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

[Scott Christian]

This is a hopeless argument. Crimson made a very strong argument here:

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!

Your response @Faolyn was this:

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.

Do you see how your quote leaves out the layers of the argument? I am sincere. Do you see it? Take the hundred other examples of race flowing across class with floating ASI's, and do you see how it mostly works... in the favor of the floating ASI and racial feats forming a synergy for a specific class. Very rarely does it work against, as you have so stated.

Layers.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

Ok... so can you try to explain it with the only thing we are debating about - point buy or standard array. Because I feel certain you can't. The truth is, the only reason to have a 16 or 17 is because you want the extra +1 in the primary stat. There is no other build you can't do without traditional ASI - except that magical 16 or 17, which doesn't really matter for effectiveness.

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.

As I stated earlier, no one is against the exception. Everyone... and I mean everyone who plays 5e as the rules state, is okay with the halfling having the same strength as the half-orc. Everyone is okay with the dwarf as having the same intelligence as the elf. Everyone is okay with having the dragonborne having the same dex as the halfling.
The only thing they want, again, to make a difference in race (to turn a knob), is that it takes the halfling, dwarf or dragonborne a bit longer. Four levels to be exact.



But... I want it at level one!



That is all anyone sees in the argument. I get why you want it. To make a character in the image you want them. But here is the outlying facts:

• If you say stats aren't that important, then it shouldn't matter if it takes four extra levels
• If you say it's how you envision your character, then stats do matter, and you envision your character with an extra +1 - just like the other races that get an extra +1
• But if you claim that is an individual trait, then all PCs that are your class have the same individual trait - which therefore makes them no longer individuals, but commonplace
• If you say it's just not fair, then you are refusing to look at what the other racial feats offer in regard to your class
• And if you say, no I just want the same as everyone else because I want that +3.... good for you. You are to be commended. And guess what.... wish granted, as that is now the lay of the land.

I will be truthful. I do not care. One bit. I do not think it matters. The D&D realm is so fantastical and diverse, it does not matter. But, I find it insulting to the people who do care, when someone argues on the openness, yet clearly can't demonstrate or disprove the logic and math laid before them. It is insulting to that player's or DM's feel of the game. It is dismissive and has a wreak of arrogance.

 

[Lyxen]

Every ruleset is deeply flawed. Has crazy imbalance.

For me, it's not the case with 4e, it's fairly well balanced. It comes at the expense of other parts of a TTRPG that are more important to me in the game than balance, but if you are looking for balance, it's probably one of the most balanced ever (And some over games like Elric were even more widely unbalanced).

 

[Lyxen]

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.

Never said that. All that I've said is that DMs will adjust encounters to suit the difficulty of fights for a party. Basically, this is why you get all these posts here of DMs who complain that the encounter difficulty calculator is flawed and does not give good results, without taking into account the fact that all the characters have "rolled' stats, magic items beyond the pale and are using every single option in the game.

If your characters are "vanilla", it works as well as it can, seeing that the circumstances and synergies and luck are impossible to factor in.

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.

I'm saying that whatever the target for the difficulty of an encounter is, a good DM will take into account the actual characters that it applies to. So it does not matter how powerful you actually are, it's completely an illusion, as the DM can adjust whatever he wants to make an encounter easy, hard, or impossible.

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

And this has been pointed out to you so many times by everyone around here that at this stage, it's just you refusing to listen. You can create perfectly efficient and good characters with the basic races. If you insist on having a +3 instead of a +2 in your stat, it's not for any story reason, it's not for anything else than to be more powerful. Hence, powergaming.

 

[Minigiant]

I don'tthink having a 16 is powergaming because it is no a common assumption in 5e due to how WOTC taught PC creation and howplayers don't use the encounter and CR guides because they are wonky and don't match how many groups prefer play.

This is moreaclass isue but it does lean into the nostalgia elements of 5e that runs races like their are alternate humans. That might make sense for hybrid, half, and touched races.

