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

[Scott Christian]

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.

Every ruleset is deeply flawed. Has crazy imbalance. But it is how it feels at the table while playing that is all important. And that feeling comes from players, the DM, your mindset, and, probably most important, the flow of the ruleset. If it feels fun for the players and DM because the mechanics facilitate that fun, then who cares.
But that is one reason why people can argue until they are blue in the face - changes in the ruleset affect the feel of the game.

 

[Scribe]

Every ruleset is deeply flawed. Has crazy imbalance. But it is how it feels at the table while playing that is all important. And that feeling comes from players, the DM, your mindset, and, probably most important, the flow of the ruleset. If it feels fun for the players and DM because the mechanics facilitate that fun, then who cares.
But that is one reason why people can argue until they are blue in the face - changes in the ruleset affect the feel of the game.

100%.

The feel of it is fine, and there are enough nobs (just throw a higher CR at the players) to challenge people if you wish.

If people are having fun, great.

 

[Faolyn]

Exactly, not only is the game very swingy due to the d20, but if you are playing a competitive game, DMs worth their salt will adjust the difficulty of encounters to the actual PC.

So at last night's game, we were discussing a previous encounter. I guess I, the DM, was not loud enough when I pointed out that there was a spot in the area that was not covered in magical darkness (that's the problem when your VTT is Jamboard). "But that's fine," said one of the players. "It was more difficult, which made it more fun." The other players agreed. (Personally, I think they're just not great at tactics. We had a similar encounter in magical darkness in a different game, where I was a player, and we had an actual battlemap at an actual table, and my character was the only one who moved out of the darkness.)

I'm not entirely certain what you're saying here, because by your words, you're saying it doesn't matter if a PC has a +3 in a stat because a good DM will adjust the encounters to make them more difficult. Unless, by your use of the word "competitive," you assume that the only DMs who do this are those who bad DMs who engage in DM vs. PC behavior and are going out of their way to kill the PCs. I guess you assume that most encounters should be just of average difficulty? The rest of the table and I usually view those as kinda boring.

At this stage, I'll drop the "powergamer" label (if anyone's in doubt, there are many kinds and degrees of this, minmaxer, optimiser, powergamer, munchkin, etc.), I just think that it's a power option that creates a bit of power drift, and while I agree that it's a bit, the very large flexibility that it gives makes it much easier to combine with other options. And everyone knows that it's never one option that creates the drift (as these are usually fairly well balanced on their own), it's always the combos that create the problems.

Since you have yet to actually show how having a +2 in a stat is powergaming, it's just your personal opinion, anyway.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Because I am not talking about the entire race. I am talking about a single PC. A single, unique individual who is already different from every other member of the race by being willing to leave the relative safety of home to go throw themselves at monsters.

Orcs are stronger than halflings. Bobbo the halfling is unusually strong, the equal to orcs.

What I don't understand is why people are so against individuals being exception.

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?

I... explained my reasoning in the post. And why? I already said that my table rolls for stats, so everyone has already dismissed them as being unbalanced anyway.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because I am not talking about the entire race. I am talking about a single PC. A single, unique individual who is already different from every other member of the race by being willing to leave the relative safety of home to go throw themselves at monsters.

Orcs are stronger than halflings. Bobbo the halfling is unusually strong, the equal to orcs.

What I don't understand is why people are so against individuals being exception.

Because it is every fricking halfling PC who actually needs to be strong! Every halfling barbarian ever will now be that bizarrely strong superhobbit. How unique!

The result of floating ASIs is that every character of given class will have the same score in their main ability score at a given level. They all will be the same. Elf barbarian, halfling barbarian, human barbarian, goliath barbarian. Doesn't matter everyone has the same score. At which point, why even pretend that the ability scores are a choice and represent individual variation? Just get rid of them and tie the bonuses to the classes!

And to continue about those unique superhobbits, why did you earlier oppose giving dragonborn's firebreath to a halfling PC? Certainly, we can justify it just the same than the strength? It is not that halflings generally have firebreath, but this unique individual does. If PCs are individuals and do not need to correspond to rest of their species, then why have dedicated race mechanics at all? Certainly the logical thing to do is simply get rid of races as mechanical concept, and have a pool of traits players can choose from to represent their unique heroes? And same with the classes next!

What I want is niche protection. If a race is that known for being good at a certain thing, then, if the player so chooses, they should be able to be best in the party at that thing.

 

[Faolyn]

Because it is every fricking halfling PC who actually needs to be strong! Every halfling barbarian ever will now be that bizarrely strong superhobbit. How unique!

Is every single fricking halfling going to be in your game? No? So this doesn't affect you at all.

The result of floating ASIs is that every character of given class will have the same score in their main ability score at a given level. They all will be the same. Elf barbarian, halfling barbarian, human barbarian, goliath barbarian. Doesn't matter everyone has the same score. At which point, why even pretend that the ability scores are a choice and represent individual variation? Just get rid of them and tie the bonuses to the classes!

Every member of any class will eventually have the exact same stat anyway: 20. Does it matter that it takes them the same amount of time as everyone else?

And to continue about those unique superhobbits, why did you earlier oppose giving dragonborn's firebreath to a halfling PC?

Because there's a difference between an ASI and a trait.

It's these traits that ensure that most halflings won't be barbarians. They have the Small trait, so they can't use Heavy weapons--you know, the weapons that barbarians use most of the time. They don't have any real combat traits. Nimble and Lucky are useful in combat, but they aren't combat traits. However, half-orcs have Relentless Endurance and Savage Attacks; full orcs have Aggressive. Those traits are very useful for barbarians.

What I want is niche protection. If a race is that known for being good at a certain thing, then, if the player so chooses, they should be able to be best in the party at that thing.

