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

[Scott Christian]

We can make more knobs. This time, ones that are actually interesting and flavorful.

I am all for it. I have asked to see samples that people can come up with in various posts. Almost all wind up favoring one class or another. Which, in my opinion, just leads us back to where we started.

 

[Scott Christian]

Races...
Attributes...
Skills...

One could argue for decades about the definitions. @Faolyn argued about what charisma is. His definition is correct - straight from the PHB. But in my opinion, it leaves out the implied definitions of all the words he said. Strength is another with, at present, three different views.

We all know and understand that strength can be measured by lifting, pulling, and dragging. It can also be measured by speed. It can also be measured by time. I mean, I doubt any of us would consider this skinny person weak:

Sunglasses
I believe she just set some weird world record for over 800 handstand pushups - at one time.

What is an elf? What is a dwarf? What is strength? What is charisma? What is athletics? What is to hit? The argument becomes impossible if these semantics are nitpicked. When someone says strength in D&D, there is an implied understanding that it means they are strong. Overall strong. They might look sinewy like Dennis Rodman, or muscular like Arnold, or thick like Eddy Hall, or tough like Rhonda Rousey, or buff like Serena Williams. But, we understand they are all strong.

It is a case of don't look behind the curtain. Vagueness is your friend in any RPG.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No, I just haven't answered it in a way that will let you go "aha! See, she's just a big dummy who's picking on ASI!"

As I have written multiple times, ASIs are assigned mostly either to support certain class builds or for reasons that are supposed to be biological but don't stand up when compared to other races or even to their own lore or physical descriptions. Therefore, ASIs are random enough that they might as well be assigned.

Secondly, while changing traits is enough to make a race into something else (halflings have never had breath weapons, there's nothing in their writeups that ever suggests that one might have a breath weapon or that they are in any way related to dragons or other fire-breathing monsters), changing an ASI won't affect the race in the same way. Halfings are Nimble and Lucky, and will continue to be so even if they have +2 Charisma. Those traits do a better job of showing what a halfling is like even if they had no ASI at all, because lots of races have +2 Dex, but none of them have Nimble and Lucky.

If you can't find that coherent, that's a problem with your comprehension, not my argument.


Already explained. Please learn to read.

Also, why should I create six versions of a race when I can have one version with a floating +2?

Mod Note:

“Please learn to read.” and similar phrasing is pretty rude. Instead of jabs like this, err on the side of civility and simply say something like “See post #N” or the like. Or don’t respond at all and disengage. Maybe even use your account’s ignore list if the person you’re disagreeing with is really pushing your buttons.

 

[Minigiant]

Those changes are fine for a table specific house rule and for use with monsters, but it's way too fiddly to work for a published work that is meant to be used by players (in general, I'd say fiddly and quirky exceptions like that work far better for monster design than character design). They also feel like they'd fit in far better in a game closer to 4E on the tactical focus scale than 5E. Which, if that's what you're going for anyway, is great.

Well you can easily make them simplier.

Dwarves
Squat: You have advantage with Strength Saves.

Goliath
Giant's Swing: You have a bonus to damage rolls with melee or thrown weapon attacks madewith two hands equal to their Strength modifier.

A lot of your take on strength is too simulationist for D&D in my opinion. The entire point of the strength score is as a somewhat abstract approximation of "bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force." It's not meant to be disected quite the way you are because ability scores are mostly meant to fade into the background of calculations anyway so that focus can be placed more firmly on other, more immediately relevant features such as class abilities.

It's just lore explanations.

All I'm saying is give races more traits
You can go simple with:

STR
Powerful Build
Damage Dealer
Advantage on Str Saves
DEX
Bonus speed
Advantage on Dex saves
Advantage on Dex skills
Con
Poison resistence
Necrotic resistence
Advantage on Con saves
INT
Bonus languages
Bonus to Int skills

etc

I just want D&D to grow out of "Dwarves are humans with +2 Con +1Str. That's all you need. It's.. like... a big thing" mentality.

A dwarf is 4 feet tall, as heavy or heavier as a human, and stronger than a human. That's going to affect things. I wish D&D would offer such seriousness in races as a offecial variant even if it defaults to simple newbie base design.

Gamist, Narrativist, or Gamist. Doesn't matter. Just don't make dwarves short strong humans and orcs green strong humans.

 

[Scars Unseen]

All I'm saying is give races more traits

I'm all for more traits. 100%. But if your trait is just "ability score bonus, but worse," then it's not better than just having the ability score bonus.

