D&D General I think the choice of Species / Race / Ancestry has more to do with Story than Rules...

[CreamCloud0]

Races would be definitely more distinctive with feats like that, but wouldn't "cool" actions like this push even more players choosing race for powers and not for their story? I truly am more of a fan of "roleplaying" feats that connect story with gameplay in that regard. An elven fighter should not feel that differently than a dwarven fighter in gameplay, but they should feel different connection to the world and story and context. If you choose an elve not because they can teleport, but because they can ask there great-great-great-great-great-grandfather for help who still lives in the undying court. (Just a maybe not so great example I thought in the moment)

eh, personally i'd rather species have distinctive abilities that make them actually play differently and accept that some people will be picking their species on their mechanics rather than species being a mechanically meaningless character skin that people pick for aesthetics mostly, you can ask you elven great-great-great-great-great-grandfather for help with things both ways but if i can forget for 98% of play that my elf is an elf because theres no rules that implement their elf-ness that's an issue IMO.

I do want the play experience of an elven fighter to feel different from a dwarven one from a halfling one because these species have different strengths.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Races would be definitely more distinctive with feats like that, but wouldn't "cool" actions like this push even more players choosing race for powers and not for their story? I truly am more of a fan of "roleplaying" feats that connect story with gameplay in that regard. An elven fighter should not feel that differently than a dwarven fighter in gameplay, but they should feel different connection to the world and story and context. If you choose an elve not because they can teleport, but because they can ask there great-great-great-great-great-grandfather for help who still lives in the undying court. (Just a maybe not so great example I thought in the moment)

IMO that is a fine philosophy...for a fantasy game that isn't D&D. There are plenty of more narrative-focused games out there where these kind of heritage mechanics are de-emphasized. You can certainly play D&D that way, but you are playing against the design in my view.

 

[Celebrim]

I have an untested theory that lots of players would still choose to play the same species they would have with the mechanical benefits. In other words, if you wanted to play a Dwarf Fighter, you would choose Dwarf whether there was a mechanical benefit or not.

I strongly suspect your theory to be wrong.

Rather I think you'll find that different players have different aesthetics of play and that they choose races/backgrounds for different reasons depending on what they prioritize. Thus some players are strongly motivated to take species/background solely for the mechanical effect and absent the mechanical benefit, would change their choice based on some hitherto secondary aesthetic.

 

[Corinnguard]

1. What species would you play? Dragonborn.

2. How would that house rule impact the choice you make? If there was no mechanical differences between the species, I think I would still want to role-play as a Dragonborn character because of the simple fact that they look like anthropomorphic dragons.

3. Do you think players are motivated by the mechanical benefits, or by story potential? I think this question exists with a spectrum. There are going to be players who are going to focus more on the mechanical benefits of a species, and then there are going to be players who are going to be looking more at what kind of story they, their fellow players and the DM are hoping to create. Then you will have those players who will be somewhere in between. They want a character whose mechanical benefits are going to help the story reach it's potential.

4. What kind of choice would you make in the given scenario? I find myself leaning toward being motivated by the mechanical benefits. I want my character to reach their potential. However, I know that I have a vested interest in helping the story reach a particular end by helping my fellow adventurers throughout the adventure. So I am definitely one of those players who takes option #3.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The other thing is... I don't really care about what story WotC assigns to any species. I care about the story of my character as an individual and frankly 'former slave rave #239', 'elf that's better than you' and teifling who exists to give the DM cartblanche to come after me for playing it' aren't all that compelling.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I strongly suspect your theory to be wrong.

Rather I think you'll find that different players have different aesthetics of play and that they choose races/backgrounds for different reasons depending on what they prioritize. Thus some players are strongly motivated to take species/background solely for the mechanical effect and absent the mechanical benefit, would change their choice based on some hitherto secondary aesthetic.

Well, as argued above, I think the problem here is that both arguments assume that there's only one relevant factor. Either you care about flavor and only flavor, or you care about mechanics and only mechanics. I think that assumption leads us astray.

More accurately, I think some folks choose flavor-first, but that most of those folks still care about mechanics to some degree--and get annoyed (even if only subconsciously) at flavorful but weak/poorly-made options. Conversely, some folks choose mechanics-first, but the vast majority still care about flavor/thematics to some degree, and would be turned off by something that was strikingly out-of-theme or excessively barebones (e.g. I think some of the tepid response to the "Custom Lineage" comes from folks who find it flavorless.)