Halflings are good at being Nimble and Lucky. That's their niche protection. No other race is as Lucky as them, and only goblins are Nimble, but in a different way.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because there's a difference between an ASI and a trait.

Why do you next describe how they're the same then?

It's these traits that ensure that most halflings won't be barbarians. They have the Small trait, so they can't use Heavy weapons--you know, the weapons that barbarians use most of the time. They don't have any real combat traits. Nimble and Lucky are useful in combat, but they aren't combat traits. However, half-orcs have Relentless Endurance and Savage Attacks; full orcs have Aggressive. Those traits are very useful for barbarians.

So traits that make a race better at a certain class good, ASIs that make a race better at a certain class bad?

I actually get the position of wanting everyone to be able to be equally good at everything, even though I don't exactly agree with it, but your position just seems incoherent.

 

[Faolyn]

Why do you next describe how they're the same then?

I didn't. At all. But thanks for not reading! But I guess if you think all members of a race should be exactly the same anyway, I guess you would read it that way.

Imagine that there were no racial ASIs. The racial traits would make each race different. But if there were no racial traits, only ASIs, then what would differentiate one +2 Cha race from another +2 Cha race?

So traits that make a race better at a certain class good, ASIs that make a race better at a certain class bad?

Nope. Are you willfully misunderstanding what I wrote?

You seem to think that everyone will be playing barbarian halflings. I'm showing you that because of traits, people likely won't--and those that are, even if they put the +2 in Strength, are playing them for reasons other than sheer power.

I actually get the position of wanting everyone to be able to be equally good at everything, even though I don't exactly agree with it, but your position just seems incoherent.

Maybe because that's not what I said. What I said is that people should be able to put the ASIs where they want. Are you telling me that I can't play a Strength 8 orc if I wanted to? Or a socially-awkward, Cha 8 half-elf?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Imagine that there were no racial ASIs. The racial traits would make each race different. But if there were no racial traits, only ASIs, then what would differentiate one +2 Cha race from another +2 Cha race?

That's why it is better to have both.

Nope. Are you willfully misunderstanding what I wrote?

No. It is what you said.

You seem to think that everyone will be playing barbarian halflings.

No. I'm just saying that every barbarian halfling will be that bizarrely and uniquely super strong one.

I'm showing you that because of traits, people likely won't--and those that are, even if they put the +2 in Strength, are playing them for reasons other than sheer power.

Right. I understand this. What I do not understand why you consider this to be acceptable. Why it is unacceptable for ASI's to make certain races suboptimal for certain classes but it is perfectly fine for the traits to do the same?

Maybe because that's not what I said. What I said is that people should be able to put the ASIs where they want. Are you telling me that I can't play a Strength 8 orc if I wanted to? Or a socially-awkward, Cha 8 half-elf?

Under PHB rules you couldn't. And that makes certain sense to me. You can be abnormally weak orc. And that orc will have strength this. This is perfect representation of the strength of the orc species. Even a feeble orc is as strong as an average human. Same with clumsy elves. They have dex ten and are as agile than average human. But from elven perspective that's terrible.

 

[Faolyn]

That's why it is better to have both.

Nope. It's more samey, not better.

No. It is what you said.

Nope, try again.

No. I'm just saying that every barbarian halfling will be that bizarrely and uniquely super strong one.

And again, you are not going to have "every" barbarian halfling in your game, so it won't actually affect you at all.

And let's say that you actually manage to play with multiple super-strong halflings over the course of your gaming life. So what? How does that actually affect you? Is it actually worse than every halfling being a rogue, or every orc being a fighter, or every dwarf being a drunken pseudo-Scot? Would you refuse to play with people who don't make totally unique characters?

Right. I understand this. What I do not understand why you consider this to be acceptable. Why it is unacceptable for ASI's to make certain races suboptimal for certain classes but it is perfectly fine for the traits to do the same?

Stats are already individual. Each player has a different set of stats.

Racial traits aren't individual. And since this isn't a game like GURPS, racial traits will stay unique to the race, not the individual.

Under PHB rules you couldn't. And that makes certain sense to me. You can be abnormally weak orc. And that orc will have strength this. This is perfect representation of the strength of the orc species. Even a feeble orc is as strong as an average human. Same with clumsy elves. They have dex ten and are as agile than average human. But from elven perspective that's terrible.

If 10 is average, then the average human has an 11 in all stats (+1 to all stats, remember?). The average elf is only a tiny bit more agile than the average human. The average orc is only a tiny bit stronger than the average human. The average halfling is only a tiny bit weaker than the average human--but is exactly as strong as a loxodon, despite the fact that the average loxodon is 4-5 feet taller than the average halfling and can lift one in its trunk. Halflings are also exactly as strong as hobgoblins are, even though hobs are specced for war.

And the average human is exactly as strong as the average firbolg or leonin--even though one is basically a short giant and the other is an anthro lion, and both stand a foot or more taller than the average human. And the average high or wood elf is exactly as smart and wise as a human, despite being likely a century older. The average githyanki is as strong as a goliath, despite being quite a bit shorter and being described as slender.

This is one of the problems with ASIs: they make no sense. A perfect representation of an 8-foot-tall anthro elephant is exactly as strong as a 3-foot-tall furry-footed halfling.

You have a problem with strong but small halfling barbarians. Do you have a problem with the idea of a strong anthro elephant barbarian? Or a strong tiefling barbarian? Or a strong leonin barbarian? Or a strong hobgoblin barbarian? Or a strong lizardfolk barbarian? If so, why? And if so, why should everyone else have the same problem you do? And, why should I be forced to play a "perfect representation" of any race?