I just want D&D to grow out of "Dwarves are humans with +2 Con +1Str. That's all you need. It's.. like... a big thing" mentality.

This is, I think, mostly a strawman argument. At the very least, most of the people on the fixed ASI side I've seen in this thread have been vocal about wanting ASI and additional traits, not one over the other.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm all for more traits. 100%. But if your trait is just "ability score bonus, but worse," then it's not better than just having the ability score bonus.

I actually want traits that are more that chopped up bits of ability scores.

The issue is that when I suggest ideas, the community balks because it makes the race too different from humans or too complex.

Bcause you have to go on a narrative, simulationist, or gamist route to add new rules. If you won't let me have more than "profiecency in Perception", how can I make the elves' better ears and eyes truly better?

This is, I think, mostly a strawman argument. At the very least, most of the people on the fixed ASI side I've seen in this thread have been vocal about wanting ASI and additional traits, not one over the other.

It's not about ASI or trait, it's about which is more important.

What makes the dwarf feel more dwarfy?

+2 Con +Str
or
Poison Resistance, immunity to poison, bonus proficiency and bonus HP.

It is clear which side is which.

 

[Faolyn]

Wait, your not forced to use the rules?

Stop the presses, literally nothing needs to be commented on ever again. Shut down the forum.

And again, you fail to actually address the point.

I did try. Several characters. "Hmm well since ASI just goes wherever I want, I dont need to worry about that, what race provides the best rules?"

Very simple, very unsatisfying.

Why was it unsatisfying? After all, you claimed that a tiefling paladin was your favorite, which means that you don't care about where the ASI goes; you don't "need" it to be in the best stat. What prompted you to make a tiefling paladin? Was it just the Charisma penalty? If that's the case, why can't you take a race and class you like and put a 12 or 13 in the prime stat instead of 14 or 15 and stick the +2 in something that isn't necessary for it?

If you are against having floating ASIs because it makes everything the same, why were you OK with with the concept of tiefling paladins in the first place? Surely having paladins be available to humans only makes everything less the same, right? I know that I saw that change (any race can be any class) as a welcome one when I made the switch between 2e and 3e. Did you play 2e? If so, how did you view the change? If you never played 2e, then what do you think of the 2e players who didn't like that idea, that race could play any class?

 

[Scribe]

And again, you fail to actually address the point.


Why was it unsatisfying? After all, you claimed that a tiefling paladin was your favorite, which means that you don't care about where the ASI goes; you don't "need" it to be in the best stat. What prompted you to make a tiefling paladin? Was it just the Charisma penalty? If that's the case, why can't you take a race and class you like and put a 12 or 13 in the prime stat instead of 14 or 15 and stick the +2 in something that isn't necessary for it?

If you are against having floating ASIs because it makes everything the same, why were you OK with with the concept of tiefling paladins in the first place? Surely having paladins be available to humans only makes everything less the same, right? I know that I saw that change (any race can be any class) as a welcome one when I made the switch between 2e and 3e. Did you play 2e? If so, how did you view the change? If you never played 2e, then what do you think of the 2e players who didn't like that idea, that race could play any class?

Must be Human: That's a hard limitation.
Must be Lawful Good: That's a hard limitation.

Do you need a 16 in your Primary? Is that a hard system limitation?

No.

So your comparison is logically flawed, but still.

Do I have issue with race restricted classes? No.

Do I have issue with removal of race/alignment restrictions? It depends. Should Bladesingers be elven? Yeah, I think so.

I like racial feats too, string me up.

 

[Scribe]

If that's the case, why can't you take a race and class you like and put a 12 or 13 in the prime stat instead of 14 or 15 and stick the +2 in something that isn't necessary for it?

When I do it, it's a choice.
When the game assigns it, it's setting building.

 

[Faolyn]

Must be Human: That's a hard limitation.
Must be Lawful Good: That's a hard limitation.

Do you need a 16 in your Primary? Is that a hard system limitation?

No.

So your comparison is logically flawed, but still.

How so? You claimed that having a floating ASI makes everyone the same. You claimed that you need that fixed +2 to make people different, or at least more different.

Having no limitation on race or class also makes everyone the same, using that exact same logic.

Also, why do you keep claiming that the only reason to have a floating +2 is to have a 16 in the stat? Are you incapable of imagining that people will put that +2 elsewhere? Or do you just not want to believe it? After all, you didn't max out your tiefling paladin. Is it so inconceivable that other people are just like you?

Or are you just being a snob and looking down on those lesser gamers who optimize their character in a way you don't approve of?