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

[d24454_modern]

I'm not saying that it is a binary, but maybe the Attribute bonuses are holding back more interesting design features while also having a range of other negatives.

We could always just make it a narrative based gameplay.

That way, no one would ever have to worry about a character being “weak” which seems to be the main issue here.

 

[Azzy]

So would no fixed racial traits at all.

Yeah, I don't buy that at all. Most racial traits don't push a particular class combination.

But that doesn't necessarily mean either is good for the continued lines of distinction between racial options.

I don't find that fixed ASIs are good for creating meaningful distictions between races. There are far more flavorful methods of creating such a distinction.

And it wouldn't help at all if the desired result still lies outside the bounds of the stat generation method you're using (e.g. a clumsy character when using stat array).

The Standard Array method is inherently limiting beyond just that, but even then, putting an 8 in Dex works well enough at providing a sense of clumsiness.

But, really,the point is kind of moot as fixed ASIs are going the way of the dodo.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

If you wish to dismiss it, that is fine, but that 'logical world building' consideration is central to the entire point.

Orc's are stronger than Elves. The strongest Orc should be stronger than the Strongest Elf, at Level 1, and the Weakest Orc, should be stronger than the weakest Elf, at Level 1.

If you dont care for the concept, great, congratulations, as you already get the system you wish and you can proceed to do whatever you want with ASI.

That does not mean the point doesnt exist, only that you dont care.

Why does your system have to accommodate every single individual on a planet to have the right feel? This is a system with such a swingy D20 resolution system that Jimmy Comatose the peasant (with a 3 Dex) can still out pick-pocket a 1st level 20Dex specialized rogue.

There is no "realism" to chase in 5e...

Also Orcs (as per the MM which represents 99% of the world's population of orcs) all have a STR of 16 so if you want to play into the right feel you should REQUIRE a PC to have STR their highest stat regardless of class.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Yeah, I don't buy that at all. Most racial traits don't push a particular class combination.

But enough are that being able to take whatever you want would broaden your options. It would do so even without taking class synergy into effect.

I don't find that fixed ASIs are good for creating meaningful distictions between races. There are far more flavorful methods of creating such a distinction.

I wouldn't find them to be good for doing so either on their own. But they can certainly help when trying to find ways to do so with low risk of power creep. It shouldn't just be one method anyway,

The Standard Array method is inherently limiting beyond just that, but even then, putting an 8 in Dex works well enough at providing a sense of clumsiness.

If 8 in Dex works well enough for a character to be clumsy, then a 12 works well enough to be agile, and you don't need to be able to put that +2 somewhere else.

But, really,the point is kind of moot as fixed ASIs are going the way of the dodo.

Ah, I didn't realize all discussion on game mechanics were finished and done with when the ink hits paper. Man, that would cut down on so many discussions on this board.

 

[Ixal]

So what? Is it not "logical" to have the possibility of an Orc/Half-Orc that has a once-in-a-million genetic disorder that causes them to be weaker than the average human, or as weak as the weakest human (8 with point buy/standard array, 3 with rolling)? How is that illogical or impossible? Again, the PCs are the exception. As I showed in the character I linked, having an orc/half-orc character that is weaker than even the average human can tell a compelling story, more compelling than "oh, I guess once you move to a human settlement, you're the same as the average human, and from their viewpoint you're completely average". That harms the story of "castoff from their society because they're so weak that they are still disadvantaged in a Human society" that the linked character tells.

Sure. Maybe most weak orcs are stronger than most weak humans. However, players aren't playing "most orcs" or even "most weak orcs", they're playing the exceptional individual that has the potential to gain demigod-level power. I see no reason why the Orcish version of Raistlin has to be more healthy than Raistlin. PCs are exceptional, even if that means in some cases they're exceptionally weak in comparison to the average human.

Its also possible that there is a once-in-a-million human with a genetic disorder with Str <8.
As I said, that 8+ASI is the ability floor is a feature of the standard array and has nothing to do with ASI.

No, but no fixed ASIs obviously help.

No, it doesn't. When you want very weak characters you need to roll stats and hope for a very low roll or change point buy to start with 3 instead of 8. ASI hat nothing to do with 8 being the minimum score.

