D&D General How many mechanical features does a race need to feel "right"?

[Neonchameleon]

One extremely impactful, unique, and thematic feature would be worth more than tons of generic features.

Agreed. And on a tangent this is part of why I'm in favour of ditching ability scores for PC races. It's not unique and it's not that impactful.

Picking a race could be more interesting if such a decision actually had more influence on the player's choices and options beyond character creation. For example:

Players choose their own traits and abilities based on the race they have selected. This would eliminate the need for defined sub-races to telling us how one elf culture may be different from another elf culture, yet there is still no difference between elves of the same sub-culture.

Like many ideas it's not a bad one - but it's all in the implementation.

Sometimes, it's okay for a race to be really simple. Using 4e as an example, Humans were special because their features were powerful but simple: any single stat could get +2, you got a bonus feat (the only race which had this), a bonus at-will attack (or Heroic Effort later), a bonus skill training with no restrictions (e.g. not just a class skill), and a small bonus to all non-AC defenses. Nothing fancy, but something plenty of characters could leverage very well.

Turning to 5e, I think the default Dragonborn give us an excellent baseline for a not-quite-sufficient race. They've got exactly four things: +2 to one stat (Str) and +1 to another (Cha), Draconic as a bonus language, resistance to one chosen element, and a short-rest breath weapon. Thing is...that resistance is kinda bland and minimal as far as features go, and the breath weapon isn't much better.

Agreed. The problem with dragonborn is in part that the breath weapon is a bit meh. The Fizban's version is a lot better because it costs an attack not a full action so it's not simply a bad choice for any melee combat person to use other than under extraordinary circumstances or at really low level. Even what they get isn't good.

 

[Yaarel]

design space of a race ≈ abilities (+2, +1) and 1½ feats

 

[Micah Sweet]

I like the way Level Up does it. Heritage has a couple built-in traits, plus a choice at first level, and another at 10th. Then you add on culture, background (where the ASIs are) and destiny. It's wonderful!

 

[TwoSix]

Honestly, I'd just flesh out backgrounds more, give every character a feat at 1st level, and then have racial "feats" that give you a bundle of race-specific abilities. Beyond that, just have race be narrative/aesthetic.

 

[CleverNickName]

My preference would be that each Origin would provide:

• a +2 to one ability score
• a +1 to a different ability score
• a couple of physical characteristics (like darkvision, natural weapons, scent, wings, or natural armor)

Everything else, including but not limited to languages, proficiencies, and starting spells, would come from the character's Background.

Backgrounds are under-utilized, IMO.

 

[jgsugden]

I think we're asking the wrong question. It looks at mechanics as a way to build a heritage, when we should be looking at a heritage concept and asking what mechanics are needed to describe it. Create the concept. Flesh it out with no mechanics described, and then figure out how to implement the heritage you created with balanced mechanics.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Like many ideas it's not a bad one - but it's all in the implementation.

It should go without saying. Frankly, I don't count on others to implement any of my ideas for me. It would be much more beneficial for everyone if we got less "rules" and more "advice" or "guidelines".

 

[jmartkdr2]

To me at least, I think the answer is "depends on the race." Which is the problem.

You don't need a lot of traits to make a dwarf or halfling feel right, and none for a human. But tieflings and genasi need more than that, not so much in quantity but in power. And things like centaurs need a number of very powerful and impactful traits to feel right.

The most impactful racial feature of my centaur fighter is her ability to wear horseshoes (of speed). The actual racial traits (higher carrying capacity as a goliath, 1d4 hoof attacks, really situational charge ability) are just ribbons.

And while "races are just ribbons" it's bad design per se, I can feel the lack of satisfaction with it as the only answer.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Zero. Race is fluff, not crunch.

I wouldn't call things like flight, water breathing, a mouth full of sharp teeth, or being able to breath fire 'just fluff'.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

To me at least, I think the answer is "depends on the race." Which is the problem.

You don't need a lot of traits to make a dwarf or halfling feel right, and none for a human. But tieflings and genasi need more than that, not so much in quantity but in power. And things like centaurs need a number of very powerful and impactful traits to feel right.

The most impactful racial feature of my centaur fighter is her ability to wear horseshoes (of speed). The actual racial traits (higher carrying capacity as a goliath, 1d4 hoof attacks, really situational charge ability) are just ribbons.

And while "races are just ribbons" it's bad design per se, I can feel the lack of satisfaction with it as the only answer.

Yeah that does make it difficult. People consider humans 'the default' which also means not much in the way of impactful unique mechanics.

So then when you get a species which is not close to that and have to give it a load of abilities to feel right (e.g. flight), they're clearly more powerful mechanically, which then makes people unhappy.