D&D General No More "Humans in Funny Hats": Racial Mechanics Should Determine Racial Cultures

[TheSword]

Abilities matter if the differences are significant, which is the case in a game like Runequest, but no longer in D&D in particular since negative ability modifiers disappeared for PCs. However, they certainly matter a lot, Orcs have an Int of 7 and Drows an Int of 11 (and Mind Flayers an Int of 19). I'm pretty sure that if they are played by the DM according to their stats, it will matter a lot compared to their outlook, or rather the outlook will have been colored a lot by the stats.

I’m referring to abilities as things people can do (see in the dark, detect secret doors, resistant to poison), rather than a set of stats which will vary. If you want to make a race feel different then look at what makes them different.

I think that depends quite a bit on whether them being smaller actually affects their capabilities. If halflings are superhobbits that are actually massively stronger than their size would indicate that's kinda different situation than if they are small and relatively weak.

I think that’s because you’re looking at it from a game competency point of view instead of a psychological point of view which is exactly my point.

They may well be stronger, but how does it effect their mentality that people see them as smaller. how would that affect how they interact with the world. Same if you’re playing a half ogre and everyone is smaller than you.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I’m referring to abilities as things people can do (see in the dark, detect secret doors, resistant to poison), rather than a set of stats which will vary. If you want to make a race feel different then look at what makes them different.

I don't think these are really a different thing. Both represent capabilities the species may posses.

I think that’s because you’re looking at it from a game competency point of view instead of a psychological point of view which is exactly my point.

How it 'seeing in dark' not a competency? It's the same thing. And certainly competency affects psychology.

They may well be stronger, but how does it effect their mentality that people see them as smaller. how would that affect how they interact with the world.

I've always liked small species, the whole 'small people in a big world' has always been appealing to me. They need to employ guile, stealth and diplomacy in order to survive. Imagine human adventurers in world mostly populated by giants. But I still feel being superhobbits will mess with that somewhat. If humans were just as strong as giants living in a giant world as a human would feel pretty different.

Same if you’re playing a half ogre and everyone is smaller than you.

You'd have problem fitting in spaces. Others might find you scary, but if it was common knowledge that ogres are bizarrely weak for their size and actually not any stronger than humans that might not be the case.

I really like playing with size differences, but this is my biggest issue with homogenisation of D&D races. My disbelief suspensors might be (barely, but still) to handle most of it, but I really feel that depiction of creatures of drastically different sizes is where it breaks. And I like to have such creatures. This is not just an issue with small races, it is also an issue with all 'should really be large but is medium for balance reasons' races. They just feel wrong. Such drastic physiological difference should be more than mostly cosmetics. And frankly, I care more about representing it properly than I care about balance.

 

[Minigiant]

Abilities don’t make different races appear differently at the gaming table, outlooks on the word do.

​

If a race lived predominantly undergound how would that change their mindset and behavior?​

​

If a race lived 10 times longer than humanity, how would it change their mindset and behavior?​

​

If a race was smaller than everyone else around them, how would it change their mindset and behavior?​

As soon as you start talking and behaving as if your characters have differences all of a sudden they will feel different. You can give someone all the mechanical variation you like, but if players don’t play them differently they’ll always just be humans in a suit.

Warhammer fantasy does this well.

Elves still use bows over guns because they are old and see what they use as superior as they fought Chaos with it.

Dwarves are more advanced but they move slower in tech as they respect their very old elders and their opinions. However since they can't use magic, tech and might is all they have.

Humans live short lives so humans have to push for innovation faster. However their bodies can control less magic and is corrupted easier so magic has to be organized or CHAOS!!!!!.

Halflings are just weak. Just weak. All they have is chaos immunity. So they actively seek protection but trading food and services.

Ogres are big, dumb, and chaos immune. So they don't need a complex society if the food doesn't run out.

I think that depends quite a bit on whether them being smaller actually affects their capabilities. If halflings are superhobbits that are actually massively stronger than their size would indicate that's kinda different situation than if they are small and relatively weak.

Exactly. The Society, Economy, and Engineering of halflings, gnomes, and goblins would be very different even if you gave them the same culture due to their different bodies, lifespans, and innate magic.

 

[ReshiIRE]

If you have a 16 in your Primary Stat, with your proficiency bonus, you have a 65% chance to hit against a save/AC of 13 which is the assumed AC at CR 1/4.


This chance to hit will remain consistent as you go up the expected AC levels, assuming you put your ASI points into your primary.


Feats are not accounted for AT ALL. If you use feats, you already blow out the 'expectation' of a 65% chance. A combination of Standard Array (15) plus ASI (Racial, Human or Floating = 17) + a Feat (Athlete +1 = 18) for being a Variant Human PLUS Bless? 75% chance to hit.

