• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Convince me that the Ranger is a necessary Class.

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
Tortles are a fictional species who can talk and walk around, they're people. Same with hadozee.

They're not the real life beings of turtles and chimpanzees
but they're blatantly meant to be analagous to them right? even if they're not literally turtles and chimps, these are species that have obviously developed from different ancestors or in different ways and thus would have different biological makeup as a result right? just because they're human*oid* doesn't make them humans, how does a human hold their breath for an hour if not because of fundamentally different biology?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
But they also are no humans. Are we allowed in fiction to imagine sapient species with capabilities different than those of a human?
Apparently you are not. And also you are!

If we imagine a race with +2 strength, then suddenly we are imagining that race to be racially superior to other races due to being stronger, making that race superior to the "lesser" races and that's bad! But if we imagine a race with brawny, then apparently we are not imagining that race to be racially superior to other races due to being stronger, making that race superior to the "lesser" races and that's good! Despite both things making one race stronger than the others.

It seems that you can make a race that is racially stronger, faster, smarter, wiser, etc. than other races and it's not racial superiority unless it's a stat bonus. It's confusing.
 
Last edited:

Mecheon

Sacabambaspis
But they also are no humans. Are we allowed in fiction to imagine sapient species with capabilities different than those of a human?
This started because it was talking about animal intellect as compared to humans, which is, y'know, a bit of a Subject with implications (IE: intellect isn't something we can actively measure for and doesn't really exist outside of being a RPG game stat. You can measure for relative brain complexity, but that's going to be doomed as things we think should have less at that keep surprising us with far more complicated things). Regardless though its moot because, turtles aren't tortles and would, y'know, think differently
but they're blatantly meant to be analagous to them right? even if they're not literally turtles and chimps, these are species that have obviously developed from different ancestors or in different ways and thus would have different biological makeup as a result right? just because they're human*oid* doesn't make them humans, how does a human hold their breath for an hour if not because of fundamentally different biology?
I mean, they're your basic humanoid turtle. Ala TMNT or the like. So, no, I wouldn't say the intellect of your average turtle or tortoise, an archlesaurian testudine, should have an impact on the intellect of a humanoid designed around similar ideas. Tortles are based on stereotypes and decades of anthropomising things, not rigurous studies into the mental capabilities of turtles.

As for Hadozee, they're Yazirian from Star Frontiers so that's a whole different ballpark, especially because they had lower strength averages anyway which, doesn't really mesh with chimps, and higher int
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Are we really going to make these same weak arguments (oh, so it's wrong to say a people are inherently smarter than their peers? Well what about non-sapient brine shrimp? Okay, then what if they WERE sapient brine shrimp? Gotcha there!) and pretend we're not talking about biological essentialism among sapient species -- the bedrock upon which racial discrimination is built?
 

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
Are we really going to make these same weak arguments (oh, so it's wrong to say a people are inherently smarter than their peers? Well what about non-sapient brine shrimp? Okay, then what if they WERE sapient brine shrimp? Gotcha there!) and pretend we're not talking about biological essentialism among sapient species -- the bedrock upon which racial discrimination is built?
the issue i see with this point is that racial discrimination and biological essentialism IRL has always been made on ultimately superficial factors, the colour of your skin or the region you come from don't change the fact that you're human underneath all that, but oh wait hang on? what's this? these DnD species are quite literally not humans! their biologies can be constructed differently, being optimised for entirely different things, the sapience of a species is a separate matter from their adeptness at different kinds of information processing, but even within humans it's possible to observe differing levels of ability to excell at dealing with different kinds of information, if it's possible for one person's brain to be wired specifically to excell at social interactions but struggles at information retention i don't see why an entire species couldn't be wired that way as default.
 
Last edited:

Vaalingrade

Legend
The 'they're not literal humans' argument is a bad one.

Let's be real here: D&D is not xenofiction. The designers and the DMs are largely not going for an alien mindset among these species. They're humans with different form factors, often with a real world culture hastily stapled to them.

Nothing in-universe shows an elf to have different mental processes from an orc because they are both consistently shown to think the same way humans do. The differences are twofold: a bonus and mauls to say 'you are encouraged to play a wizard and you are discouraged' and in-universe discrimination ala the book of elves where a given species thinks they're smarter and better than others because they are insufferable.

