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

[Minigiant]

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.

I think one of the bigger issues with 5e is that they ditched early the design goal of having many variant rules for 5e to adjust to different genres.

So there barely official rules to make elves more elfy, adventures more mythic, adventure day shorters, or charactermore unique among their race and class.

The setting books add something but they don't go that far.

 

[Lyxen]

I think one of the bigger issues with 5e is that they ditched early the design goal of having many variant rules for 5e to adjust to different genres.
So there barely official rules to make elves more elfy, adventures more mythic, adventure day shorters, or charactermore unique among their race and class.
The setting books add something but they don't go that far.

And as far as I know, there were barely used in every single edition of the game that I played (which is practically all of them). The fact is that the basic D&D system in particular of AC/HP does not lend itself well to many genres, in particular more realistic games (and for me it does not work well with Ravenloft, I have trouble reconciliating heroes with horror). But aside from that, I agree that in 5e, apart from the MtG settings that I only plunder for ideas since I am not really interested, there have not been settings as strong as for example Planescape or Darksun. And I am not sure that we will see something that strong soon as I think it would be very complicated to make a new setting that is both with a lot of character and not presenting some concepts that will annoy/offend some of the people out there.

 

[Faolyn]

Do you see how your quote leaves out the layers of the argument? I am sincere. Do you see it? T

Crimson's very tired argument is: why don't you want to D&D to have the same sort of character generation that GURPS does where you can pick whatever traits you want?

And the answer is, because I'm not playing GURPS. Maybe one day D&D will turn into a choose-your-own-trait system, but that day is not 5e, and likely won't be 6e either.

But ASIs are already very random and are mostly based on what the designers felt were the important race/class combos (they said so in the DMG). There is minimal correlation between biological sense and ASIs, which is why the average 8-foot-tall (and almost as broad) anthropomorphic elephant is exactly as strong as the average 2 1/2-foot-tall kobold.

And because ASIs are so random, there's no reason to not let people move them around.

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.

Wow, you're telepathic and have read the mind of every gamer out there!? Amazing! And you're wasting this great gift on telling people they're playing wrong. What a shame.

(So here I'll apologize for this bit of rudeness as well.)

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.

You might want to talk to Scribe about that, along with everyone else who wants to bring back racial penalties.

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.

And why are those four levels so important? Or rather, why is it so important to punish some players for daring to choose the "wrong" race for the class by not letting them have the same stats as the "right" race?

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

Let's put it another way: Imagine you are playing a dwarf wizard (we'll say hill dwarf, so you don't think he's a wizard just for the armor). You've just hit 5th level. Huzzah, fireball time! Burning spheres of flaming death await! But wait--the rules say that because you're a dwarf, you can't take fireball until 8th level, when you can buy the "dwarf fireball" feat. Hey, if damage isn't that important, than it shouldn't matter if it takes two extra levels or that you have to buy a very specific feat to get it*, when your friend the elf sorcerer can get fireball, feat-free, at 5th level.

Would you consider this fair?

(*This is the equivalent of having to spend all your ASIs to up your stat, instead of being able to choose to buy a feat like someone because you don't have to up your stat since you get the bonus for free at chargen.)

• 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

If stats don't matter to you (but racial ASIs do), then all of your characters should have a flat 10 in all of their stats, adjusted for race, right? You're cool with that?

I'm guessing not so much.

• 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

Which is different than all PCs of your race having the same individual trait how?

Also, I have to say, how many parties are you in where you have multiple people in the same class who are so similar that you need their stats to differentiate them?

There's two warlocks in my Ravenloft game, but they're so wildly different people due to their concepts, personalities, backgrounds, playstyles, and spell use (not to mention archetype), that even though they have the same Charisma and started as the same race (half-elf, but one decided to switch to dhampir when VGR came out because that better fit his character), literally the only place that Charisma score matters is for their spell attack mods and save DCs.

