Monte Cook - Racial Importance

[Kynn]

What a poorly-defined poll. It's really awful. How do you differentiate between "Very" and "moderate" without some sort of point of reference? I went with "moderate" but probably should have put "Very", but who knows.

Yeah, the poll is pointless because all it will do is reinforce Monte's opinion -- which he carefully does NOT spell out -- of what is meant by terms such as "very" and "moderate."

I think 4e hit it about right -- stat adjustments + skill bonuses + minor features + one encounter power, and feat support -- but is that "moderate" importance or "very" important? Nobody knows for sure when they vote.

Someone voting "very" might, for all we know of Monte's opinion of the options, be voting for "dwarves are restricted from being sorcerers and wizards" and not know it.

The poll is messed up and useless for actual game development.

 

[marleykat]

I disagree with you, the poll is pretty straightfoward. If you prefer how it's done in 4e than Moderate to None is your preference. Moderate to Very are the other editions and other systems, I prefer the choices of Moderate and above "heavily ". No confusion in my corner of the universe.

I would characterize 4e as being on the low end of Moderate. .

 

[Kynn]

I disagree with you, the poll is pretty straightfoward. If you prefer how it's done in 4e than Moderate to None is your preference. Moderate to Very are the other editions and other systems, I prefer the choices of Moderate and above "heavily ". No confusion in my corner of the universe.

I would characterize 4e as being on the low end of Moderate. .

Except the poll isn't straightforward. "4e is Moderate to None" is your interpretation, but it's certainly not contained in the poll. I don't think the effect of race on a character in 4e is "Moderate to None" -- especially given how important those +2 ability score bumps are in 4e D&D.

Again, you're reading into it -- based on your own preferences -- what the poll means.

At what point in the poll do you reach "dwarves shouldn't be wizards"? Cuz, like, that's pretty unclear throughout -- I assume you, as a "moderate to very," favor dwarf wizards being at least a suboptimal choice and at most being banned? Is that right?

The poll is poor because everyone wants to register their opinions as being middle-of-the-road (or have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too), but by avoiding specifics -- such as the dwarf wizard question -- it just becomes "what English adjective do you like best?" far more than a serious discussion about the role of race in the game.

It's a crappy poll.

 

[marleykat]

Except the poll isn't straightforward. "4e is Moderate to None" is your interpretation, but it's certainly not contained in the poll. I don't think the effect of race on a character in 4e is "Moderate to None" -- especially given how important those +2 ability score bumps are in 4e D&D.

Again, you're reading into it -- based on your own preferences -- what the poll means.

At what point in the poll do you reach "dwarves shouldn't be wizards"? Cuz, like, that's pretty unclear throughout -- I assume you, as a "moderate to very," favor dwarf wizards being at least a suboptimal choice and at most being banned? Is that right?
,
The poll is poor because everyone wants to register their opinions as being middle-of-the-road (or have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too), but by avoiding specifics -- such as the dwarf wizard question -- it just becomes "what English adjective do you like best?" far more than a serious discussion about the role of race in the game.

It's a crappy poll.

Lot of words saying nothing but your preferance, not that the poll is "crappy ". Each choice gives you a choice of degree beyond stat bumps, they're never mentioned in fact. What is mentioned are things like narrative control and impact on story.

 

[marleykat]

To finish my reply, stat bumps are given. Things like class restrictions, having certain skills or talents aren't. That requires a look back to other editions and other games that drew everyone playing a DND style game not named 4e. All of this factors into that poll I call "straightforward" and you call "crappy ".

It says this right after the main question even. I have no dog in this hunt so I'm not interpreting anything, just reading the choices.

Then again I don't understand the need for every player concept to be optimal let alone even, different strokes I guess.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I thought 4e was pretty close. Typically you probably would rather play to type, but there's not really a disadvantage to playing against it for most race/class combinations, and you can work in some advantages. An elf makes a darn good ranger, but you can also make a very nice elf fighter or elf cleric, though you're still probably going to lean in certain specific 'elfy' ways (IE using spears or generally playing a WIS/CHA build cleric).

I thought the added racial feats were a pretty good system too. Again, playing to type was often favored, but many racial feats also served to reinforce alternatives or just add some little quirk that might be good for almost any character.

I agree though, the poll was neigh useless as it lacked any referents for the terms used. I have no idea if 4e would count as 'moderate', 'very', or 'little'.

 

[Sunseeker]

Here's another idea. What if we took the "class choice is more important than racial choice which is more important that ability scores" claim literally? Stealing a page from Gamma World 4e:

• Your class gives you an automatic 17 in an ability score.
• Your race gives you an automatic 15 in one of two ability scores (must be different than class score).
• The rest of the ability scores are rolled randomly.

So a dwarf (con or wis) fighter (str) gets 17 STR, 15 CON, and rolls the rest.

This would actually make random ability scores viable.

