D&D (2024) D&D 6th edition - What do you want to see?

[S'mon]

I don't want a 6e. I can see myself buying a redone 5e phb with better index and layout, better Ranger class - maybe have casting and noncasting paths - and maybe a mm with tweaked monsters. Very happy with 5e though.

 

[Dausuul]

Feats and multiclassing are already presented as being optional and the majority of tables don't use them.

The majority of PCs don't have any feats. There is no reason to believe most tables don't allow them.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Simple: because that's what the race is. Thus, if you want to play an Elf you just have to accept the fact that Elves tend to be more dextrous than Humans

Yes, tend to.

In other worse, across the entire population of elves the gaussian distribution will have a peak somewhat higher than it is for other races. (Or compared to humans, if we are using that as a baseline.)

But:

1. Chargen rules are for creating PCs, not the entire population of elves. The chargen rules don't have to produce that statistical shift.
2. PCs are, by definition, outliers from the population.

I think you've chosen the wrong hill to die on. Man in the Funny Hat has nailed it.

 

[bmfrosty]

Multiclassing looks like a bit of a trap in many cases...

It is in many cases, but there are a bunch of examples of 'take 1 level of rogue to get x more proficiencies.' things that I feels should be discouraged. I'm very tired of 'DPR' being a character concept.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's fine to say, for instance, that Elves tend on average to be more graceful than Humans, but don't hardwire that into a Dex bonus applied to every. single. Elf. Instead, let PCs CHOOSE whether they want to apply their ability score bonuses (which they would get for being adventurers, not because of Race) to the stereotypical scores, or whether to make their Elf different.

You already have the choice of whether you want your Elf to have higher or lower Dexterity than average. Nobody is stopping you from building an elf with 15 Strength and 10 Dex.

Likewise, not every bloody Elf, Dwarf or whatever would realistically all have identical training in the use of specific weapons - after all, Humans aren't all skilled in martial weapons, as witness the many baker, blacksmith, tavern keeper, merchant, etc. NPCS. Surely Elven and Dwarven societies have the equivalent? As written, the rules assume every member of those races get warrior training, which is ludicrous.

Because there's no precedent for any (pseduo-)Medieval European civilization to mandate bow practice for all able-bodied adults

Remember, racial bonuses are bonuses. They're a little extra, on top of what you already get. You can build a perfectly functional character, without considering these bonuses at all. If you want to play one of the few elves who never learned to use a bow, in spite of ample time for practice and social encouragement, then I don't think many DMs are going to stop you; it's just that writing the option into a book would be a waste of space, since there's no good reason to opt out from free stuff.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, tend to.

In other worse, across the entire population of elves the gaussian distribution will have a peak somewhat higher than it is for other races. (Or compared to humans, if we are using that as a baseline.)

But:

1. Chargen rules are for creating PCs, not the entire population of elves. The chargen rules don't have to produce that statistical shift.
2. PCs are, by definition, outliers from the population.

I think you've chosen the wrong hill to die on. Man in the Funny Hat has nailed it.

Where I posit the chargen rules do have to reflect that statistical shift somehow, as part of a greater reflection of the conceits of the setting; much the same as they reflect e.g. a setting's lack of Gnomes - if the setting doesn't have Gnomes, rolling up a Gnome and trying to play it isn't going to do you any good and will probably gas off the DM in the process.

The character is part of the setting, right?* Thus, if the setting dictates that Dwarves are generally tougher than Humans (which most if not all do) then a PC Dwarf in that setting at any point on the toughness bell curve should trend tougher than a Human at the same relative point on the bell curve. Further, if Dwarves are known to be tougher than Humans a player who wants to play a Dwarf is, I think, entitled to some expectation that the system will build that in somehow.

Either that, or the statistical shift has to disappear from the general population meaning all playable-creature culturess then run on Human stats.

* - if it isn't, and the character is seen purely as a game token and nothing more, then we're probably trying to compare apples and canoes.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Where I posit the chargen rules do have to reflect that statistical shift somehow, as part of a greater reflection of the conceits of the setting; much the same as they reflect e.g. a setting's lack of Gnomes - if the setting doesn't have Gnomes, rolling up a Gnome and trying to play it isn't going to do you any good and will probably gas off the DM in the process.

The setting doesn't tend to have Gnomes, or simply doesn't have Gnomes?

If the latter then you are comparing apples and oranges.

If the former, how exactly do you propose the chargen rules reflect that? Give them terrible ability scores so that people will tend to not choose that race?

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Either that, or the statistical shift has to disappear from the general population meaning all playable-creature cultures then run on Human stats.

The statistical shift of the general population will still be set by the DM. PLAYER characters do not need to always reflect or benefit from the statistical tendencies of the general population.

 

[ad_hoc]

The statistical shift of the general population will still be set by the DM. PLAYER characters do not need to always reflect or benefit from the statistical tendencies of the general population.

What is the point in playing a race if your character doesn't reflect that race?

Just play a human if you want to be human.

 

[Lanefan]

The setting doesn't tend to have Gnomes, or simply doesn't have Gnomes?

If the latter then you are comparing apples and oranges.

If the former, how exactly do you propose the chargen rules reflect that? Give them terrible ability scores so that people will tend to not choose that race?

Easy, if clunky - if you want a Gnome you have to roll against [whatever odds] and if you fail, no Gnome for you.

On a broader scale, I generally make basic races chooseable but if you want something exotic (e.g. a Gnome in this example) you have to roll on a chart and be prepared to play whatever you get even if it's nothing close to what you had in mind.

In my current setting this is in fact exactly the case: Gnomes exist but are very rare in most parts of the world, and to reflect this they're not usually chooseable* as a race - you have to roll on the chart for any hope of getting one.

* - unless the party happens to be in an area where there actually are some Gnomes; they'd be chooseable were someone to roll up a character at that point and have it join then.