• 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

I don't recall seeing a lot of racial feats for non-PHB or 3pp races. Can you point out where they are?

• 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.

Yep. You can put the +2 where you want, which is in the traditional racial spot, and I can put it where I want, which may or may not be the traditional racial spot.

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.

I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Scribe, when he said he didn't care--if you don't care, then why did you even bother to write in this thread? You could have spent this time doing something that you actually cared about.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And the answer is, because I'm not playing GURPS. Maybe one day D&D will turn into a choose-your-own-trait system, but that day is not 5e, and likely won't be 6e either.

Right. But certainly you must recognise that floating ASIs is a step in that direction. So I don't quite understand why you arbitrarily draw the line between ASIs and traits, especially as you have yourself shown that traits favour certain class/race combinations too, which was the amin complaint about ASIs.

But ASIs are already very random and are mostly based on what the designers felt were the important race/class combos (they said so in the DMG). There is minimal correlation between biological sense and ASIs, which is why the average 8-foot-tall (and almost as broad) anthropomorphic elephant is exactly as strong as the average 2 1/2-foot-tall kobold.

You know what. This is a perfectly valid take. It is complete bonkers that loxodon don't have strength bonus, and there is similar weirdness with some of the other races too. However, this to me is not an issue with the basic concept of ASIs, but with their implementation. But it certainly can be argued that if WotC is not gonna do it right it is just better give up and thrash the whole mechanic.

 

[Aldarc]

You know what. This is a perfectly valid take. It is complete bonkers that loxodon don't have strength bonus, and there is similar weirdness with some of the other races too. However, this to me is not an issue with the basic concept of ASIs, but with their implementation. But it certainly can be argued that if WotC is not gonna do it right it is just better give up and thrash the whole mechanic.

Again, I think that there are more interesting, distinctive, and meaningful ways to make a Dwarf a Dwarf and separate from other bioforms/lineages/ancestries/races than simply saying Dwarves get a +2 Constitution score. I'd like to see more interesting design rather than (somewhat) shallow design.

 

[Faolyn]

Right. But certainly you must recognise that floating ASIs is a step in that direction. So I don't quite understand why you arbitrarily draw the line between ASIs and traits, especially as you have yourself shown that traits favour certain class/race combinations too, which was the amin complaint about ASIs.

First, slipperly slope argument. So, no. Deal with the way it is now.

Secondly, at this point, the argument you brought up was specifically (half)orc barb vs. halfling barb. Most other races don't have have quite as strong trends to certain classes as the orc does.

Third, I already explained the difference between ASIs and racial traits.

You know what. This is a perfectly valid take. It is complete bonkers that loxodon don't have strength bonus, and there is similar weirdness with some of the other races too. However, this to me is not an issue with the basic concept of ASIs, but with their implementation. But it certainly can be argued that if WotC is not gonna do it right it is just better give up and thrash the whole mechanic.

If the basic concept is poorly implemented as often or more often than not by the designers, then the basic concept is itself flawed.

Fixed ASI would make sense, as I said earlier, if there were only six nonhuman species and each one had a different +2. Then each race could actually be differentiated from each other by stat. You may even make a case for it making sense if there were as many as twelve nonhuman races, with two for each stat, and each of those two have very different traits. But once you get more than that--and there are something like 100 or so races and subraces right now, it simply stops being as all useful.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, I think that there are more interesting, distinctive, meaningful ways to make a Dwarf a Dwarf and separate from other bioforms/lineages/ancestries/races than simply saying Dwarves get a +2 Constitution score. I'd like to see more interesting design rather than (somewhat) shallow design.

Sure, but we could have both. This is not either or situation. It makes more sense to represent some things with traits, and some others with ASIs.

Ultimately I'd like ability scores to actually mean something, so it bugs me if things that are supposed to be agile don't have any better dex scores than those who aren't, bigger and supposedly stronger things don't have better strength scores etc. It just makes the numbers lose their connection to the fiction and as result makes me lose the interest.