 

[Scott Christian]

For me, it's not the case with 4e, it's fairly well balanced. It comes at the expense of other parts of a TTRPG that are more important to me in the game than balance, but if you are looking for balance, it's probably one of the most balanced ever (And some over games like Elric were even more widely unbalanced).

That is a fair statement. 4e, especially at lower levels, was a well run machine. A bit too much for my taste, but I still found it fun while we played.

 

[Aldarc]

The only thing they want, again, to make a difference in race (to turn a knob), is that it takes the halfling, dwarf or dragonborne a bit longer. Four levels to be exact.

Why are exactly four levels important for that? Would these same people pleading for this four level difference in race be complaining if ASIs were given out every two levels instead of four? It seems to me as if this whole "four levels to be exact" is a post hoc justification for simply wanting racial stats to be a thing.

 

[Scott Christian]

Perhaps the focus on words is the correct approach. Skimming through the PHB, I see this language used to guide character creation:
Elf: "Your elf character has a variety of natural abilities, the result of thousands of years of elven refinement."
Dwarf: Your dwarf character has an assortment of inborn abilities, part and parcel of dwarven nature."
Halfling: "Your halfling character has a number of traits in common with all other halflings."
Human: "It's hard to make generalizations about humans, but your human character has these traits."
Dragonborn: "Your draconic heritage manifests in a variety of traits you share with other dragonborn."
Gnome: "Your gnome character has certain characteristics in common with all other gnomes."
Half-Orc: "Your half-orc character has certain traits deriving from your orc ancestry."
Tiefling: "Tieflings share certain racial traits as a result of their infernal descent."

Even the sub-races describe their traits similarly. For example, the forest gnome states their "natural knack for illusion" and their "inherent quickness and stealth." The rock gnome discusses the "natural inventiveness" and "hardiness beyond that of other gnomes."

I bring this up because I find it hard to reconstruct the language that has been put forth by the game's designers. These words suggest an inheritance of traits, which leads to them being different than other races. The words also strongly imply that these characteristics are found in all of the people of a chosen race. Not as individuals.

If we want to go the cultural/individual route, I am fine with it. I do think it changes the feel of the game; however, it might lead to an improvement. But, the language needs to be rectified. So I guess my question is how do you phrase it to dictate individuality of a single PC and culture, instead of broad brush strokes? I mean, we are talking painting an individual leaf vs a forest.

Lastly, I apologize @Faolyn . I just reread what I typed late last night, it it sounds kind of rude. I did not mean it to sound that way. But, the question I was asking is sincere, because I played with the math and still don't see a problem outside of just wanting an extra +1 at first level. But, I am keeping myself open to being wrong.

 

[Faolyn]

Never said that. All that I've said is that DMs will adjust encounters to suit the difficulty of fights for a party. Basically, this is why you get all these posts here of DMs who complain that the encounter difficulty calculator is flawed and does not give good results, without taking into account the fact that all the characters have "rolled' stats, magic items beyond the pale and are using every single option in the game.

First off, considering that rolling for stats is still the primary method of character generation according to the PHB, with stat arrays and point buy as options, the game is quite likely set up to take rolled stats into consideration.

I'd wager that people don't pick point buy or stat array because it's "balanced," they do it because it's "fair," in the sense that you get everyone at the table with roughly the same stats and nobody has incredible luck and manages to roll two 18s, or terrible luck and roll nothing above an 11.

