Does race matter enough?

[TerraDave]

But (dice) size matters.

 

[howandwhy99]

It might be controversial and sound backwards, but racial design used to create the ability to perform different classes. Race didn't really advance as the game was understood to begin (at least for default races) at the cusp of maturity, after childhood and class training. This offered the greatest length of time for mature age play before older age modifications came in.

To put it another way, a Halfling Fighter topped out 6th level not because they were so racially powerful, but because that race was at the top end of its advancement curve. Increasing STR was the only way to get to 6th too, normally they topped out at 4th level fighters.

By having the ability to wave its appendages about, articulate speak, and think to a high enough intelligence level, a creature is afforded the option to become a Wizard. A creature like a normal frog cannot do so. This isn't to limit the frog, it's because the frog is not as capable enough to have the freedom to become a Wizard.

To sum up, racial abilties can advance, if aging is still about maturing a creature's racial abilities. I suggest they start off in the same range as everyone else (no ancient dragons at 1st level please), but can find areas in the world to age (as opposed to train) in order to gain more abilities. I suspect we'll see more on what and how this will be when the play test gets into Monster Races and out of the core default.

 

[chitzk0i]

We don't know exactly what race is doing for us, so it's hard to say if it's doing enough. Does the human have racial features? There aren't any listed, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

 

[steeldragons]

We don't know exactly what race is doing for us, so it's hard to say if it's doing enough. Does the human have racial features? There aren't any listed, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

To the above, re: humans, I say NO...of course not. Humans, which we all are (apologies to those who aren't), are the baseline. They need no "modifications." The game is (or should be) built from the "human on up [or down]."

The races get modifications because...they ARE NOT HUMAN! They are weaker at some things...better at other things...that are not the "norm" of the human experience.

Why is this so tough to understand? Not meaning you, chitz, but I see this over and over, across the forums. D&D is presumed, and obviously individual tables vary, to be human-o-centric.

That's the baseline. Humans don't get or need "special ability" anything. They are the flat "here's where we're starting from and going from there" race. Basic and AD&D (even up through 2e, I think), came at this from a "they get all of these special extra abilities but don't have the range of classes or levels that a human can." That made things simple. It was a fair tradeoff. imho. We don't have that anymore, and haven't for a couple of editions from what I understand, so "being human" equates to many people as "I get less."

It's not the GAME'S fault...it's the PLAYER'S...it's the approach/perspective of the players that "being a human thief or a human wizard or the human fighter" is somehow "less/worse/not as good as" being the halfling thief or the elf wizard or the dwarf fighter.

Humans don't need "extra special somethings" to make humans desirable. It is the players that need to wrap their heads around a human-centric world.

That is all. <long drum solo ending with throwing the sticks out to the crowd> THANK YOU! G'NIGHT CLEVELAND!
--SD

 

[GX.Sigma]

It seems humans get +1 to all ability scores, and an extra +1 to one of their choice, but no racial traits (where other races just get +1 to a specific one, plus racial traits). I don't know if that's enough, but it's an interesting start. It does raise strange implications: humans are as tough as dwarves, as lithe as elves, as strong as half-orcs, etc.--plus something extra?

 

[WarlockLord]

I would shed no tears if race was something you wrote on your character sheet and treated like hair color. Stupid racial bonuses need to stop.

 

[chitzk0i]

To the above, re: humans, I say NO...of course not. Humans, which we all are (apologies to those who aren't), are the baseline. They need no "modifications." The game is (or should be) built from the "human on up [or down]."

Because humans have cultural tendencies just like other races. Do you think dwarves have a genetic predisposition to wielding hammers? In most settings, dwarf societies teach the able-bodied how to wield a weapon, so they have proficiency or an affinity for the warhammer, like the Moradin cleric. Humans have society-wide patterns just like other races, and deserve to have that show up instead of being blank and undeveloped.

(Edit: If you want to have Moradin brand a preference for hammers onto dwarves' souls, though, feel free because that's awesome.)

 

[AeroDm]

I think races will matter. They probably also give you access to different backgrounds and traits in addition to actual racial powers. If I had to pick between races too powerful and races not powerful enough, I'd go with not powerful enough. I hate when what you wanted to *do* dictated what you had to *play.*

 

[Kichwas]

In the final published game, I'd prefer but don't expect to get race not mattering as much.

I would rather have players choose a race for a character because of story and background than because they believe the bonus to X will be most useful given the DM's penchant for using trick Y.

 

[Ellington]

I think race matters more now than in most previous editions. Aside from the traits listed on the character sheet, there are also "hidden traits" that the devs have mentioned, such as halflings getting more damage with slings and dwarves getting more damage with hammers and axes.

I'm all for this. I like my fantasy races to be fantastical, and any unusual niches they can get are okay in my book.