Why not just assign all our scores?
We could have our class give us a 17 in one score.
We could have race give us a 15 in one score.
We could have our theme give us a 13 in another score.
We could have backgrounds give us a 12 in another score.
We could have our "history" give us a 10 in one more score.
We could get to choose a "weakness" which would give us an 8 in our final score.

What do we need to roll dice for anymore? Wizards knows better!

 

[Hussar]

Why not just assign all our scores?
We could have our class give us a 17 in one score.
We could have race give us a 15 in one score.
We could have our theme give us a 13 in another score.
We could have backgrounds give us a 12 in another score.
We could have our "history" give us a 10 in one more score.
We could get to choose a "weakness" which would give us an 8 in our final score.

What do we need to roll dice for anymore? Wizards knows better!

As an optional Chargen method, while we might quibble about the numbers, it does have merit. At least it would force players to actually give some thought beyond simply putting the highest stat in the prime requisite and dumpstatting the unimportant one. You actually have in game reasons for why you look like you do.

Then again, I'm a big fan of lifepath chargen methods.

----------

Back on topic. I REALLY,REALLY want race to matter. I want to be able to make two fighters, one human and one elven both using the same weapons and armor and have them play differently because of race. 4e's racial powers was a good start. Combine that with the Backgrounds powers where you can choose a higher level racial option as a power instead of a class one and that power will be just as effective as your class power, is a great idea IMO.

Those who want to pick and forget can do so, simply by not choosing the racial powers. Those who want race to matter can choose racial powers. Mix and match between class and race and everyone wins.

3e had a similar system with substitution levels. Also a possible way to go. Make sure the numbers are close enough (not too high and not too low for the level) and you're good to go.

What I never want to see again is someone turn to another player and say, "You're a what again? Since when?"

 

[Sunseeker]

As an optional Chargen method, while we might quibble about the numbers, it does have merit. At least it would force players to actually give some thought beyond simply putting the highest stat in the prime requisite and dumpstatting the unimportant one. You actually have in game reasons for why you look like you do.

Then again, I'm a big fan of lifepath chargen methods.

As an optional method, that's fine. I'm all down with the options, I'm just not down with completely eliminating the need for dice, which given some indications, almost feels like they're reducing the need to roll anything.

Back on topic. I REALLY,REALLY want race to matter. I want to be able to make two fighters, one human and one elven both using the same weapons and armor and have them play differently because of race. 4e's racial powers was a good start. Combine that with the Backgrounds powers where you can choose a higher level racial option as a power instead of a class one and that power will be just as effective as your class power, is a great idea IMO.

I have to ask though, what if you make two elven fighters? Shouldn't they play differently too? I'd hate to see everyone who rolls a drow fighter be forced to be a Drizzet because drow fighters get two-weapon fighting and scimitar profeciancy as free feats.

Those who want to pick and forget can do so, simply by not choosing the racial powers. Those who want race to matter can choose racial powers. Mix and match between class and race and everyone wins.

I agree, I want my elf and my tiefling of the same class to play different, but I don't want them to HAVE to play differently.

3e had a similar system with substitution levels. Also a possible way to go. Make sure the numbers are close enough (not too high and not too low for the level) and you're good to go.

What I never want to see again is someone turn to another player and say, "You're a what again? Since when?"

The problem with racial substitution levels was that while they were great for char-gen and roleplay and that sort of thing, their buy-in cost was terribly high.

What I would like to see is not forcing the player to choose between race and class, but always being given the ability to advance their race in addition to their class. Keep the racial powers largely fluff and fun, things that aren't going to make or break a build. Let players delve into the theme of their character. Are you a dedicated servant of Lloth? Do you secretly desire to empower your trainted tiefling blood? Do the rocks and hammers of your kin do nothing for you?

These should not be things that players are forced to choose against useful class features.

I want race to matter, but I only want it to matter as much as the player wants it to matter. If you want to be a number-crunching, stone-smashing behemoth, there's racial options that'll say "you like hammers so much your spouse complains you give them more attention than her." It won't go a long way to making you OP on the battlefield, but it will add to your theme of "I hit things and they don't get up."

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit, I want race to matter as much as class. At least as much. So, the solution to racial levels (or powers, or however it's done), is to make sure that it isn't a poor choice. That's where having the game math work. And, based on the metric they are using for judging effects (X effect is worth Y damage), it shouldn't be that hard.

So, at 5th level, I could get the standard fighter package, the package for my background or the package for my race and, mechanically, all would be pretty close in power. Sure, my fighter package might be more about hitting better, my background package might grant me something else and my "Elf" package might grant a different set of effects, but, all those effects should be fairly in line.

And, that way, you get two elven fighters who play differently. My elf chooses the 5th level "Elf" package, and yours picks the Fighter package, while Bob over there picks the "Noble" package.

I would advocate more than a simple power here as well. Make it a "level" worth of stuff - choosing fighter gives you more hit points than choosing elf. But, choosing elf gives you a defensive bonus and something else. That sort of thing.