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

[Crimson Longinus]

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".

You said: "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."

Certainly this applies such differences regardless how they're mechanically presented? If Goliath has Powerful Build or Wood Elf has better movement, or if races grant aptitude in certain skills, then even in absence of ability modifiers we are still applying these exact same racist stereotypes.

Like this is not just me being argumentative, have you really though this though? If you actually feel like you said, then you must get rid of all these other mechanical differences too. Perhaps some purely fantastical ones like firebreathing or darkvision can stay as they do not so directly connect to the real world. But basically everything else has to go.

And it goes further than that. If expressing such ideas mechanically would be unacceptable, why would it be acceptable to express them in the lore? Certainly it would be equally bad to say in the lore that Goliaths are stronger than gnomes, that would be stating the stereotype that some races are better at certain things than others.

And I don't think the word verisimilitude means what you think it means.

It does. And when seven feet tall orcs and three feet tall halflings are equally strong there is a verisimilitude deficiency.

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.

My imagination is fine. I just prefer the lore and mechanics to be connected.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

But telling someone that numbers don't matter doesn't make the numbers not matter. There is still a measurable difference in game for different ability bonuses, and you can't make that not matter as long as you roll dice to determine outcomes.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Here's the problem as I see it. You make one race stronger than what? "Normal?" You make another race quicker, smarter, more confident, insightful, or whatever. Once you do that, you are, by default, making the others effectively weaker or less in that area by comparison.

Say elves are DEX +2. Great for them. What about the Dwarf? Why isn't the dwarf DEX +2? That means the Dwarf is less dexterous than the Elf. Other races will be less intelligent than Gnomes. Others will be less confident than Half-Elves.

So what is wrong with one race doing something or not being as good as another race? Nothing IMO, but whatever.

Finally, you give one race a feature such as darkvision or powerful build or whatever, and other races don't have it. Does than make them less? Nope, just different.

Now, if you give one race stuff and don't give other races something as well, then there is a problem because you are basically saying "this race is better than that one because of XYZ, and the other race isn't good at anything, so is inferior to the first one." THAT is a problem, but fortunately that is not the case.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I can see the merit in this (I own and appreciate Ancestry and Culture), but it would significantly complicate and slow character creation. How does PF2 work out for new players? Anyone know?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But telling someone that numbers don't matter doesn't make the numbers not matter. There is still a measurable difference in game for different ability bonuses, and you can't make that not matter as long as you roll dice to determine outcomes.

I mean, I’ve told you my experience. Not much to be gained trying to tell me my experience is wrong.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, I’ve told you my experience. Not much to be gained trying to tell me my experience is wrong.

My apologies, I didn't mean to say your experience is wrong. Just very different from mine. So much so that's it's hard for me to see that perspective. For what it's worth, I'm glad there are players out there that respond well to what you're advising.

 

[Catolias]

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.

I read PF2e core rules recently and I think its solution is about right.

 

[Krachek]

I just hope gnome and halfling will stay small, even if they deserve the right to wield a greatsword.

 

[Catolias]

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???

In short, yes. I think the position is negligible to minimal benefiton clearly attributable to ancestry differences - dark vision, fey ancestry.

The whole idea of D&D is that your character is different from the average person in your game. So, with that in mind, why should your character be tied to a standard racial bonus? IME, building a Dwarven rogue on the point but system in 5e creates a suboptimal PC. Ability modifiers should be class based.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I read PF2e core rules recently and I think its solution is about right.

It looks too fiddly and complex IMO for D&D and doesn't feel like it would fit well. For 5E, I think something simpler and easier to follow would work better, but that's just my opinion. Maybe in practice it isn't as bad as it appears at first glance. shrug