Racial Tendencies not Racial Stereotypes

[am181d]

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.

I'd like to see a situation where:
1) race selection gives you a +1 bonus to one stat
2) class selection gives you a +1 bonus to one stat
3) no stat penalties

Some folks will want the synergy, and some folks will want to diversify, but the difference between a +1 in your main stat or a +2 in your main stat isn't such that it will unbalance the game.

 

[Morrus]

I'd like to see a situation where:
1) race selection gives you a +1 bonus to one stat
2) class selection gives you a +1 bonus to one stat
3) no stat penalties.

That's what it sounds like you're getting, so I guess you're in luck!

 

[Ratskinner]

In the real world, yes, you hate to have race be a straitjacket.

In D&D, however, being different is the point of having races in the first place, from what I can tell? Do dwarves have diplomats? Yes, but its much rarer to find a good dwarven diplomat than a good half-elven one. Why is that? dunno, something about dwarves and half-elves.

If everything is just a pile of "tendencies" then why bother? Put all the tendencies in a big bag, pick three and make up a name for your new race and campaigns will be like the Mos Eisley cantina....or just call everyone humans. Some have pointy ears and can see in the dark.

Yes, the races are somewhat stereotyped, and so what? Unlike the real world, you at least get to pick your stereotype. If I want to play an elf, I think I want it to mean a lot more than "You guy has pointy ears and is slender."

 

[Ratskinner]

I'd like to see a situation where:
1) race selection gives you a +1 bonus to one stat
2) class selection gives you a +1 bonus to one stat
3) no stat penalties

Some folks will want the synergy, and some folks will want to diversify, but the difference between a +1 in your main stat or a +2 in your main stat isn't such that it will unbalance the game.

I like this, but I think I'd modify it some:
1) race selection gives you a +1 bonus to one stat, and a few skills to choose
2) class selection gives you a +1 bonus to one stat, and a few skills to choose
3) theme selection gives you a few skills to choose, and possibly +1 to a stat or a free/default skill.
4) no stat penalties (other than people like me with bad dice-karma)

I'm also not sure if a +2 bonus wouldn't be appropriate in some cases (say a Wookie-like race that can't talk normally or something), but that's totally dependent on how stats work in the new mechanics. Which is unclear for now.

 

[boredgremlin]

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.

I dont see how the existing system prevents any of those concepts assuming a base 10 in everything for your average human.

Your dwarf can still have a 16 charisma, thats pretty damn charismatic. And anyway being a good diplomat isnt all about sweet talking.

Maybe your dwarf says "see mister human lord we think your charging too much for grain, and since you buy most of your iron from us i can see 2 ends to this discussion. YOU lower the price of your grain or WE raise the price of our iron. Your call".

Your halfling can be a great brawler. He can have a 16 STR. Which is flat out absurd for a guy 3 feet tall and pudgy. But the rules let you do it. You can then make him a monk with a 16 STR and he'll clear out bar rooms in seconds. Or barbarian. A tiny, roid raged, 3 feet of fury barbarian.

Elves dont have to be frail. Give your elf a 16 CON and he's tough as hell. Thats iron man competition tough.

Drow are a broken race mechanically usually anyway but theres no reason you couldnt put your highest pts in STR and INT and your lowest in DEX and CHR. Would he be quite as pathetic as a similar human? No. But he would kind of pathetic at everything, giving him a great reason to be MOODY.

There, problem solved. Your welcome.

 

[howandwhy99]

Racial preference pretty much only comes up on the internet on RPG boards, and I think that's a good thing. I'd rather it stayed in the realm of fantasy.

In every case I have seen, RPGs regard race as species... and may even get less specific than that.

As to Racial preferences, I think we need a radical variety and not some +1/-1 +3 uniformity of options. That we should start with the easily playable, readily understood races other than human is a given. Later on we should put the game engine and volunteering players to the test with wilder and more difficult ones.

Human - Default, right?

Elf - magic man, lives a long time, a lot of historic and literary descriptions actually exists here, but they are pseudo or demi-humans at best.

Otyugh - these things are smart, can talk, eat, and are relatively mobile. Not too difficult here, but we're going to want to ease into play for multiple reasons.

Carp - Below human intelligence minimums (afaik), can't walk, only swim, can't talk, and they breathe only water. Carp are hardly unknown to the D&D community or that fantastical of creatures, but they are still not a race most people will want to play for numerous reasons.

Giant Space Hamster - Who doesn't want to play one of these? They could be too large to get into most locations on the older end, but maybe they're intelligent, right? At least one guy thought he could communicate with one. Weapons are sort of limited as is most other equipment. This is the difficult case, almost playable, even enticingly so, but so many obstacles to play.

Ability to communicate with other players is going to be a big hurdle. Ability to move at relatively the same speed is another too (not too fast or too slow). Ability scores so far beyond the others that no one else matters in that respect? Or so far below the others they are hampered in D&D adventures? Size can get out of hand too (too tiny or too massive). Variety is awesome, but extraordinary differences often lead to problems.

In the end, if polymorph is going to mean anything, or race is going to mean anything beyond Star Trekian "aliens" which are all virtually humans with odd, yet poorly fleshed out cultures, then we're going to want a vast variety across the board statistically, but also an understanding of the hardships deviating from the norm entails.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I *like* the racial stereotypes in the game. It serves two purposes:

- If you don't want being different from the racial norm to be a distinguishing feature, and just want to play to type, you can do that, and everyone has a common baseline.

- If you want to be a special snowflake and play against type, you'll actually stand out from the norm. Erasing the baseline makes everyone special, which means no one is.

 

[Mercule]

I'd like to see a situation where:
1) race selection gives you a +1 bonus to one stat
2) class selection gives you a +1 bonus to one stat
3) no stat penalties

Some folks will want the synergy, and some folks will want to diversify, but the difference between a +1 in your main stat or a +2 in your main stat isn't such that it will unbalance the game.

I kinda like the idea of getting rid of favored classes in favor of this synergy. I'd even be okay if most races (all in PHB) balanced to a net +1 stat. One of the things that really, really turned me off in 4e was the forced balance to two +2 bonuses and a racial ability. I don't know if they eventually deviated, but I didn't see any races that didn't have that.

Some races, say the goliath with large weapon wielding may need a penalty somewhere else to balance them out. Don't straight-jacket the racial mechanics. If you want a guideline, that's fine, but not a requirement. I also like racial penalties and maximums, but would be agreeable to seeing them softened in exchange for not having stats in the 20s as a matter of course.

 

[Mercule]

As far as racial stereotypes go, one of the 4e rumors that I was really sad to see not come to pass was the idea of having a lot of feats or other options that made elves more elfy, and the like. Sure, there were some, but they really didn't seem to be as significant as promised.

I think D&D first needs to decide exactly what a feat is supposed to be. Is it a character building mechanic, a way to boost your combat/magical prowess, or something else? Once that's taken care of, you can have some meaningful choices besides improving your elven resistance to sleep or taking weapon specialization.

 

[Grazzt]

As far as racial stereotypes go, one of the 4e rumors that I was really sad to see not come to pass was the idea of having a lot of feats or other options that made elves more elfy, and the like. Sure, there were some, but they really didn't seem to be as significant as promised.

I think D&D first needs to decide exactly what a feat is supposed to be. Is it a character building mechanic, a way to boost your combat/magical prowess, or something else? Once that's taken care of, you can have some meaningful choices besides improving your elven resistance to sleep or taking weapon specialization.

Agreed. And- sounds like a new thread discussion (or maybe a WotC-style poll) to see what players/DMs want for feats too.