 

[Lyxen]

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.

Noticed that I used quotation marks around "rolled" ? This is because every single time someone shows up a character that he rolled the stats for, it has humongous stats (and it's usually with a "I was very lucky"). Once more, show me a character with rolled stats below average that has actually seen play. Because, you know, for every character that I've seen which was way above average, I should have seen one with below average stats, that's why it's called "average". But curiously, the ratio is more like 100 to 0.

Which shows that people who are interested in power will choose rolling, and will roll until they get something way above average. In which case, I agree that the floating ASIs become a minor point, although it's not the case, because with the even/odd bonuses, it might actually come in very handy to rack these few extra bonus points. So yes, very powergamy, all of it.

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.

The last point is sort of accounted for in the numbers of monsters in an encounter though. And about the above, the problem is not with the encounter calculator, my proposition is that you can never create one that takes into account all the circumstances of the fight, the synergies, and the luck. 4e was better because it was formal and restricted you to calibrated actions, but in 5e, it's silly to try. And that is a completely different subject.

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).

WotC have their own CR calculator which is supposed to be more robust. After that, they tell you to exercise your judgement. Please do so.

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?

No, that is perfectly natural.

(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?

Because he wants to play an orc, and actually an orc fighter. Orcs are usually stronger, it makes sense for them to be good fighters. And I will expect him to play an his character properly, in this case an orc.

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?

If he wants to play a smart orc, then he can put his 14 into Int, or even his 15, you know. And that is already a very smart orc, compared to the species Int of 7. Noone but the DM and him will ever see the stat. Why bother anymore, he can play a smart orc all he wants.

There is ZERO need for putting the ASI in there.

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?

Humans are versatile, they are well known for it, so no problem. Because the choices are made for role and story reasons and not to get a measly +1 that will not matter.

 

[Lyxen]

You haven't actually read the DMG, have you? Because the "how to make a race" section of chapter 9 (page 286) specifically says "Since we want aasimar to be effective paladins and clerics, it makes sense to improve their Wisdom and Charisma instead of Intelligence and Charisma."

And you have not read the section either, because it is THE HYPOTHESIS OF THE RACE CREATION, same page: "Here are our basic goals for the aasimar: Aasimar should make effective clerics and paladins."

This is a cultural / racial thing and therefore cool because these are divine beings, not a real earth ethnicity.

Now, does it say that you HAVE to put the 15 or the 14 of your standard array into those stats ? No it does not, because their race would make them inherently effective, so you can, as usual play whatever you want, you will be slightly more effective if you choose a class that corresponds to the usual trend of the species, that's all.

But yes, as a species, the orcs produce fighters, not bards or wizards. You can create one, and it will take you slightly longer to be as powerful as elf or half-elf, you will struggle along the way and it's cool because it's part of your character story. Insisting to jump that for reasons of pure power is, you have guessed it, powergaming.

I agree it's not a strong case (of powergaming, I have seen much worse), but you have consistently failed to produce any other reason for floating ASIs than "I want a bigger bonus".

 

[Helldritch]

An excellent game that didn't actually make the change people are arguing about here, but rather introduced the zero negative ASI model that 5e uses?

Yep, but some of the changes it brought up were not so well received. Don't you agree?

 

[Lyxen]

An excellent game that didn't actually make the change people are arguing about here, but rather introduced the zero negative ASI model that 5e uses?

Yes, it did, but that is if you are assuming that it's a good thing. I would rather have more differentiated stats (and abilities), although obviously it's not the trend these days, but for what I think is entirely a wrong reason in a fantasy game. Case in point, other fantasy games like Runequest have certainly not modified the much greater difference between species stats generation.

That being said, 4e indeed introduced a lot of very interesting concepts, as well as really cool background (Feywild / Shadowfell / Raven Queen / Points of Light. etc.), it's just that the style of game it was mostly designed for is not my favourite style of play. Buf if you like to play it what way, it is indeed well balanced amongst other qualities.

 

[Aldarc]

Yep, but some of the changes it brought up were not so well received. Don't you agree?

And some were well-received. It's your job to make the argument that the particular change was not well-received rather than trying to throw shade at the change via guilt by association with the negative changes.