D&D 5E D&D Peoples/Species change ideas

[Micah Sweet]

I find that pointing it out to new players leads to new players who don’t worry as much about “maxing their main stat”.

Your mileage may vary on that one. Among players I know, a quick look at the math tells what's most important mechanically, and people want to be effective as possible generally speaking.

 

[Mercurius]

I don't understand why racial ability bonuses are a problem. It takes a very strong "half-empty glass" mentality to see another race's bonus offensive because yours doesn't get it, when you can still reach the same score if you're lucky or patient.

But I acknowledge that this is now identified as a problem that will be fixed.

So the easiest fix appears to be to just pick any ability and get a +2/+1. Except that this makes it even better for that race, but since it will be the same for every race then nobody can complain, right? Well maybe non-variant humans now have a small reason to complain since all other races get a +2 somewhere: allow them to combine two of their +1 together and they'll be fine.

But is this enough to end the discussion on races? Or should it involve also all the other racial abilities? Why should only Halfling be lucky, or Elves good with bows?

Well the ultimate solution is then just making all races identical.

Bring together all racial features in the PHB, including +1 ASI, into a list. Merge together the weakest features into small bundles of 2 or 3. Pick any 6, with the only limitation that you can't put more than two +1 ASI to the same ability.

Then present the original sets of PHB races features as "suggested picks", so that those original races are still valid in the new system. A DM with a traditional stance on races can decide the suggested picks are mandatory.

I think this basic idea is reasonable, but I'd do it similarly to classes, with a "quick build" option for the default/traditional races, and guidance on building homebrew-specific races.

 

[DnD Warlord]

The problem is that weather it be stat bonuses or special abilities (see in the dark, resist sleep) spells or even weapon training you are giving someone a leg up I one way...are you guys proposing rase/species/culture/background offer NO benefit???

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Your mileage may vary on that one. Among players I know, a quick look at the math tells what's most important mechanically, and people want to be effective as possible generally speaking.

Well, folks mileage in general, sure.

My mileage is as I’ve described.

May be partly down to my approach to DMing in general, of course. I am very clear in session0 with a noob that the numbers aren’t a huge deal, the points are made up, etc, so they should feel free to just make the character they want to make.

 

[Dire Bare]

Tying ability bonuses to race OR culture is problematic. Both mental abilities and physical abilities, all six of them. IRL, racist stereotypes apply proficiency and/or deficiency in both physical and mental attributes, and keeping this trope in D&D furthers the problematic systemic racism in our society.

So, what to do? You guys should check out a few products on the DM's Guild and DriveThruRPG.com. First, Grazilaxx's Guide to Ancestry. Graz's isn't my favorite reimagining of race in D&D, but it does give lots of ideas of what to do with those pesky racial ability bonuses. Graz's gives detailed and concrete options including: 1) shifting bonuses to class, 2) shifting bonuses to background, and 3) simply adding more points to the point-buy option. One option not in the book that I like . . . shifting bonuses away from race to culture, but making them suggestions rather than pre-determined. For example, if you choose the elf race/ancestry and the high elf culture, your suggested ability bonuses are +2 Dex and +1 Intelligence . . . but you can put your +2 and +1 anywhere you like, or even put a +1 on three ability scores.

One thing I think needs changing with race in D&D, in addition to decoupling ability bonuses, is making a distinction between inherited traits (genetically and/or magically) and learned traits (cultural, social, familial). Grazilaxx's Guide doesn't, IMO, do a very good job of this, but Arcanist Press's book Ancestry & Culture (and it's two expansions) do a great job, and the book is killing it on DTRPG right now.

I don't play Pathfinder, but I've been very curious about how Paizo treats race in the new edition of the game. I didn't quite grok it when reading through the new Core Rulebook, but I've recently picked up the Lost Omens Character Guide (through a current Humble Bundle offer) and I'm liking what they are doing. Pathfinder 2E, like other books including Ancestry & Culture, replaces race with ancestry. Subrace is replaced with heritage . . . . but heritage in PF2 doesn't relate to culture or subcultures, just different traits (learned or inherited) that ANY member of the ancestry could have. The words ancestry and heritage don't really have distinct meanings, which is what initially confused me, and PF2 uses heritage as a subset of ancestry. For example, any Elf, regardless of the culture or ethnicity they were raised with, can take the Ancient Elf or Desert Elf heritage. In contrast, Ancestry & Culture replaces subrace with, well, culture. Elf is an ancestry, High Elf is a culture. While I really like the system in Ancestry & Culture, I'm also really liking how Pathfinder 2E treats culture/ethnicity . . . in PF2 culture/ethnicity HAS NO MECHANICAL IMPACT AT ALL!!! Ethnicities for each ancestry/race are described, and often have suggested heritages, but have no pre-determined traits at all. I like that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Tying ability bonuses to race OR culture is problematic. Both mental abilities and physical abilities, all six of them. IRL, racist stereotypes apply proficiency and/or deficiency in both physical and mental attributes, and keeping this trope in D&D furthers the problematic systemic racism in our society.

Like I just said in another thread, as sympathetic I'm to the representation issue (and have been annoyed by it since the third edition) this is taking the analogue of fantasy races and real ethnicities too far. Fantasy races are physically very distinct. Dragon people are not just another ethnicity. And saying that seven feet tall orcs tend to be stronger than three feet tall halflings is not problematic, it is merely simple verisimilitude.

 

[Dire Bare]

Like I just said in another thread, as sympathetic I'm to the representation issue (and have been annoyed by it since the third edition) this is taking the analogue of fantasy races and real ethnicities too far. Fantasy races are physically very distinct. Dragon people are not just another ethnicity. And saying that seven feet tall orcs tend to be stronger than three feet tall halflings is not problematic, it is merely simple verisimilitude.

Strongly disagree with you in the "orc thread" and in this one. I'm also pretty sure that more folks are with me on this than not, and that this is the direction the game and hobby is moving. I don't have any polling data or what-have-you, just my feeling based on how the conversation is going here on ENWorld and in other places.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Strongly disagree with you in the "orc thread" and in this one. I'm also pretty sure that more folks are with me on this than not, and that this is the direction the game and hobby is moving. I don't have any polling data or what-have-you, just my feeling based on how the conversation is going here on ENWorld and in other places.

Certainly possible. I feel it would be a shame if fantasy species became mere meaningless skins and any attempt at verisimilitude was abandoned.

 

[DnD Warlord]

Certainly possible. I feel it would be a shame if fantasy species became mere meaningless skins and any attempt at verisimilitude was abandoned.

I really thought my suggested idea was enough....maybe I am just to old for new d&d

 

[Dire Bare]

Certainly possible. I feel it would be a shame if fantasy species became mere meaningless skins and any attempt at verisimilitude was abandoned.

You and others keep on this point . . . which is just utter BS. No one is arguing for changes that would make fantasy races "meaningless skins". And I don't think the word verisimilitude means what you think it means.

If you can't make your orcs a fun and interesting source of story without those ability adjustments . . . . I think it's a lack of imagination problem rather than a "lack of verisimilitude" problem in the game.