (thus races getting 2 AASs), and would make a Con/Int or Dex/Int Wizard instead. (Assuming Wizards have Int and Dex as their stats).

I'm having trouble reconciling this with your statement above about floating ASIs being boring. If you're going to float two bonuses freely between four scores, isn't that much more of an argument for just forgetting about it and increasing the point buy?

 

[TheSword]

Why not just say that you get (e.g. for goliaths) +2 Strength and +2 to any other score of your choice? Players will naturally put the free bonus in a score associated with their class -- and if they don't, well, that's a choice they can make.

This is pathfinder 2’s approach and it is by far the simplest and most elegant.