An Ancient Silver Dragon has an AC of 22. You have in that scenario a 30% to hit a CR 23 Creature, at level 1.



A +5 at level 1, grants you 65%, and this is maintained at every level but 9, assuming you start at 16 and put your stat increases into your primary.

So this is the fundamental question. Do you need to hit 65% of the time?

"Balanced" has been discussed a few times, but nobody cares to define it.

Xanathar says our Level 1 PC fights a 1/4 CR Enemy. If I crack open MToF and check, I see examples to grab a few.

Abyssal Wretch
Derro
Star Spaw Grue

Wretch AC 11, HP 18, Bite (+3 Hit, 5 Damage)
Grue AC 11, HP 17, Bile (+3 Hit, 6 Damage)
Derro AC 13, HP 13, Spear (+2 Hit, 3 Damage)

I set a Level 1 PC against a Wretch on the following site.

D&D

You will notice in the pictures below, the Party defaulted to a Blood Hunter, with 14 Str, 14 Dex, and ran the simulator. It claimed I won out of 25 fights, 68% of the time.

So is that 'balanced'? Should a level 1 PC be expected to win against a 1/4 CR monster nearly 70% of the time, when that is what they are suggested to fight in a random encounter as per Xanathars tables?

You tell me I guess.

Does that +1 going from 15, to 16 or 17 make all the difference?

Lets just say I remain utterly unconvinced of any requirement for a 16 for a PC to be effective at their role based on the guidelines provided by Wizards themselves...

Interesting.

65% is what I had heard before, but the fact it's partly based on CR 1/4, (and the fact there exists such a thing as CR 1/4... the labelling of levels / ranks in CR is quite setupid in 5e), and that bounded accuracy helps a lot here just... I don't know. Now it's bothering me for completely different reasons.

I guess it doesn't help that I have heard that CR itself in base 5e is so unbalanced that some game styles promote using much more extreme encounters for every fight, which may indeed change how things go.

It does seem that you must have a +2 in a stat at-least to keep up. The thing is then, is that then the capabilities of each party member can wildly vary depending on what character concept they have and how it aligns with what 'stats' they get in base 5e, in a way that wouldn't happen in something like Pathfinder 2e. Having a higher chance to hit along with the ability to have more feats feels like ill considered design.

Really, I think a big issue here is the fact that it's a choice between an ASI and a feat... IMO you should be able to get a feat and an ASI every time. That would dramatically increase power, but if you remove the +1 ASI boots within feats and maybe check the power of the more nutty ones, it would be fine.

 

[Minigiant]

I guess it doesn't help that I have heard that CR itself in base 5e is so unbalanced that some game styles promote using much more extreme encounters for every fight, which may indeed change how things go.

That's part of the whole problem.

Few run 5e by WOTC's recommendation because of adventure time constraints and wonky CR. So DMs and players desire stronger PC like the powerful ones WOTC's suggested.

There's no requirements but the desires are shifted due to game recommendations and flaws. And this in turn shifts the game to stereotypical "humans in funny hats" if you don't use options and variants.

 

[TheSword]

I don't think these are really a different thing. Both represent capabilities the species may posses.


How it 'seeing in dark' not a competency? It's the same thing. And certainly competency affects psychology.

It is, and it would affect gameplay in a practical sense.

however I’m saying park that, and think about how it would change a persons mindset. Being able to see in the dark could give you discomfort in large open spaces, or bright areas. It might make you easily distracted by things more than 60ft away. Or within 60 ft, depending on the justification. It’s much more interesting to bring stuff like that to the table, rather than just… I can see in the dark

 

[Lyxen]

I’m referring to abilities as things people can do (see in the dark, detect secret doors, resistant to poison), rather than a set of stats which will vary. If you want to make a race feel different then look at what makes them different.

Sorry for misunderstanding, my point is that both abilities and stats make a race different.

I think that’s because you’re looking at it from a game competency point of view instead of a psychological point of view which is exactly my point.

And my perspective is that the abilities and stats above, especially if strong and distinctive, have first a strong impact on the culture, and then on the psychological standpoint.

They may well be stronger, but how does it effect their mentality that people see them as smaller. how would that affect how they interact with the world. Same if you’re playing a half ogre and everyone is smaller than you.

As an individual, you might still be complexed for being less big than a full ogre. However, ogres in general I think have little but disdain for "puny" smaller races.

