D&D (2024) No Dwarf, Halfling, and Orc suborgins, lineages, and legacies

[TwoSix]

I am not here to play a protagonist, because that is a narrative role, and the purpose of my game is to explore an imaginary world, not to build a story.

I don't see anything that would prevent you from building a representative sample, not a heroic character.

If you want to build a character to spec, and I want to play a character that colors way outside the lines, the only way for us to play together is to have a less restrictive character creation ruleset.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't see anything that would prevent you from building a representative sample, not a heroic character.

If you want to build a character to spec, and I want to play a character that colors way outside the lines, the only way for us to play together is to have a less restrictive character creation ruleset.

It's not that the rules shouldn't set limits. Limits are fun precisely because they exist to break.

It's why I prefer flexible class systems over pure point-buy. It's not nearly as much fun to build a melee wizard or a blasty cleric if the normal tropes weren't there to subvert.

I think you already identified the tension. It just isn't the same to construct within limits set by the rules than it just to limit yourself.

 

[Remathilis]

I am not here to play a protagonist, because that is a narrative role, and the purpose of my game is to explore an imaginary world, not to build a story.

This reminds me of the classic divide in MMOs: narrative play (WoW, ESO, FF14) vs open world (New World, etc) where the latter is about making your own fun (usually through raids, guilds, and PvP) while the former is about quests, epic narrative and PvE. Usually a game has both, but emphasizes one or the other to a larger degree.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ability scores is for math.

But it isn't. Or at least not how the game presents it. Ability scores have evocative names, and they have descriptions. They purport to measure the fictional properties that the characters have. If they are not actually doing that just get rid of them. If the total attack bonus of every character is in effect dictated by their class, then just make it so and drop the pretence that we are choosing ability scores to represent the fiction, and that we have some genuine choice in the mater.

 

[TwoSix]

I think you already identified the tension. It just isn't the same to construct within limits set by the rules than it just to limit yourself.

Yea. I think, in general, it's always easier to edit and tweak than it is to build something brand new. I mean, how many characters do you see that are some variation of "Concept X, but with Y twist?"

It's why most of my custom characters generally start with a normal class, but then I make a custom subclass to match my intent and concept.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The issue is that with ability scores being absolutely important to class function, you create a choice between mechanical efficiency and role play. You either picked a race that complements your class score requirements or you intentionally lowered your effectiveness to fulfill an aesthetic or RP choice. Now we can argue if a +1 is a major difference in the math, but it is perceived to be, enough that many players automatically gravitated to races that had the proper ASI at creation and rarely gave others the time of day. Simply put, it was perceived as bad to be a hill dwarf rogue, high elf bard, or tiefling ranger. And that ultimately felt like players who wanted to play a non efficient combo were penalized for it, even if the flavor of the combo (like dwarf artificer or elf bard) was on point.

Yeah, that's the issue. But I think the real problem is that the classed are too SAD. Maxing the one specific score is almost always the obviously optimal choice. I think it is bad design regardless of this species issue. Every wizard has the same int, every barbarian the same str etc. Like I'm fine with the idea of not every ability score being equally important for every class, but I think the game would be better if there was somewhat more variety.

 

[TwoSix]

But it isn't. Or at least not how the game presents it. Ability scores have evocative names, and they have descriptions. They purport to measure the fictional properties that the characters have. If they are not actually doing that just get rid of them. If the total attack bonus of every character is in effect dictated by their class, then just make it so and drop the pretence that we are choosing ability scores to represent the fiction, and that we have some genuine choice in the mater.

Having attack and spell save DC follow an independent progression around (level/3)+5, round down, would make a lot of sense. Then your stats would be primarily oriented around boosting skills and saves. The stats can carry more fictional weight if they're less burdened by carrying the basic combat math.

And if you want higher stats to carry more weight for combat, simply build subclass features or feats that leverage the stats, either through stat requirements or "add +mod bonus" or "stat mod times per rest".

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, that's the issue. But I think the real problem is that the classed are too SAD. Maxing the one specific score is almost always the obviously optimal choice. I think it is bad design regardless of this species issue. Every wizard has the same int, every barbarian the same str etc. Like I'm fine with the idea the not every ability score is equally important for every class, but I think the game would be better if there was somewhat more variety.

In my ideal world, beyond the idea I posted in my last post, every class would have abilities that leverage at least 3-4 different stats. There would be a core fighter ability that scaled with Str, another with Dex, a third with Int, and a 4th with Wis, just as an example. Or be ambitious and do all 6.

Int 16/Str 10 fighter should be just as viable and competent as Str 16/Int 10 fighter; they just fight differently.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, that's the issue. But I think the real problem is that the classed are too SAD. Maxing the one specific score is almost always the obviously optimal choice. I think it is bad design regardless of this species issue. Every wizard has the same int, every barbarian the same str etc. Like I'm fine with the idea of not every ability score is equally important for every class, but I think the game would be better if there was somewhat more variety.

I have argued for ability score to play less of a role in class function, especially in regards to ability score mod per day features or spellcasting. The goal should not be a 20 ASAP for class efficiency. Basic D&D did this fairly well, but AD&D and d20 versions have gone the complete opposite.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, that's the issue. But I think the real problem is that the classed are too SAD. Maxing the one specific score is almost always the obviously optimal choice. I think it is bad design regardless of this species issue. Every wizard has the same int, every barbarian the same str etc. Like I'm fine with the idea of not every ability score is equally important for every class, but I think the game would be better if there was somewhat more variety.

I think that is where the old -2 came in to create some differences. An elf and gnome wizard might have the same int, but con and strength were going to be meaningfully different or the same with meaningful tradeoffs elsewhere on top of the various ribbons that actually distinguished the characters in play or build. By getting rid of the -2, 5e made different PCs virtually indistinguishable from each other the vast majority of a campaign.