 

[Scott Christian]

But ASIs are already very random and are mostly based on what the designers felt were the important race/class combos (they said so in the DMG). There is minimal correlation between biological sense and ASIs, which is why the average 8-foot-tall (and almost as broad) anthropomorphic elephant is exactly as strong as the average 2 1/2-foot-tall kobold.

And because ASIs are so random, there's no reason to not let people move them around.

I don't agree with your premise. I believe most of the ASIs they placed were supposed to match biology. The one example you used is an exception. Dwarves being hardy, elves being dexterous, gnomes being smart, half-orcs being strong, halflings being nimble, dragonborns being strong, half-elves being charismatic, tabaxi being agile, etc. Almost all the races match their natural inclinations. The fact that you pull one example, means little when the majority of examples do relate to biology. (Which, if you saw my other post about language, I was trying to figure out how to correct since they want it to change.) So, ASIs are not random. They were carefully calculated and constructed to create stereotypes, this way players could play something called "against type." Something they mention in the first few pages of the PHB.

Wow, you're telepathic and have read the mind of every gamer out there!? Amazing! And you're wasting this great gift on telling people they're playing wrong. What a shame.

And I have asked for a demonstration of a PC that can't be made using standard array or point buy that doesn't require the mythical 16 or 17. I have yet to see one. I think the reason is, every combination can be made - except for the 16 or 17 at level one. If you have an example, will you please share?

And why are those four levels so important? Or rather, why is it so important to punish some players for daring to choose the "wrong" race for the class by not letting them have the same stats as the "right" race?

They are important to some players because it adds to the feel of the game. And what you call "punish" many players see as more fun. Many players feel it helps them hone in on other things or utilize the concept the PHB's writers used - "against type." The designers language and terminology created this. To remove it, might remove someone's feel of their table and game.

So, if the argument shifted to: "I want a 16 or 17 at first level, regardless of race; even if that ruins the feel of the game for some." I would gladly accept the way that person wants to play. But, it is never that. It is always: "You don't understand. This will open characterization. It will allow more options. It will make all tables better because we are giving the players choice. Stop punishing players." That is what I don't like. It is an argument that seems disingenuous.

Let's put it another way: Imagine you are playing a dwarf wizard (we'll say hill dwarf, so you don't think he's a wizard just for the armor). You've just hit 5th level. Huzzah, fireball time! Burning spheres of flaming death await! But wait--the rules say that because you're a dwarf, you can't take fireball until 8th level, when you can buy the "dwarf fireball" feat. Hey, if damage isn't that important, than it shouldn't matter if it takes two extra levels or that you have to buy a very specific feat to get it*, when your friend the elf sorcerer can get fireball, feat-free, at 5th level.

Would you consider this fair?

(*This is the equivalent of having to spend all your ASIs to up your stat, instead of being able to choose to buy a feat like someone because you don't have to up your stat since you get the bonus for free at chargen.)

This is no where near equivalent. Why not just use the actual reality, if point buy and ASIs existed, and then compare them to if they didn't? Here is the equivalent:
The hill dwarf wizard starts with a +2 in intelligence. As opposed to say, an high elf that can start with a +3. One has advantage against poison, the other sleep. Both have darkvision. One is hardier (+2) and wiser (+1), the other more dexterous (+2). One has tool proficiency and stonecunning, the other keen senses, trance, an extra language and an extra cantrip. One has a bonus to their hit points, the other has nothing equivalent. So let's compare and contrast:

• You could pose the argument that the +1 is more beneficial than everything else. So nothing else matters. That would definitely be a reason to have floating ASIs, even at the detriment of making races similar, and not just humans with funny hats.
• You could pose that the extra +1 the elf gets is offset by the +2 to con the dwarf gets. Because that +2 combined with adding an extra hit point at every level would equal out the two races. By level 12, the dwarf will have, on average, 24 extra hit points than the elf. That seems pretty substantial.

