Make Race Matter

[Derren]

Fixed for system mastery.
Bad choices/Traps aren't choices. 3E's Weapon Specialization is a chooseable feat but only new players or people who wish to nerf themselves ever do it.

Only when you view D&D as pure hack&slash dungeon crawler.
And by now most people know that this doesn't work.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes it does. If a fighter with Str 16 and Con 14 and a fighter with Str 14 and Con 16 are mechanically as powerful, you are going to see both options played. The one with Str 14 might choose to increase it later through leveling or an item, but he might just choose to max his Con.

No sameness there, especially if you add 1-2 more equally important abilities into the mix.

Add diminishing returns and they can still start with either as 16, but now both will be mechanically better off if they raise the 14 to 16 rather than trying to raise the 16.

No, they're not. The benefits of adding con over str are much smaller than the inverse. If you told me my fighter has to choose between 1 HP and +1 to attack, I would take +1 to attack every day of the week. Being able to hit more often will result in enemies that don't last as long, which are enemies who don't hit as much, which means on the whole you're taking less damage, making the infinitesimal bonus to con irrelevant.

 

[Hassassin]

No, they're not. The benefits of adding con over str are much smaller than the inverse. If you told me my fighter has to choose between 1 HP and +1 to attack, I would take +1 to attack every day of the week. Being able to hit more often will result in enemies that don't last as long, which are enemies who don't hit as much, which means on the whole you're taking less damage, making the infinitesimal bonus to con irrelevant.

You don't know that it will be 1 hp vs. +1 attack in 5e. You don't even really know which would be more valuable.

My whole point was that *if* there are multiple abilities the class is equally dependent on, *and* each increase to any of them gives you as large a benefit, you will see characters focusing on different stats.

 

[Sunseeker]

You don't know that it will be 1 hp vs. +1 attack in 5e. You don't even really know which would be more valuable.

My whole point was that *if* there are multiple abilities the class is equally dependent on, *and* each increase to any of them gives you as large a benefit, you will see characters focusing on different stats.

I can tell you that statistically, unless HP is significantly reduced, gaining +hit is always going to be better than gaining +hp.

Assuming that they are equally dependent, then yes, which ones you pick don't change your overall power. But that's the thing, currently, previously, basically in all of D&D ever, even classes with high MAD have not made those ability scores equal.

As I mentioned above, if we don't want people to simply stack one ability, we need to develop ways to seriously place incentive on taking non-primary ability scores. The Swashbuckler could add int to damage, we could have dex increase your crit, we could have con provide DR. ect... 4e certainly gave us a step in this direction by allowing multiple scores to count towards NADs.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Go back and look at the original descriptions of the races, from the 1E Player's Handbook and 1E Unearthed Arcana.
Then, consider the original, default conceptions of the other races, as presented in each subsequent expansion.

Then give them concrete, major powers, that make it possible for them to actually be like that.

Elves: Are immune to all natural injury, poison, and other effects. Rarely need to eat or drink, may eat and drink very exotic things (in other words, they do not farm.)

Dwarves: Do not need to breath normal air. Can breathe in pure carbon dioxide, even in carbon monoxide. Immune to toxic fumes, immune to most toxic chemicals. May see normally in complete darkness.

Gnomes: Immune to natural dangers as per elves. Immune to chemical poisoning as per dwarves. But do need to breathe normal air and eat normal foodstuffs.

Halflings: Supernatural constitution with all the bonuses, have most of the abilities of the Rogue as natural abilities.

Half-Orcs: Tremendous strength and consitution, able to eat anything, able to subsist in horrific environments, virtually immune to all poisons and infections, ability to Berserk like a barbarian.

Kender: Immune to normal and magical fear and awe, all of the abilities of the Rogue except backstab, unsconsciously steal constantly, intense curiosity at all times.

The People of Athas: May start with 24s in their stats.

Humans: Are the dominant race. Have major advantages of some sort, within the rules, that make them the most attractive race to play, make them more powerful than everyone else.
Perhaps humans can Gestalt, while all others must use the 3E multiclassing rules.
Perhaps humans gain an extra feat (or an extra two or three feats) each level.
Perhaps humans can be classes nobody else can be.
Perhaps humans can reach levels nobody else can.

Whatever the case, You Take on Humanity at Your Peril.

 

[tlantl]

After looking at my 1e player's hand book I think the races have gotten the shaft over the years. I'ts amazing how different a 1e dwarf looks compared to a 4e dwarf, no wonder people want more from the races.

The 2e dwarf has a more detailed description than 1e dwarves and this is where they are pushed underground. Before this they were described as being from mountainous or hilly terrain. While halflings were described as living in burrows as well as houses.

All of the non human races could see using infravision in the dark, some better than others. None could see farther than half a block away.

Dwarves and halflings got bonuses against poisons ans toxic substances. Dwarves, gnomes, and halflings got major bonuses to saves against magic.

Pretty much the only thing humans had going for them is unlimited advancement in any class, and no racial ability score adjustments.
Halflings seem to have gained the attack bonus with slings in 2e.

 

[paladinm]

I think this is a good point. Humans originally were the only race that had unlimited potential, even if they were very limited in terms of multiclassing. Personally I Love the 3.x version of multiclassing, but it does eliminate a lot of the "flavor" of the races. If Any character has unlimited multiclassing, why be an elf? The added Dex, immunities, etc. really aren't sufficient. At the same time, pre-3.x level limits seem very artificial, just thrown in to promote game balance. If demi-humans can multiclass And do so w/o level limits, why be a human?

Where is the balance between the two? Is there a good "fluff" reason to impose level limits on demi-humans? Or to limit multiclassing for humans?

 

[kitsune9]

I'd like to see more of this in 5e. An elven ranger doesn't have to be identical to a human one, and gnomes should have a different range of illusionist abilities than humans.

Now that's a concept I can really buy into. Awesome post!

 

[Nimblegrund]

I think one thing we might move away from is the idea that, say "dwarves make good fighters, but lousy sorcerers" and instead say "Dwarven fighters are like this, and dwarven sorcerers are like that."

meanwhile keep the other racial bonuses to a minimum... Race/class combinations shouldn't be about what is "viable" or "optimal". Half-orcs might have infravision and a keen sense of smell, and the stat adjustments, but that's it. In other words, if it's Nature, then it belongs to all members of the race. If it's nurture, then you only get it as part of your race/class combination. For instance, dwarven fighters might have particular expertise with hammers and axes, while dwarven wizards do not: instead, they excel at transmutation magics.

 

[SensoryThought]

Maybe limit races to particular power sources (half Orcs can't use arcane, gnomes can't use primal) or give bonuses to particular choices (eladrin using arcane, deva using divine etc?)