Monte Cook - Racial Importance

[Herremann the Wise]

Unless they are dramatically different than humans, I don't think they should be different mechanically from humans.
What is an elf, really? A human with pointy ears and probably slightly skinny.
A dwarf is someone short and stout. A gnome is a short guy with a big nose.
Halfings pose a problem, but someone that tiny being an adventurer requires a handwave anyway.

More exotic stuff should be in a class, IMHO.

I'm at the exact opposite end of the spectrum to you on this one (I voted "Very" by the way). I don't like it when I'm playing at a new table and by the end of the session, I have no idea what race the other characters are because their players had not brought this aspect into their roleplay perhaps because it had no mechanical significance.

Perhaps though, I would expand racial features and take it a step further:

1) Race: Only genetic abilities tied to race should be featured in "racial abilities". Dwarves have an average genetic advantage in fending off poison - cool. Dwarves get bonuses to hit goblinoids... not so cool.

2) Themes (Social): I think when you start talking social things, these are the things that a character's theme should be good at. How have they lived, and under what social structure. [I'd have to say that themes are most likely my favourite mechanic of 4th edition!] In terms of race, this allows you to bring in a neglected element of race which is "age". Living so many years gives certain races a different outlook and it is a good thing if the mechanics can help shape this. A "racial" theme such as "Silverbeard Dwarf" would be the best place to represent this important yet typically neglected aspect of race.

If themes are "optional", then this becomes a neat way of catering to both ends of the gaming spectrum.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Izumi]

I know I'm just going to end up changing all the racial stuff anyways, so I kinda just hope they do it in whichever way pleases the most people. That's half the fun of a new edition anyway. I voted for moderate though, because extremes seem to please fewer people.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I voted moderate. I want enough mechanical heft to be felt, but no more than that. After awhile, it can become too determinant on what the characters can and can't do. 3E and 4E are too light in that regard, for me. Though I agree with Herremann that the culture stuff should be moved to themes.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I voted "moderately." I want the choice of race to be meaningful, but I also don't want race to be so important that I get punished for playing a dwarf wizard or halfling barbarian (or worse, going back to ADnD where such combinations weren't even allowed).

 

[malkav666]

I am all for races having mechanically different features. I think an elf and a dwarf and a man should be different physically. What I think has been missing from previous editions of D&D is the spanning differences that would arise from a culture. FR 3e tried to peg it with regional feats, but in the 3.x environment unless the feat was actually good few folks took it. I would like to see the different types of regions that the characters hail from effect them more than their race. A person from a frozen wasteland would likely have a different traditional skillset than an individual who came up in verdant forest. Just as a human raised by elves might have features that are typically reserved for elves.

But its not really a dealbreaker for me one way or the other. I would be fine with a very baseline core and then maybe some support later in books about races or climates (like the 3.x books for different climes like Sotrmwrack for instance).

love,

malkav

 

[malcolm_n]

As I posted on the forums of the blog itself, I'd love to see modular options. If you want to play a half-orc fighter who's the fighteriest fighter to ever fight a good fight, you can be. I, on the other hand, can be a dragonborn sorcerer who, by the nature of my race, can fly, grapple kinda well, and breath several types of breath weapon.

We would both still be good at what we do. This would also play well into many different races.

 

[Mengu]

I voted low. I don't want any element to overwhelm the mechanics of a character. And I don't want too many mechanical elements from race selection. There are mechanical elements coming from lots of other sources too, and if every element is mechanics heavy, the system will be overburdened. I'd prefer race to be lighter on mechanics, heavier on flavor. One or two minor mechanics should suffice.

 

[Sunseeker]

I voted "moderate" but I was leaning heavily towards "strong".

Your class is important, but it is your race that really defines how your class is played. I do favor a more modular racial system as it's my opinion that a race can have any range of skinny, agile, muscular, smart or stupid members.

As I've posted ages ago in other forums, I favor the race itsself being mostly vanity. There's no real reason a drow or a dwarf can't have the same stats. Personally I like the "extra skill/feat" option of humans, and would give it to all races, but provide them all with a moderate(say, 10) list or racial feats, much in the way 4e does now, but not make it mandatory that a race take any single one of them because it is "typical" for the race.

I like creating characters. I don't like creating faceless stat-monsters, in fact I DM heavily against it. If you're not going to play up the "role play" aspect, then it's no different than any other game.

 

[gyor]

I voted very, but really I'm on the boarder of very and moderate.

It should matter, but not cripple a character's class choices and no negative modifiers.

At first I agreed that racial features should represent phyical and not culture stuff, but then I realized it may not be so simple.

Take Elves being good with bows. Is it a cultural trait, or a side effect of being naturally dexterious and perceptive, reinforced by thier cultures, think of a savant in math, they grasp mathematics insinctually, and find it far easier then normal people and they are born that way.

Now a elf that has trained for years with a bow will be far better with a bow then an elf relying on innate talent.

Using the above savant example elderin maybe have some innate magic abilities or talent with arcane stuff, because thier brains process arcane information differently and more easely.

Dwarves giant fighting abilities may evolve instintcively as giants are a common predator in Dwarven evolution, and so a basic instinct in dodging giants is hardwired into dwarves, because dwarves lacking this adaptation got eaten or turned into Azars.

Thier musculatar may support this instinctive ability as well, it maybe a more natural way for dwarves to move when fighting a larger oppentant.

Innate knoweldge is not unknown, humans have an,innate ability to breath, deer are born knowing how to walk, and human babies are born knowing how to swim, although they lose it as they age.

 

[Niccodaemus]

Unless they are dramatically different than humans, I don't think they should be different mechanically from humans.

What is an elf, really? A human with pointy ears and probably slightly skinny.

A dwarf is someone short and stout. A gnome is a short guy with a big nose.

IMO, this is exactly what elves and dwarves SHOULDN'T be, which is why I don't allow them as PCs.