Racial Tendencies not Racial Stereotypes

[Sunseeker]

Your dwarf certainly CAN be toned and clean. That's why you can buy up to a 16. The only difference is that even the most toned and clean dwarf is still less charismatic than the most charismatic human, or charismatic elf. Your 16 CHA dwarf is still more charismatic than pretty much 95% of all other representatives of all other races. But part of being a dwarf is that your VERY BEST is still not equivalent than another race's VERY BEST. And why should they be? Why should the pinnacle of any race be just as good as the pinnacle of any other race in every single ability? Why should the pinnacle of the halflings be just as strong as the pinnacle of half-orcs? Does that make any real sense?

Sure... from a min-maxing standpoint you'd want your chosen race to be able to be maxed out just like another race... but that has little to do with the race itself, and more from how the game plays. But sometimes, if you want to play against type... you have to accept that doing so means you can't be the very best. That's what playing 'against type' means.

Fluff saying I'm less charismatic has NOTHING to do with "how the game plays", that's the whole problem here. People are conflating mechanics and fluff. Wizards can fluff dwarves to be fat and smelly all they want, but why exactly do they need to be at a mechanical disadvantage?

"playing against type" is again, a FLUFF issue. Playing a lawful good Drow doesn't mechnically affect playing a Drow character. But playing a charismatic dwarf does? How does that make sense? Why are we conflating a fluff issue(fat and smelly dwarves) with mechanical issues(+x/-Y)? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Morrus]

I really find myself incredulous about objections to penalties. There's no difference between a lack of bonus and a penalty. It seems to me that a lot of people get really hung up on the word "penalty".

But they don't object to bonuses.

My advice to WotC? Hand out a boat load of "bonuses". Give everyone, like, five ability score "bonuses". They'll all be happy then, because they're called "bonuses".

Oh, and set the base score at 8.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Fluff saying I'm less charismatic has NOTHING to do with "how the game plays", that's the whole problem here. People are conflating mechanics and fluff. Wizards can fluff dwarves to be fat and smelly all they want, but why exactly do they need to be at a mechanical disadvantage?

But why should they be at a mechanical equivalence? You basically are looking for your character to be able to be maxed out in the game just as high as any other maxed out character. But why? Why should all characters max out equally? There's nothing inherently wrong with min-maxing your characters... but there's also nothing wrong with the game setting up only certain combinations that allow for true min-maxing. After all... that's the whole of min-maxing in the first place... finding those combos necessary to accomplish building the "extremely best" character possible. What exactly is the benefit in allowing every player the opportunity to min-max every single race/class combination to the highest possible level? What's the point? Doesn't that lessen the specialness of those really iconic and sensical race/class combos?

 

[Kzach]

My advice to WotC? Hand out a boat load of "bonuses". Give everyone, like, five ability score "bonuses". They'll all be happy then, because they're called "bonuses".

Oh, and set the base score at 8.

Better yet, give them SIX ability score bonuses, randomly determined between 3 and 18, and start all ability scores at 0!

Revolutionary, I say.

I think, however, that people who are saying you can roleplay and that having a 16 instead of an 18 are fine are missing the point. I can roleplay with the best of them, and I'd place my life-savings on that fact, but I'm not one of those elitists who thinks roleplaying and power-gaming are mutually exclusive ideologies. I like building well-made, synergistic, powerful characters just as much as I like to roleplay them and in with this in mind, a 16 instead of an 18 DOES matter.

It might not matter to you, but then that's what makes the world go around and also a war-torn hotbed of murder, corruption and immorality: people having different opinions

 

[Morrus]

Fluff saying I'm less charismatic has NOTHING to do with "how the game plays", that's the whole problem here. People are conflating mechanics and fluff. Wizards can fluff dwarves to be fat and smelly all they want, but why exactly do they need to be at a mechanical disadvantage?

"playing against type" is again, a FLUFF issue. Playing a lawful good Drow doesn't mechnically affect playing a Drow character. But playing a charismatic dwarf does? How does that make sense? Why are we conflating a fluff issue(fat and smelly dwarves) with mechanical issues(+x/-Y)? It doesn't make sense.

But then, like I said - if that's your preference, why not just eliminate race altogether? Just make it the player's descriptive fluff. No mechanics at all. He has his ability scores and his [powers/feats/spells/proficiencies/skills - whatever 5E ends up having] and just looks at it and describes it as a dwarf or an elf or whatever?

As far as I can tell there are two schools of thought.

1) I want to be able to play any concept I like. A tall, slender, dextrous dwarf; a clumsy, chubby, bearded drow; etc. Totally cool; I can see that point of view completely. The PC isn't necessarily an average example of their race, they're a PC. In that case, I recommend eliminating any mechanical racial elements altogether. Just make it fluff. Create your character, and describe it as whatever you want. A tall dwarf, a good devil, a disabled elf. Whatever.

