D&D 5E Decoupling ancestry and culture

[Horacio]

To deal with class bonus, I really love the way of the Class Modifier Module by GabeJamesGames
For me it's the most elegant, sensitive and fun-to-play idea I have seen for the classes, and indirectly for ancestries and cultures.

This module is made with the preference of rather than getting statistic changes from races it comes from classes instead in 5th Edition. This is to make the class choice both narrative and statistical rather emphasize that bonus through race so that a human ranger can be just as good as an elven ranger. This does NOT exist to change emphasis that certain cultures have a preference over classes but instead to diversify it a bit

For every class you have a three questions to answer about how do you see the class for your character, and you get a different bonus according to it.

For example, for Barbarians:

 

[Minigiant]

I'd disagree. Racial bonuses should not be more than +1. While not related to the current issue, part of the problem with the racial +2 is that it so heavily favors picking that race for a given class. If you want a bard, you'll take a half elf, and skip the half orc. While it's possible to choose the non-optimal path, the game really works against you in that.

Personally, I'd allow the +2 to be used to raise either of the two attributes a class has proficiency in, while only providing a +1 (with some options in which way to go) for the race.

That's why I would have an 4th aspect that lets you pick an ASI that don't match your Ancestry. Every gets to choose a feat, +2 in a nonancestrial ability score, or +1 in 2 nonancestrial ability scores.

I fear a weak Ability adjustment would put too much focus on the "power" traits and end up like 4e where people picked races for their racial power.

I'd like the strong races to have higher than normal strength and have flavorful acenstrial traits.

 

[dregntael]

Did you know there's a full 70-page supplement that was recently released on the DM's Guild that does exactly this? It is great and I'll probably use it in my next game: Ancestry & Culture: An Alternative to Race in 5e - Arcanist Press | DriveThruRPG.com

Edit: If you want to get it, it is currently part of the BLM bundle: Black Lives Matter 1 [BUNDLE] - OneBookShelf, Inc. | DriveThruRPG.com

 

[CubicsRube]

Did you know there's a full 70-page supplement that was recently released on the DM's Guild that does exactly this? It is great and I'll probably use it in my next game: Ancestry & Culture: An Alternative to Race in 5e - Arcanist Press | DriveThruRPG.com

Edit: If you want to get it, it is currently part of the BLM bundle: Black Lives Matter 1 [BUNDLE] - OneBookShelf, Inc. | DriveThruRPG.com

I did not!

I'll have a look over it. Thanks!

 

[MarkB]

I do think inflexible Backgrounds which don't allow Skill choices are unhelpful (there are a few) and should be revised to always allow a bit of choice with at least one of the skills, but I don't think adding in a bit about family is going to help - instead by tying in a bunch of mechanical stuff to that, you're going to cause actually less diverse character stories, when one "family" option gives Perception and Athletics, and another gives History and "Merchant" or whatever.

It's always been the position of the game rules that the available Backgrounds are merely examples, and that it's entirely valid to come up with customised backgrounds if no existing ones fit a character. That being the case, it's perfectly legitimate to create a new background that has all the features of an existing one, but a different set of skills.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's always been the position of the game rules that the available Backgrounds are merely examples, and that it's entirely valid to come up with customised backgrounds if no existing ones fit a character. That being the case, it's perfectly legitimate to create a new background that has all the features of an existing one, but a different set of skills.

Oh definitely, and I have done so myself and allowed players to do so. I just think it's odd that some backgrounds let you select skills from a large list, others from a small list, and others have them fixed, and there's no rhyme or reason to it. They should probably just have "suggested skills".

 

[shesheyan]

Fantasy AGE uses random Race Benefits tables to make each individual somewhat different. You roll 2d6 twice on a table and get the results. They have one table for each race. For mixed heritage you roll once on each table. Some benefits are extra skill proficiencies, +1 to an attribute or a weapon specialization.

 

[MarkB]

Oh definitely, and I have done so myself and allowed players to do so. I just think it's odd that some backgrounds let you select skills from a large list, others from a small list, and others have them fixed, and there's no rhyme or reason to it. They should probably just have "suggested skills".

True enough. Backgrounds are a part of the rules that could have done with one more pass in the design phase, both to make them more consistent and make customising them more user-friendly.

 

[CubicsRube]

Customising is RAW but is sadly often overlooked.

I use it all the time.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

I'd disagree. Racial bonuses should not be more than +1. While not related to the current issue, part of the problem with the racial +2 is that it so heavily favors picking that race for a given class. If you want a bard, you'll take a half elf, and skip the half orc. While it's possible to choose the non-optimal path, the game really works against you in that.

Personally, I'd allow the +2 to be used to raise either of the two attributes a class has proficiency in, while only providing a +1 (with some options in which way to go) for the race.

With respect, because I wholeheartedly am on board for the ideas in this thread, I strongly disagree with the idea that one "must" pick a race with a +2 in their primary ability stat in order to feel like they are doing well as a character. We should neither diminish the overall positive effects that merely removing racial penalties and implementing the cap of 20 have brought to the game in general, nor should we discredit the actual viability of playing against the norm characters in the game as is (largely because said penalties have been removed). I have seen both low int wizards and low strength barbarians in actual play with their respective players having a blast. Less anecdotally, it is also not uncommon for people to be just as content with a +1 racial bonus (it allows a 16 in either set of ability generation rules) due to getting racial traits they prefer as written.

Personally I feel like we should keep any sort of ethnicity, culture, background, etc. towards more traits and just consider giving every player the choice of some sort of generic ability score bonus (like 4x +1s they could stack up to a +2 to any score of their choice, or trade it two of them for a feat, etc.) It's far simpler, helps keep any sort of bias from subconsciously entering into ability score assignments, and doesn't completely screw over deliberate odd builds like an intentionally low INT wizard, or a ranger who hates being pigeonholed into a dex build.