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

[Scribe]

It's much more fun for players to choose what they want.

To you, sure. Enjoy, have fun.

Not me.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

How many characters have you seen?

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.

According to everyone I've ever played with in the last 30 years, rolling is more fun because of the randomness, not because of the high stats. Even my bff who prefers GURPS--a game all about assigning your points, where everyone gets the same number of points--says he likes the randomness. Even the people I've gamed with who have rerolled stats that were too high have said this. So, was everyone I've ever played with lying?

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.

DING DING DING! No amount of "balance" can ever take these things into consideration. Which means that it's totally useless to try to put the blame on rolled vs. assigned stats.

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.

Do they? Source please.

No, that is perfectly natural.



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.

So playing a stereotype is not powergaming. Gotcha.

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.

I asked if it were powergaming for an orc to put the +2 in Int. Please answer that.

There is ZERO need for putting the ASI in there.

I didn't ask if there was a need for it. I asked if it were powergaming. Please answer that.

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.

I didn't ask if it were "measly." I also didn't say it had anything to do with the role and story. I asked if it were powergaming. Please answer that.

Judging by how you've dodged the question three times in a row, I have no choice but to assume that it's not powergaming. You just don't want to admit that so you fall back on "you don't need it." (Fun fact! Neither of us need to play D&D. We want to play D&D. Everything that comes after comes from our wants, not our needs.)

So I'm going to ask another question that I'm sure you will dodge: if I have a good story reason for it, is it powergaming for a halfling fighter (their role) to put +2 into Strength?

(At this point, though, I'm pretty sure that you'll never accept any story reason as good enough for you, because your actual answer is "if it fits what I consider the acceptable stereotype, then it's OK.")

 

[Faolyn]

To you, sure. Enjoy, have fun.

Not me.

Confused: Are you saying it's not fun for you as a player to choose what you want, and you want to be forced into a particular method of doing so? If so, why? I've known a few people like that, but mostly they didn't want to put in the effort needed to actually make the character and play the game.

Or are you saying it's not fun for you as a DM to let the players have choices and have fun? If so, wow. And not a good wow, either.

 

[Scribe]

Are you saying it's not fun for you as a player to choose what you want, and you want to be forced into a particular method of doing so? If so, why? I've known a few people like that, but mostly they didn't want to put in the effort needed to actually make the character and play the game

It is more fun to me, to have a system which I perceive to be logical, which I must work within the restrictions presented by that system.

For me a lack of system/restriction results in a few different scenarios. Emphasis: For me

1. What does the class function on? Put your stats there.

2. Which race special rules are optimal for my class? Pick that class.

3. Does my game system have considerations based on secondary or tertiary stats (Feats, Multiclass)? If so, account for that.

Removal of fixed ASI does not free me.

It simply removes a layer of consideration, and makes for a shorter sequence of questions.

Now, this doesn't say anything about RP considerations, I'm talking only crunch, and how I personally interact with that component of the game.

Ultimately, there is a reason Variant Human is so popular. ASI flexibility and a Feat?

Hard to beat.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not only that, but with no limits to max main stat and the focus of the game in optimal combat choices, you are really incentivized to get your primary stat as high as possible, and that limited your character choices a lot.

Not just combat, but skills.

One of the places I think they dropped the ball was the flat training bonus instead of granular building.

But if you're going to do that, the player needs another lever to improve their skill checks, and like 5e, that level is the ability score (or play a rogue or bard in 5e, the only character who get to be half-way competent with skills that aren't just plain rooted in their class or race)

 

[Bolares]

One of the places I think they dropped the ball was the flat training bonus instead of granular building.

Actually, they kind of did granular building with 1/2 level bonus to everything.... kind of.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Actually, they kind of did granular building with 1/2 level bonus to everything.... kind of.

That's just progression. You're not deciding your character is going to be good at Bluff but only decent in Diplomacy for example.

One of the things I liked in 3e was taking 1 rank in a lot of skills to represent the kind of eccentric weirdo I am who knows a little about a lot.

 

[Faolyn]

It is more fun to me, to have a system which I perceive to be logical, which I must work within the restrictions presented by that system.

For me a lack of system/restriction results in a few different scenarios. Emphasis: For me

1. What does the class function on? Put your stats there.

2. Which race special rules are optimal for my class? Pick that class.

3. Does my game system have considerations based on secondary or tertiary stats (Feats, Multiclass)? If so, account for that.

You (and others) have said that by allowing ASIs, you'd make everyone more the same. But here you're showing that your characters are going to be more the same. Min/max based on race/class, with the same non-class stats being the dump stats.

Removal of fixed ASI does not free me.

It simply removes a layer of consideration, and makes for a shorter sequence of questions.

Yes it would: The questions would be "what race do I want to play?" and "what class do I want to play?"

Then let's say you answer "I want to play an gnome feylock, so I will put the +2 in Charisma."

I am literally not understanding how choosing to play what you want because you want to play that race/class is bad or unfun, while than having to calculate each race's "special traits" and taking ASIs and feats into consideration is fun.

Now, this doesn't say anything about RP considerations, I'm talking only crunch, and how I personally interact with that component of the game.

Ultimately, there is a reason Variant Human is so popular. ASI flexibility and a Feat?

Probably. I don't know. Nobody at my table has played one. Heck, I don't even think anyone at my table has ever played any sort of human. Even in my Ravenloft only-humans (plus half-elves and caliban because they're mostly human), there were no humans.

 

[Faolyn]

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."

So, you're saying "our goal is for this race to be good at these classes" doesn't mean that the race was designed to be good at those classes.

So basically, there's no point in talking to you, because you choose to interpret statements by ignoring what they say in favor of your own beliefs.

And it's not the hypothesis of race creation (in either the scientific or philosophical usage of the term). It is a literal explanation of how to do it and the mentality that goes into it.

 

[Scribe]

You (and others) have said that by allowing ASIs, you'd make everyone more the same. But here you're showing that your characters are going to be more the same. Min/max based on race/class, with the same non-class stats being the dump stats.

Yes, with Floating ASI, everything is more of the same. This is reinforced by you later.

Without a layer for ASI consideration, you have "What race benefits my class most based on the 1 or 2 special rules a race gets."

Characters will be, objectively, more the same, because you can always optimize your ASI.

Yes it would: The questions would be "what race do I want to play?" and "what class do I want to play?"

Right. Its now 2 questions, instead of 3. There is no consideration, because you can always put your ASI wherever you want. That is 1 less thing to consider.

Then let's say you answer "I want to play an gnome feylock, so I will put the +2 in Charisma."

Exactly. Floating removes any tension, any counter balance, and simply you put your stats wherever you want.

Orc Lock?
Gnome Lock?
Elf Lock?
Tiefling Lock?

+2 Cha.

Same, same, same, same.

I am literally not understanding how choosing to play what you want because you want to play that race/class is bad or unfun, while than having to calculate each race's "special traits" and taking ASIs and feats into consideration is fun.

I'm not saying anything is bad, but its certainly less fun (TO ME) because...

while than having to calculate each race's "special traits" and taking ASIs and feats into consideration is fun.

Yes, this is fun. You have entire websites dedicated to optimization, builds, analysis, and design.

Some of us, consider this part of the fun. There are many ways to engage with the game, and one of those ways, is lessened, by this change.

That is all there is to it. I'm not saying you must engage with the game in that way. I'm not saying you have to care about that way, or appreciate it.

It does exist though, and for those of us who enjoy it, its lessened now.