In the end, it is not equivalent. The elf has it better at level 1. By level 12, they have it a little better (maybe). And the high elf is one of the best choices for a wizard. This leads to "against type." But it does not lead to the dwarf being ineffective or terrible. By any means, they can still be a good wizard, and at level 12, equivalent.

If stats don't matter to you (but racial ASIs do), then all of your characters should have a flat 10 in all of their stats, adjusted for race, right? You're cool with that?

I'm guessing not so much.

I have never said stats don't matter. I think they play a vital role defining a character. I think they play a defining role in defining a monster or race. I think they play a defining role in the mechanical feel of the game. This is why I choose to explain to you why an ASI might matter to certain DMs and players. Because they do matter.

Which is different than all PCs of your race having the same individual trait how?

Because the race can help define them, as opposed to only the class defining them. It adds a layer. It turns a knob. That's it.

Also, I have to say, how many parties are you in where you have multiple people in the same class who are so similar that you need their stats to differentiate them?

There's two warlocks in my Ravenloft game, but they're so wildly different people due to their concepts, personalities, backgrounds, playstyles, and spell use (not to mention archetype), that even though they have the same Charisma and started as the same race (half-elf, but one decided to switch to dhampir when VGR came out because that better fit his character), literally the only place that Charisma score matters is for their spell attack mods and save DCs.

Zero. And I never said it was needed to define them as a class. Their class does this. The stats define them as a person. There is a difference.

I don't recall seeing a lot of racial feats for non-PHB or 3pp races. Can you point out where they are?

Sorry, do you mean like the ones in the Eberron book? Things like Long Limbed, Powerful Build, Sneaky, Fury of the Small? Sorry, I don't understand the question.

Yep. You can put the +2 where you want, which is in the traditional racial spot, and I can put it where I want, which may or may not be the traditional racial spot.

My point exactly. If someone just said - "give me the +3. I understand that it might adversely affect other tables, but I am okay with it." I would applaud them. And even agree. Personally, I really wish they would just come out with official campaign guides, where the rules adhere differently to styles of campaign. You playing Ravenloft is a great example. There are some rules that would adhere better to the gothic horror feel, than to an epic hero feel.

I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Scribe, when he said he didn't care--if you don't care, then why did you even bother to write in this thread? You could have spent this time doing something that you actually cared about.

One, I post in this thread because I enjoy the debate over mechanics and game creation. It's a cool topic. I also post in the thread when I feel someone is arguing disingenuously. Both, are to further my education of the hobby.

 

[Scott Christian]

Again, I think that there are more interesting, distinctive, and meaningful ways to make a Dwarf a Dwarf and separate from other bioforms/lineages/ancestries/races than simply saying Dwarves get a +2 Constitution score. I'd like to see more interesting design rather than (somewhat) shallow design.

I share in this view. But have yet to see anyone be able to do it without having the racial feats lean heavily toward one class or another. And since we are slowly removing biological components, the task is doubly hard. I tried with the halfling in a previous post. But again, this negates the layer of an argument. It is not one or the other, but a combination of things that make the race - the race. ASIs is one way. Skills and advantages are another. Racial feats are another. Language and descriptions of the culture is another. Add it all together and it's pretty convincing. Remove one, and it becomes less convincing.

 

[Scribe]

Again, I think that there are more interesting, distinctive, and meaningful ways to make a Dwarf a Dwarf and separate from other bioforms/lineages/ancestries/races than simply saying Dwarves get a +2 Constitution score. I'd like to see more interesting design rather than (somewhat) shallow design.

And you dont need to 'simply saying Dwarves get a +2 Constitution'.

Do all the various interesting things, add in Paragon racial abilities or feats (3.5 OGL, or Level up), have better special rules.

And you can still have ASI fixed.

The false narrative that this is a binary needs to go away.