Monte Cook - Racial Importance

[Sunseeker]

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.

I think the issue I see here is that we all know where the class is going, it's a fairly obvious and linear progression that leads towards an improvment in your base fuction. IE: you become a better fighter, a better wizard, you know more spells, you know better combat tricks, ect...

However, advancing racially risks two things:
1: advancing as a race can never offer such obvious class progression without essentially duplicating the class abilities.
2: advancing as a race offers too much constrained racial development.

1 is fairly obvious, without an incredibly exhaustive list of racial abilities, choosing a racial ability over a class one naturally leads you to be a less effective class. It also compounds the problem that without duplicating the choices for every race, some races will become more ideal for some classes.

2 is a little more complex, as not everyone's idea of an elf is the same. Take for example the sub-races of elves. Drow, sun, moon, avriel, ect...All of these share the same basic "elf" traits or being more lithe and dexterous than others, but they each have their own unique aspects as well. Furthermore, how does a DM integrate their own ideas about how elves really act? If the elf advancement path focuses on "love nature and hate humans", how does an adventure in which elves are not tree-hugging, human-hating hippies work out?

This strikes me more as an extension of "wizards knows best", but the whole core philosophy of D&D is that the players know best.

So while it's certainly possible for us to see exhaustive lists of racial abilities, given the choices from previous editions, I feel that racial advancement will either only fall into what the devs think X race can be, or just utterly forgotten.

 

[mach1.9pants]

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.

See I disagree with this a lot. IMC race matters a lot. Elves are not skinny pointy eared humans. They are vegetarian, certainly don't wear leather, have a completely matriarchal society in which children are their only treasure. Humans think of them as patriarchal because only males are deemed expendable enough to deal with the outside world! Same with all other races, they have cultures and physiology vastly different than humans.
The only problem with a large mechanical influence of races in DnDN is that the mechanics will probably NOT reflect how I want them to be! So I'll end up house ruling them as much as if there was no diference
(OT: That is why I loathe Star Trek, the most unimaginative aliens, humans with rubber faces)

 

[Hussar]

I think the issue I see here is that we all know where the class is going, it's a fairly obvious and linear progression that leads towards an improvment in your base fuction. IE: you become a better fighter, a better wizard, you know more spells, you know better combat tricks, ect...

However, advancing racially risks two things:
1: advancing as a race can never offer such obvious class progression without essentially duplicating the class abilities.
2: advancing as a race offers too much constrained racial development.
/snip

Number 1 is only an issue if class is so tightly wound together that missing out on one level of a class nerfs the class. Sort of the issue that casters in 3e have where taking a few levels in another class really hurts you in the long run, or the racial levels in 3e which also really hurt you.

OTOH, if the math is fairly transparent, it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with racial levels or alternate powers which don't impair the character too much. Sure, you might not get that 5th level combat trick, but, you get, I dunno, some sort of "Keen Elven Eyes" which gives you a +1 to hit and +X to searching for hidden stuff.

Hey, I'm not a game designer. I suck at the specifics.

As to Number 2. Well, I don't think there's any way around that. You're going to have to make some concessions here. The "Elven Level Package", in my mind, would be tied to character level, so, you would have the choice of taking Elf Package A or B or C, depending on what level your character was. And, if you didn't take the Level 5 Package at level 5, you probably shouldn't be allowed to retrain into it. But, you could still take the Level 8 package (or whatever) when you reach level 8.

 

[Sunseeker]

Number 1 is only an issue if class is so tightly wound together that missing out on one level of a class nerfs the class. Sort of the issue that casters in 3e have where taking a few levels in another class really hurts you in the long run, or the racial levels in 3e which also really hurt you.

OTOH, if the math is fairly transparent, it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with racial levels or alternate powers which don't impair the character too much. Sure, you might not get that 5th level combat trick, but, you get, I dunno, some sort of "Keen Elven Eyes" which gives you a +1 to hit and +X to searching for hidden stuff.

Hey, I'm not a game designer. I suck at the specifics.

As to Number 2. Well, I don't think there's any way around that. You're going to have to make some concessions here. The "Elven Level Package", in my mind, would be tied to character level, so, you would have the choice of taking Elf Package A or B or C, depending on what level your character was. And, if you didn't take the Level 5 Package at level 5, you probably shouldn't be allowed to retrain into it. But, you could still take the Level 8 package (or whatever) when you reach level 8.

All of this is why I'd like to see race be an important choice, important as class, but be a "third pillar" to the game. You should be able to advance as an elf AND as a fighter. While these two choices may affect each other in time, those times should be few. There's no reason I think, that an elf should become less of a fighter because they became more of an elf. One should be able to become both more of an elf, and more of a fighter at the same time.

IE: at each level you can choose 3 things, a racial feature, a class feature, and a "theme" feature.
Whichever one you pick first affects your options for the latter.
Choosing an elf that loves nature may mean you no longer get to wear metal armor as a fighter.
But that would open up options to get extra bonuses to AC through the fighter class, as elven fighters who love nature know how to adapt to this.
But wearing "natural" armor and loving nature will limit your theme abilities, perhaps as you used "noble", because you love the woods and are adept in "natural" armor, you gain a bonus to nature checks or lore regarding food poisoning.

There of course should be alternative options as well, and picking them in a different order may have different results. However at the end of the day what we've established is that the player is never forced to choose between being an elf, being a noble, and being a fighter. All aspects improve together.