2) Races should be distinct. It should really matter that I choose elf rather than dwarf. Or gnome rather than half-orc. Half-orcs should be bigger and stronger than gnomes. No gnome is ever gonna be as big and strong as a half-orc, however many bench-presses he does. In that case, I recommend pushing the racial elements to the extreme. Make the starting bonuses large (+/-4), and make it continue to matter throughout your career. Limit the level-based ability bonuses to race-appropriate ones. Make every other level-based addition to the character a racial one, rather than a class one.

The middle ground, in my personal opinion, is wishy-washy. It's neither here-nor-there. Race neither matters, nor does it not matter. I'd prefer a system with a clear decision. I could happily play in either.

 

[MoxieFu]

I really find myself incredulous about objections to penalties. There's no difference between a lack of bonus and a penalty. It seems to me that a lot of people get really hung up on the word "penalty".

But they don't object to bonuses.

My advice to WotC? Hand out a boat load of "bonuses". Give everyone, like, five ability score "bonuses". They'll all be happy then, because they're called "bonuses".

Oh, and set the base score at 8.

Maybe everyone should get a trophy just for showing up?

 

[Sunseeker]

But then, like I said - if that's your preference, why not just eliminate race altogether? Just make it the player's descriptive fluff. No mechanics at all. He has his ability scores and his [powers/feats/spells/proficiencies/skills - whatever 5E ends up having] and just looks at it and describes it as a dwarf or an elf or whatever?

Much like classes, I would like to see more variety.

I would love to see a simple system for creating custom sub-races, half-breeds and whole new races.

What I really take issue with is the idea that races can ONLY be X. Somehow your elf can be a ranger, a fighter, a wizard, a priest, heck even a paladin or a druid, and yet, that elf still has to embody stereotypical racial fluff elements mechanically.

If a Dwarf goes +2 con, +2 wis, and an elf goes +2 con, +2 wis, that doesn't mean they're identical in the slightest. Does it mean they're similar? Sure, but then they're both probably playing sorcerers or some-such. There are dwarven scholars, diggers, merchants, and so on, all sorts within dwarven society as within any society in order to make it function. A dwarven wizard and an elven wizard are likely to have a lot in common, probably moreso than any two dwarves who meet on the street would. Beards? Pointy ears, sure they'll share those traits.

But a dwarf wizard is much less likely to be a fat, smelly drunk, and a elven fighter is much MORE likely to be a smelly drunk than their standard racial designs.

The middle ground, in my personal opinion, is wishy-washy. It's neither here-nor-there. Race neither matters, nor does it not matter. I'd prefer a system with a clear decision. I could happily play in either.

It really depends on how they go, race should matter, if you want to play the dwarfiest dwarf to have ever dwarfed than race REALLY matters for you, and they should have ways for you to do that. However if you want to play a rather racial a-typical character, then you should also be able to do that.

Hence why I've suggested before that a racial bonus and penalty system is fine, provided I can also opt out of it. Gain no bonus, take no penalty.

 

[Ratskinner]

I really find myself incredulous about objections to penalties. There's no difference between a lack of bonus and a penalty. It seems to me that a lot of people get really hung up on the word "penalty".

But they don't object to bonuses.

Oh yeah, humans are very risk/loss averse.

 

[MoonSong]

Racial bonusses and penalties make a lot of sense to me, and I'll tell you why: The ability scores are human-centric, which means they are centered on the human average (which is given a 10), and so a human with Charisma 18 is more charismatic that the 90% of the humans. But the averages for all races are different, and such the +bonuses -penalties account for that difference. (I'll be using 3.5 for the following)
If the scores were Half-Orc centric, then they don't get adjustments, while humans would get a -2 Str penalty a +2 Cha and a +2 Int, Dwarves a -2 Str, +2 Int and +2 Con, Gnomes -4 Str +2 Int and +2 Con, Halflings -4str +2 Int +2 Cha and +2 Dex , Elves -2 Con -2 Str +2 Dex,+2 Cha and +2 Int and so on.

The racial penalties/bonusses are actually statistical adjustments, a Dwarf or Half-Orc who has Cha 18 after racial adjustments(and at least in 3.5 this is possible by 8th level), is Cha 20 for Dwarven standards. The roll 3d6 mechanic is just that an statistic method of character creation, and the +- are racial adjustments.

Arguing that racial penalties punish players when playing against type sounds fair, but only if you care about min-maxing, not every rogue needs to have dex 18, not every wizard Int 18 and not every Bard Cha 18 to still do a good job. (Ok maybe that could be true in 4e, but it shouldn't in 5e). I just tough of creating a Half-Orc Bard, and so far it can still manage ridiculous diplomacy and bluf bonuses as if he was human or elf

 

[Kzach]

But then, like I said - if that's your preference, why not just eliminate race altogether? Just make it the player's descriptive fluff. No mechanics at all. He has his ability scores and his [powers/feats/spells/proficiencies/skills - whatever 5E ends up having] and just looks at it and describes it as a dwarf or an elf or whatever?

You can house-rule anything so that's really not an answer, especially since I addressed this very issue in the OP:

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.