Should races have mechanical effects?

[Dagredhel]

I'm also of the opinion that races should have mechanical differences and favor options which allow additional mechanical differences to accrue as a character levels. In 3.5e, there were feats, bloodlines, and racial class levels which allowed this to some degree. But they were added piecemeal in various supplements. A more consistent mechanical framework for this type of character development would be an improvement.

Conversely, I really hated feats (prestige classes, etc.) which were restricted to certain races 'just because'.

 

[Nivenus]

One possibility that occurs to me in regards to making race matter past 1st level is putting an upper limit on certain abilities by race. After all, you'd expect that an orc would have a higher upper limit of physical strength compared with humans.

To a certain extent, this is reflected in the rules already with the ability bonuses. However, due to ascending ability scores over the course of a character's career these differences become pretty minute. A difference of 2 points in one ability means a whole lot at 1st level, where a dwarven fighter might have a maxed out Constiution of 20 (+5) and a human fighter might have 18 (+4): it's an effective difference of roughly 25% (given that only ability bonuses really matter).

Using 4e rules, if the character increases that bonus every four levels by one point, then by 30th level, the dwarf would have an upper Constitution limit of 27 (+8) and the human would a Constitution limit of 25 (+7), which amounts to an effective difference of only 14%. That's a pretty significant drop in the difference between the two races.

I'm not entirely certain how to curtail this gradually decreasing advantage to playing one race or another, but it's clear that if you did want to make race matter past the most early levels, this would be one item you'd have to deal with.

 

[The Human Target]

From my understanding, the new Star Wars the Old Republic MMO has various playable species but no mechanical benefits or penalties based on species.

And my friends like it, because they can play whatever they want without having to consider optimal/sub-optimal builds.

I generally agree with that.

My preferred idea would probably to have distinct racial mechanics, but nothing so strong or weak in one way as to make individual races really better or worse at certain classes.

 

[howandwhy99]

Has any version of D&D not had Racial Abilities in its mechanics?

I think we'll see them in 5th edition too..

 

[GSHamster]

How about a compromise idea:

Races should not have any effects that stack with other bonuses.

The stacking bonus is what really causes the optimization issue. A race with +2 Strength is a better fighter because that +2 Strength stacks with all the combat bonuses. Therefor making any fighter that race makes her strictly better.

But consider a racial like the elves' old ability to use a longsword. This doesn't really stack with anything. But it is a strict benefit that has a mechanical effect on the game, and might come in handy.

I think racials like that, or maybe simple spells/abilities that convey the flavor of the class are a better path than stacking bonuses.

 

[Number48]

What I want is something that might be hard to deliver. I want lots of racial mechanics, but I don't want those mechanics to interact strongly with other choices. Dwarves getting +2 to a Stonework type of skill is great, it isn't telling me I need to play a fighter to utilize that bonus. In fact, we should pump that bonus to like +8. A bonus weapon skill in longsword it useful to many classes, and not too much of an overlap that it would strongly guide you away from Fighter in order for it to a meaningful racial trait. So that's okay, but not too much. In the type of play in 3E and 4E, though, I don't want to see races granting a better primary ability score. I don't want my buddy across the table to be a better rogue because he's a halfling and I'm a dwarf. That is simply unfair. Now, give me a system where all characters are going to have to depend on all ability scores in about the amount of frequency, then that +2 Dex might not mean as much because my dwarf's +2 Con will be used nearly as often even though I'm a rogue. Or, if the primary stat isn't set in stone, just as easily workable. If my fighter can choose, say, Int as his primary stat (and not by costing feats or somesuch because that is another cost the other guy doesn't have to pay).

So, give me lots of racial mechanics, but non-interacting (or minimally-interacting) ones.

EDIT: Gah, I hate when someone makes the same point while your typing! But, yeah, me too.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I hate the whole idea that people are forced to play a certain way b/c races have inherent bonuses. That is if you are truly min/maxing/powergaming or whatever. If you don't like this don't even allow points buy abilities.

At our table we have always loved races with bonuses. (We also roll all ability scores with the option to make 1 swap).

We have had many 'against type' PCs. And what is best, was that they felt against type. Remove all mechanics for races and there is no against type. I would certainly like to see the core support what a stereotypical dwarf looks like. But I would also like to see race supported with MORE mechanics as they advance. Not in place of class (as in substitution levels, which were always better), but with options like Talent Trees right alongside class. (BTW I would include class and race specific Feats in these TTs). I guess race felt more important in 1-2E b/c class and other add-ons were not there. It is a pity race kind of got left behind as an advancement (but I do not like race as class either ).

If people develop settings where their races don't fit the sterotypical mechanics (I often do), then at least you have a base on which to compare/balance/alter your own mechanics...and a real chance to show HOW they are different for the norm.

Race/Species is probably the first thing I check out in a book (followed closely by class) and I ALWAYS look for the cool ways that the fluff has been supported by the mechanics. I like to read the abilities section and see if I can nail the culture/racial norms from there.

 

[Number48]

Sure, you can choose against-type, but at the end of the day, this guy gets a +1 to pretty much everything he does, and this guy doesn't. Or, depending on version, this guy might even get -1 to pretty much everything he does.

I'm reminded of halflings in 2E, or maybe these rules were from 1E, whatever. If you chose halfling, you only had two allowed classes, Fighter and Thief. Except you got a -2 Str and small size, so you made a really poor Fighter. So, the only viable option was Thief. Therefore, all halflings are thieves. I'm not saying 3E and 4E do that, but I just don't want some options to be flat-out better than others.

 

[Connorsrpg]

And a halfling rogue being better than a dwarf rogue is 'unfair'. Halfings ARE more dextrous than dwarves. I certainly am not getting this. Of course a halfling should be a lot better at most roguish things than a dwarf. That is how it SHOULD be! Especially if you are referring to sneaking around etc.

Make a better dwarven rogue. You could kick but in thuggery, dungeoneering, traps, etc.

So what about a +1 here and there. Honeslty, this has been way over annalysed these days. Woulddn't be noticed at our table. Other than the halfing being expected to be a better rogue. Great when the dwarf surprises others though, against type. Are people seriously so focused on so-called balance (which is sounding more like 'everything being the same')? I don't get this at all, especially when that other guy with the whopping +1 is 'on your side'?

 

[Number48]

Because we're the heroes, not the second-bests. An NPC halfling should be a better rogue than an NPC dwarf. I could choose to avoid Dex-dependent skills, sure, but then you are agreeing that a lower Dex is having a heavy toll on my options.