Racial Tendencies not Racial Stereotypes

[Kzach]

Yet another thing that has always bugged me about D&D is races. I always have an internal struggle between my vision of a character and how it maps out on paper. I want the two to marry up in a wholesome and non-perverted manner; and by perverted I mean without having to use houserules or DM's permission to swing a character concept outside the exact lines of the rules.

Why can't a dwarf be a diplomat? Do dwarves not engage in diplomacy? Why can't a halfling be a brawler? Who says elves are always frail? Maybe people want to make moody and clumsy drow?

Point is, I dislike the stereotypes that are given to races. By cementing them down to one very particular thing, ie. a stat bump and some racial abilities, it's very limiting and claustrophobic. Not only that, but it leads to all sorts of sub-races and sub-races are just plain annoying, to wit: the bajillion elf sub-races.

Instead, why not just say that every 'race' can have something like four racial tendencies and make lists up like the racial feats of 4e. That way, you're still given 'elf-like' traits, but you're not strait-jacketed to the one, very rigid conceptualisation of the stereotypical elf.

Now that's something I'd like to see in the 'advanced' rules of D&D 5e.

 

[Minigiant]

Normally I am against stereotype of races but I think a races should cover most of the genetic baggage of a race. I think nice and cemented. An elf can be tough but he can't get 18 Con at level 1 but 16 Con is good. A race's attributes should create stereotype but should also allow players to break them.

My halfling paladin of Hlal was weak but he still was a good melee warrior.

As long as they don't make ability penalties stronger than -2, and spread the importance of abilities around equally, it should be fine.

 

[Sunseeker]

What you're talking about is one thing I liked about the later moves in 4e and Essentials to allow two +2 bonuses. While I think that might have been a bit much in terms of power-creep, I liked the idea that it was up to the player which stats were their best.

I don't think any race should be limited to maximum or minimum scores, these are not just mechanical components, they're numerical representations of a player's character.

I suggested something like this as an alternative to dice-rolling or the point-buy system.
Class: 18 in main score
Race: 16 in a score of the player's choice(there may be recommendations, but IMO, no limitations or restrictions).
Theme: 14 in score of choice.
Background: 12 in score of choice representing an area the character/player is familiar with.
Other: 10 in score of choice(couldn't come up with 6 things)
Weakness: 8 in score of choice representing an area the character/player is unskilled in.

I think this establishes a pretty good outline for character design, without imposing any restrictions on a player that the player themselves does not have a say in. The more things that are out of the player's control, the less enjoyable a game is going to be. Nobody likes being told they MUST do X or Y in a game that should be designed around inherent player choice and customization.

Granted, ya can't have all 18s for obvious mechanical reasons, but I think any player who is interested in making a well-rounded character will benefit from the system above.

 

[4mbrosia]

What you're talking about is one thing I liked about the later moves in 4e and Essentials to allow two +2 bonuses. While I think that might have been a bit much in terms of power-creep, I liked the idea that it was up to the player which stats were their best.

I was thinking that, if negative ability modifiers were to be included, something similar could be implemented. For example, if you deigned to play an orc, your options would maybe be...

+1 Strength or Constitution, -1 Intelligence or Charisma.

So you could play against type, but in a way that still promotes variety in terms of race design and racial tendencies. This would also open the door of making half-humans more varied in the ability score department, so you have the elf with the options:

+1 Dex or Wis, -1 Con or Str

and the half-elf with

+1 to anything (to reflect the human variety aspect), -1 Con (or Str.)

 

[Sunseeker]

I was thinking that, if negative ability modifiers were to be included, something similar could be implemented. For example, if you deigned to play an orc, your options would maybe be...

+1 Strength or Constitution, -1 Intelligence or Charisma.

So you could play against type, but in a way that still promotes variety in terms of race design and racial tendencies. This would also open the door of making half-humans more varied in the ability score department, so you have the elf with the options:

+1 Dex or Wis, -1 Con or Str

and the half-elf with

+1 to anything (to reflect the human variety aspect), -1 Con (or Str.)

On the same token, if bonuses are balanced(such as +1 to X, -1 to Y, ect..) players should have the ability to "opt out" of those bonuses. You either gain something and lose something, or gain nothing and lose nothing.

 

[Grazzt]

I was thinking that, if negative ability modifiers were to be included, something similar could be implemented. For example, if you deigned to play an orc, your options would maybe be...

+1 Strength or Constitution, -1 Intelligence or Charisma.

So you could play against type, but in a way that still promotes variety in terms of race design and racial tendencies. This would also open the door of making half-humans more varied in the ability score department, so you have the elf with the options:

+1 Dex or Wis, -1 Con or Str

and the half-elf with

+1 to anything (to reflect the human variety aspect), -1 Con (or Str.)

I implemented this back in the 3.x days in my campaign. Seems to work pretty well. The players seem to like it as well.

 

[Yora]

Does it matter? If you want Charisma to be your best stat, put more points into it and leave intelligence low. You are usually free to assign your scores as you want to.

 

[El Mahdi]

Yeah, I'm just not seeing how the rules or mechanics, in any edition, restrict a player from doing exactly what the OP wants. I haven't played every edition, just 2E, 3E, and a bit of 4E, but I've never encountered a situation where I needed to "go outside the rules" in order to do what the OP desires.

Unless what the OP is talking about is mechanical support for his vision. Providing bonuses to the things that he wants. In which case, I'd say that's codifying behavior and a new stereotype in a mechanical straightjacket also...

 

[DEFCON 1]

At the end of the day... it really ends up coming down to a min-max issue. Because any statistical bonus or penalty can be "bought away" based upon how you spend your point-buy points. The only problem is that when you have to buy away a penalty, it means you cannot max out a stat like another race can... and to do so you also end up having less points left over to buy up other stats.

So basically by going against "type"... you can certainly do so, but you just can't be the end-all-be all for that type that another race can. And that bugs some people, because they would like to be able to max out any race for any class... not just the ones that favor a particular class.

Based upon all the talk lots of people have against having every class be just as good as any other class in many facets of the game (like combat in 4E for example)... I do not know why races should be held to a different standard, personally. Some races are better in some classes than other are. I don't find anything wrong with that (especially considering you're usually only talking about a point or two difference based upon score.)

 

[Morrus]

I guess the best way to do that would be to just ignore race as a mechanical concept, and leave it to player fluff. You have your stats; describe your character how you want. Call it an elf or a dwarf or a halfling or whatever.

I'm not a fan of that approach personally, but it's certainly the opposite of racial stat adjustments and the like.