Secondly, as someone who has created or converted several hundred monsters into 5e at this point, the encounter difficult calculator is flawed because CR calculation itself is flawed. It only takes things that directly affect hp, AC, attack modifiers, and damage into account. Many conditions are outright ignored by the calculation. For instance, the only time anything related to being poisoned is taken into consideration is with a ghast's stench, even though poison can cause some serious side effects. Affects that reduce hp or stat maximums aren't calculated, which is why shadows and even the insta-kill intellect devourers are so horribly under-CR'd. The ability to charm, paralyze, stun, incapacitate, or cause unconsciousness in a target aren't calculated. Even petrifaction, which is basically insta-kill, doesn't affect outright affect CR according to the table on pages 280-281. The CR calculations also don't take monster weaknesses beyond damage vulnerability into account. There aren't many weaknesses in this edition, but they are out there (a yeti's fear of fire, a cyclop's poor depth perception). And, of course, there's that pesky action economy, which means that a party of 4-6 PCs will quickly destroy any enemy that has less than that number of actions.

Additionally, many of the creatures in the MM are actually calculated wrong. Attack modifiers that don't match either Strength or Dex, damage that doesn't include the stat modifier, even just wrong CR calculations.
This is especially true with the beasts, but it crops up with other creatures as well. I've gone through the calculation process a few times with a couple of monsters and came up with CRs that were a point or two off either way. It's possible that I've done my calculations incorrectly, but considering how many people say that the math is wrong, it's really premature of you to say it's because every one of their DMs allowed rolled stats (especially considering how many people don't use rolled stats these days).

And this has been pointed out to you so many times by everyone around here that at this stage, it's just you refusing to listen. You can create perfectly efficient and good characters with the basic races. If you insist on having a +3 instead of a +2 in your stat, it's not for any story reason, it's not for anything else than to be more powerful. Hence, powergaming.

And again, here's where you refuse to believe that anyone could ever possibly want to put that +2 in a stat other than their class's prime stat. I'm going to guess this is exactly what you would do, if you could, and therefore can't fathom that anyone else thinks differently.

Stat array is 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8. We'll use that for simplicity.

1. Now, would you consider it "powergaming" if someone wanted to play a Strength-based fighter and put the 15 in Strength? If so, why? If not, why not?

(Mind you, the PH suggests the correct order is race, class, then stats, which means that it wants you to assign the stats based on what you want to play. The example character also indicates putting your highest stats in what your class needs.)

2. With that Strength 15, would you consider it "powergaming" if someone wanted to play an orc fighter with fixed racial ASI, and therefore started with Strength 17? If so, why? If not, why not?

3. With that Strength 15, would you consider if "powergaming" if someone wanted to play a smart orc figher, had Int 14, and put a floating +2 into Int for a total of 16? If so, why? If not, why not?

4. With that Strength 15, would you consider it "powergaming" if someone want to play a human fighter with floating ASI, anf therefore started with Strength 17? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[Scott Christian]

Why are exactly four levels important for that? Would these same people pleading for this four level difference in race be complaining if ASIs were given out every two levels instead of four? It seems to me as if this whole "four levels to be exact" is a post hoc justification for simply wanting racial stats to be a thing.

I can only answer from my experiences, and my experiences tell me that there are is a large group of players that like the differentiation in the beginning of the game because for them, it creates a feeling of differentness at the table. If I had to speculate why, here are a few reasons I can come up with:

1. Most campaigns do not pass eighth level according to the stats. This makes the races feel even more different since few level to be equal in stats.
2. The campaigns that do pass 12th level (where the difference can be made up) are generally on a power scale to make the +1 not matter - at all. I mean doing 10d6 damage has way more swing in the numbers than an extra +1 to hit. Top this off with magic items and you have the - "who cares at this point because the difference in feel is negligible.
3. Levels are essential to D&D. They are the frames for which everything else revolves. To make them important, is to accentuate what D&D is - a heroic level based RPG.

Would the same people plead differently if the level scheme was different? I do not know. I have proposed that one way to solve the quibbling is to base the ability score improvement (the +2 every four levels) to match the campaign style. In the DM's Guide you could have your "Sword and Sorcery" campaign only gain the ability score improvement every six levels, while your "Epic Fantasy" gets it every level, and the "Dark Fantasy" only gets feats every third level. Or something like that. That would at least help the DM set the ability path (and in a sense their vision of races in their world) on a path they see that suits their table or interests.