There is a good example of that in the (incredible) Malazan Book of the Fallen, with Karsa Orlong. At start, he says only that he will raid and massacre children, which of course make you hate him. It turns out that his race, the Teblors, are half-again as tall as humans and most races (not elder races, but these are very strange, very powerful and very rare), and in their tongue, they call them "children" in their tongue. It does not make the Teblors nicer (they are quite savage and have a practice of raiding with really nasty side effects), but Karsa is a very interesting character who finally applies his notions of honor to members of other races, and evolves in a very interesting way (after suffering a lot). This is just an example but it shows what a race might think for being taller and stronger (by a lot), and how an individual from that race might evolve.

And if you have not read the Malazan Book of the Fallen, do so now (you will suffer quite a bit at start like Karsa Orlong, but it is more than worth it).

 

[Scribe]

Interesting.

65% is what I had heard before, but the fact it's partly based on CR 1/4, (and the fact there exists such a thing as CR 1/4... the labelling of levels / ranks in CR is quite setupid in 5e), and that bounded accuracy helps a lot here just... I don't know. Now it's bothering me for completely different reasons.

I guess it doesn't help that I have heard that CR itself in base 5e is so unbalanced that some game styles promote using much more extreme encounters for every fight, which may indeed change how things go.

It does seem that you must have a +2 in a stat at-least to keep up. The thing is then, is that then the capabilities of each party member can wildly vary depending on what character concept they have and how it aligns with what 'stats' they get in base 5e, in a way that wouldn't happen in something like Pathfinder 2e. Having a higher chance to hit along with the ability to have more feats feels like ill considered design.

Really, I think a big issue here is the fact that it's a choice between an ASI and a feat... IMO you should be able to get a feat and an ASI every time. That would dramatically increase power, but if you remove the +1 ASI boots within feats and maybe check the power of the more nutty ones, it would be fine.

Yes, the more I look at 5e from an analytical point of view instead of just a game to roll with and have fun, the more issues I have with it.

Something is flawed on how this is all set up and/or communicated.

 

[Scott Christian]

If you want races to be different, then you, the DM (with the help of the players) need to come up with ways they are different. As I said before, come up with lists of cultural and biological quirks. Or have mechanical traits. Because the differences between a githyanki, an orc, a centaur, and a minotaur are all because of those quirks and traits, not the ASIs.

I completely agree with this. I even stated this earlier. It is all up to the DM's construct of the world, their believability to the players, and the player's buy in and additions. So just to be clear, I agree with you. And as far as your gith and half-orc and centaur are concerned, you are right. The quirks, culture and racial feats are what make them different from one another. But what makes all of them different from a halfling is also the +2 strength. There are degrees here that you don't seem to accept, and I can't understand why.

In part, of course it is. But first off, this is no different than playing a +2 Strength race as a martial and a +2 mental stat race as a spellcaster who relies on that stat. And it's no different from putting your highest score in your prime stat anyway.

And secondly, it's not just to be stronger. It is to be able to move stats where you want. I legitimately play race/class combos across type and I don't want some of them to have a high stat of a particular type. I have a firbolg (+2 Wis, +1 Str) genielock. I didn't want them to be that strong. Going by the background I had written for them (they had been a survivor of a werewolf attack), it would have made more sense for them to have +1 Con. My kalashtar fighter (+2 Wis, +1 Cha) is strong and pretty smart, but I never saw her as being particularly charismatic. Only my Levestus tiefling (+2 Cha, +1 Con) rogue benefits from her actual ASIs--but I picked tiefling because I like them, and the subrace because I wanted her to have a cold theme, not because of the +2 Cha which helps her as a swashbuckler.

By forcing me to have fixed ASIs, I couldn't fully create two of my three current characters the way I envisioned them.

How could you not create them how you envisioned? If you do the numbers, of course you can. The only thing a moveable ASI does is allow characters to play a specific race with a 16 or 17 at the start (using point buy or spread). That's it. Every other creation you can accomplish with fixed ASI.
Would you please put your stats for your firebolg or kalashtar so I can see?

 

[Scott Christian]

Abilities don’t make different races appear differently at the gaming table, outlooks on the word do.

​

If a race lived predominantly undergound how would that change their mindset and behavior?​

​

If a race lived 10 times longer than humanity, how would it change their mindset and behavior?​

​

If a race was smaller than everyone else around them, how would it change their mindset and behavior?​

As soon as you start talking and behaving as if your characters have differences all of a sudden they will feel different. You can give someone all the mechanical variation you like, but if players don’t play them differently they’ll always just be humans in a suit.

Degrees. Degrees. There are layers. It is not one or the other. It is a combination of both, mechanics and words. For some players, it is primarily mechanics. For some players, it is primarily words. For others, it is 50/50. But, in all games, it is almost always both.