As a result, my position is that, while flavor is very important, its importance should never be used to excuse a failure to put in real design work. Because poor mechanics hiding behind strong flavor leave players unsatisfied, and casual players saddled with a vague, indefinable sense of dissatisfaction may just opt not to come back.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Races would be definitely more distinctive with feats like that, but wouldn't "cool" actions like this push even more players choosing race for powers and not for their story? I truly am more of a fan of "roleplaying" feats that connect story with gameplay in that regard. An elven fighter should not feel that differently than a dwarven fighter in gameplay, but they should feel different connection to the world and story and context.

See, I think there should be a difference. One shouldn't be superior to another, except in a particular context. An elf would fight more like Li Mu Bai gliding through the bamboo forest, a dwarf would be more like the Nordic warrior at Stamford Bridge. I don't have a problem with the player making their fighter "against type", but I think that it would require more rules resources (feats, &c.). It doesn't have to be attribute bonuses, but I think there has to be something. Otherwise, no difference is, well, no difference.

I don't see how a purely narrative difference is meaningful. If your character is an elf, how does that guide the story differently then your friends who are playing a halfling and a dragonborn? How do they drive the story in their own ways? Because if the elf is immortal, that should mean something. If the dragonborn is a nearly obligate carnivore, that should mean something. And if it does, that's a mechanical difference.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

See, I think there should be a difference. One shouldn't be superior to another, except in a particular context. An elf would fight more like Li Mu Bai gliding through the bamboo forest, a dwarf would be more like the Nordic warrior at Stamford Bridge. I don't have a problem with the player making their fighter "against type", but I think that it would require more rules resources (feats, &c.). It doesn't have to be attribute bonuses, but I think there has to be something. Otherwise, no difference is, well, no difference.

I don't see how a purely narrative difference is meaningful. If your character is an elf, how does that guide the story differently then your friends who are playing a halfling and a dragonborn? How do they drive the story in their own ways? Because if the elf is immortal, that should mean something. If the dragonborn is a nearly obligate carnivore, that should mean something. And if it does, that's a mechanical difference.

puts on dragonborn fanboi hat (as if I ever take it off, amirite?)

In 4e, there actually was a certain extent to which you could argue that the higher-protein diet of dragonborn was relevant. (And yes, the "Ecology of the Dragonborn" article did actually say that dragonborn eat more protein than other humanoids!) Specifically, in 4e, dragonborn had faster healing than other races. Their Healing Surge value was increased by their Constitution modifier (and, later, they had the option to be +2 Str or +2 Con in addition to the always-on +2 Cha.) This gave physical meaning to their diet, in a way that meaningfully differed from a dwarf's resilience: where dwarves are harder to tire out, they take the same amount of time healing that any other typical humanoid does, while dragonborn tire as easily as any other humanoid but recover from injuries more quickly. There were other ecological implications that wove between these things, but that's the main one relevant here.

5e rushed to simplify anything and everything*, without heed to the costs paid for such simplification. This would be one of the ways that I think less ended up being actually less. As with limitations, simplifications come in different forms--one must actually defend why any given simplification is worthwhile, not just declare its simplicity and thus claim victory on the plane of meaning.

*Except spells and spellcasters. Those were made more complex, because Reasons™.

 

[Corinnguard]

puts on dragonborn fanboi hat (as if I ever take it off, amirite?)

Got a favorite kind of Dragonborn? Chromatic, Gem or Metallic?

 

[Clint_L]

I don't think you need specific mechanics to show how your elf fighter fights differently than does your dwarf fighter. In fact, D&D has never offered such mechanics. It has just offered a blunt differences like slightly different attributes or starting armour proficiencies. If you want your elf to fight gracefully and your dwarf like a blunt weapon, that's always come down to how you narrate your actions.

For example, both just have "the attack action." Or "cast spell." It's up to you, the player, to decide what that looks like.

You could have species-specific attacks and so on, but then what about the player who doesn't see their elf that way? I think it is a strength to let the players add the flavour that they desire, instead of having the rules legislate their imagination.