And if you want to highlight differences, the last thing one should reach for are flavorless disassociated ability stats (Oh, Valley Elves get +2 CHA -- that means a thing, certainly!) but rather actual abilities that species has due to their unique physiology.
 


ezo

Where is that Singe?
WRT racial bonus I don't like penalties and I do like being able to move them around. Adventurers are unique so while most Orcs might be strong and dumb in your game world and maybe NPCs even align with that stereotype to a fault, but your PC is unique and could be an outlier that was weak and smart.
You can have a +2 STR and +1 CON and still be weak and smart. People have played weak, smart half-orcs (even orcs probably...) for decades without having to include floating ASIs. You simply put the scores where you want them to reflect your character.

You might not be able to be as smart as a smart Gnome, but that doesn't mean you aren't still smart. Having racial ASIs have never limited any concept. If it really bothers people, they should be honest that it really about getting higher bonuses so they "feel better" about their PC...

If we really want to open a can of worms; should we go back to gender-specific bonuses and caps like in 1E? I mean it is all about Verisimilitude right?
Yep. (with a BIG however...)

However, all we can address is humans. All the other races are made-up, so who can say whether a female dwarf can't be as strong as a male dwarf? And then there is the argument that D&D humans aren't "Earth humans" so shouldn't have the same limitations. Frankly, I don't buy that argument, but for people who do you can just ignore the caps like some people did in 1E. 🤷‍♂️

if you remove ability scores from attack, damage, AC and DC I agree 100%

use ability scores for ability CHECKS(skills) only.

replace ability modifier from ALL attacks, damage, AC, DC and uses per long/short rest with proficiency modifier and you can have +/- 4 racial modifiers without any problems.
No, you can still have ability scores for attack, damage, etc., just remove the ASIs for race.

However you generate ability scores (rolling, point-buy, standard array, or something else), you are very likely going to have higher scores and lower scores. You want to play a "strong" (whatever race) then put your best score in Strength. You want to be a "smart" (whatever race) then it goes into Intelligence, and so on.

All ASIs do for race is bump the numbers even higher, which we don't need IMO.

It seems that you can make a race that is racially stronger, faster, smarter, wiser, etc. than other races and it's not racial superiority unless it's a stat bonus. It's confusing.
Yeah, it is odd. Goliaths with Powerful Build are "stronger" in that they can automatically lift/carry more weight. They are obviously "superior" to other races in this respect, and no one seems to take issue with that.

But incorporate a +2 STR modifier and suddenly it is a cry to arms against the Verisimilitude Gods!

pretend we're not talking about biological essentialism among sapient species -- the bedrock upon which racial discrimination is built?
The bedrock upon which something bad is built doesn't make the bedrock, itself, bad.

Biology among creatures is fact. Some are faster than others, some smarter, some can fly, others breathe water, etc. None of this, in and off itself, is bad or wrong.

For games like D&D, having actually adjustments in ability score numbers represent significant differences. Consider humans and elves. If you go with the baseline human, you get +1 to all scores. Elves get +2 Dex and +1 something else (typically). So, elves have superior Dex (by +1), equal in another "something else", and are inferior to humans in all other ability scores...

The same holds true comparing humans to virtually every other race. Humans are better than all other races in more things in this respect because they have six +1 ASIs, as where other races have two or occasionally three, most of which only allow them to equal humans (every +1).

There is nothing wrong with this because it is biology and/or spirtual. Halfings are Brave and so have a better chance of resisting fear, etc. They have something "inside" themselves that gives them an inner strength, confidence, and belief beyond other races. In our games, halfings get CHA +2 (not DEX) to represent this.

Dragonborn have CHA +1 because of the spirtual wherewithal and confidence gleaned from the dragon heritage.

Every single racial ASI can be justified by such means.

And, since 5E does not impose caps, any PC orc can have a INT 20 eventually. Sure, it will take longer, you might have to sacrifice a bit more, but in this way your PC is overcoming their racial limitation. Having the determination to overcome limitations should be celebrated, not just hand-waving them away.
 
Last edited:

Are we really going to make these same weak arguments (oh, so it's wrong to say a people are inherently smarter than their peers? Well what about non-sapient brine shrimp? Okay, then what if they WERE sapient brine shrimp? Gotcha there!) and pretend we're not talking about biological essentialism among sapient species -- the bedrock upon which racial discrimination is built?

So it is wrong to depict vulcans being better at mental computation and information recall than humans? It is wrong to depict wookiees as stronger than humans?

Also, even without ASIs, the D&D species are full of biological essentialism. Aarakocra are biological-essentially better flyers than most people, tritons are better swimmers, some species have biologically-essential dark vision. The list is endless. And the complaint is absurd when talking about actual different species. Of course they have essential biological differences, as that's what being different species literally means! The only way to get rid of biological essentialism is to remove the species altogether, except as cosmetic variations of humans.
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top