 

[Kynn]

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.

It's a poll about mechanical effects for race, and yet it talks primarily about "impact on story" which doesn't mean anything. What does "impact" mean in game mechanics terms?

To some people, "race should matter" means that, a la 1st edition AD&D, you can't be a wizard if you're a dwarf. To some people, "race should matter" means that if you play a dwarf wizard, you should specialize in stone elementalism. To some people, "race should matter" means that you think dwarves should get bonuses which work best for a fighter, but you can still play a wizard if you want.

In that latter category, "bonuses which which work best for a fighter" is still up to debate, of course, since they could be as specific as "dwarves get +1 with axes and hammers, and -1 with everything else" or they could be as broad as "dwarves get +1 to Strength" or "dwarves get fighter as a favored class."

These are all examples of opinions on how the mechanics of D&D Next should treat race -- but they don't fall anywhere specific on the poll. Because the poll is too vague to get into specifics -- and nobody can objectively state what 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e-style of races falls under.

So, no, it isn't just "choose what narrative control you like," because we're talking about mechanical game benefits. A character's race can have a HUGE effect on the character's personality, history, and background with ZERO mechanical benefit.

 

[Kynn]

Here's an example of a poll that asks about how race affects your character.

To what level should your character's combat and non-combat abilities be tied specifically to race? E.g. your hit points, armor, weapon proficiencies, and skills.

(A) Extremely: Race should be more important than class. Your hit points should be based on your race, e.g., elves get 1d6 hit points per level, and dwarves get 1d12. No matter your class, elves use bows and dwarves use axes. You can only choose your trained skills from the racial lists.

(B) Very: Race should carry significant mechanical weight. You get hit points from two sources: Race and class. You might get 1d3 per level for being an elf, 1d6 per level from being a dwarf, and add those to 1d4 per level as a wizard or 1d6 per level from being a fighter. You get weapon and skill proficiencies from both your race and your class merged together.

(C) Moderate: Race should carry some mechanical weight. For example, elves get -1 hit point per level, and dwarves get +1 hit point per level, due to Constitution modifiers. If your dwarf chooses Ale Brewing, she gets a +2 bonus, just like an elf with Sneaking gets a +2 bonus.

(D) Low: Races should offer perhaps one minor mechanical element, but no more. Being an elf gives you +1 with bows, being a dwarf gives you +1 with axes, and race doesn't affect your hit points.

(E) None: Your stats aren't adjusted based on your race. If you want to play a typical elf, choose to use a bow; but if you want to use an axe instead, that's okay too since adventurers are exceptional.

This is what a poll would look like if it were better written to gather actual data on how much we want race to mechanically affect a character. A lot of people who have said "Very" important are actually expressing a "Moderate" level of importance under this system. ("Moderate" is what 4e and 3e use.)

 

[Kynn]

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!

What you describe is actually not a bad for character generation. If you were intending to present this as a bad idea, I'm not sure you actually succeeded.

The system you outlined here would indeed be an "extremely" or "very" level of race involvement in a character. It has some other deficiencies, but does acknowledge that (at least since 3e, and definitely in 4e) a character needs a high stat in their primary ability to be fully effective.

 

[Sunseeker]

What you describe is actually not a bad for character generation. If you were intending to present this as a bad idea, I'm not sure you actually succeeded.

The system you outlined here would indeed be an "extremely" or "very" level of race involvement in a character. It has some other deficiencies, but does acknowledge that (at least since 3e, and definitely in 4e) a character needs a high stat in their primary ability to be fully effective.

I like a bit of randomness to it, I feel it better mimics the real variances of life. That said, my objection to it stems more from how pre-programmed it feels. I know that as a way to design a well-rounded character, it's not bad.

I wouldn't be so opposed to a system if say, everything came with a minimum set of scores in addition to one or more d6 roles.
IE: a "heroic" party would get 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 and then the player would roll one d6 in addition to each score for a theoretical maximum of 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14.

I think it allows for good variation, even if two players make statistical clones of each other.

 

[Kynn]

I like a bit of randomness to it, I feel it better mimics the real variances of life.

I really don't like it where one character's relative effectiveness to another comes down to a series of dice rolls at the beginning of their careers, so I guess we just have different views on the value of randomness in ability scores.

Given that ability scores are apparently going to be more important (than ever?) in D&D Next, I am wary of systems which value randomness over parity (e.g. the 3d6/4d6-drop-lowest methods).

 

[Sunseeker]

I really don't like it where one character's relative effectiveness to another comes down to a series of dice rolls at the beginning of their careers, so I guess we just have different views on the value of randomness in ability scores.

Given that ability scores are apparently going to be more important (than ever?) in D&D Next, I am wary of systems which value randomness over parity (e.g. the 3d6/4d6-drop-lowest methods).

See I don't favor randomness. I hate RNG, it's ugly and annoying and when the most powerful, most skilled barbarian is having trouble hitting the lowly rat because of bad dice roles, that's a problem.

I think some level of variance is required. Perhaps a fixed-stat system based on class/race/background/ect...with the addition of a few points to distribute as you choose?

What I'm really interested in is choice. If a player wants their character's stats to be in the hands of RNG, let them. If they don't, let them. What they enjoy makes the game more meaningful for them. What I don't want to see is all woodland elven warriors walking around with the EXACT same stats because they had NO choice in the matter.