-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Should races have mechanical effects?
- Thread starter Croesus
- Start date
Well, imho races should not modify ability scores. No bonuses, no penalties, just bonuses to skills and maybe racial weapon/implement proficiencies. Add in Vision modes, spell-like abilities/racial powers and racial feats that support the bonuses given to the diffrent races without falling for such traps as Eladrin Soldier or Dwarven Weapon Proficiency because this sort of combat relevant racial feats would just reintroduce the problem that certain builds fare a lot better if combined with the 'correct' race.
Yeah, that`s right: If you think this through races will no longer have any impact on your combat prowess. Combat is the governing part of D&D for ~98% of all groups and if you really want to get rid of racial archetypes then there is no way around butchering the sacred cows of ability score bonuses and bonuses to combat against certain types of enemies or with certain kinds of weapons as racial benefits.
I would not mind if there was a feat that gave +2 to all damage rolls against giants but this feat should be available to all races.
Shift the focus of racial modifications away from combat and eliminate the #1 reason of Imbalance, which is unfiiting pairs of races and classes. Period.
To let races have an impact on the game broaden the choices of spell-like abilities, skill bonuses and the like. That way races do have a mechanical benefit without depriving players of oportunities to play a character the way they envision it. Now your pixie barbarian can be just as effective as your dragonborn wizard. No feats you will never be able to qualify for due to missmatched ability score bonuses, no complaining the dwarven fighter does so much better because of the awesome racial feat support and no flipping through the PHB for hours to look up all the racial feats to build the uber-charging avenger. Kill a bunch of scarecrows with one stone
Yeah, that`s right: If you think this through races will no longer have any impact on your combat prowess. Combat is the governing part of D&D for ~98% of all groups and if you really want to get rid of racial archetypes then there is no way around butchering the sacred cows of ability score bonuses and bonuses to combat against certain types of enemies or with certain kinds of weapons as racial benefits.
I would not mind if there was a feat that gave +2 to all damage rolls against giants but this feat should be available to all races.
Shift the focus of racial modifications away from combat and eliminate the #1 reason of Imbalance, which is unfiiting pairs of races and classes. Period.
To let races have an impact on the game broaden the choices of spell-like abilities, skill bonuses and the like. That way races do have a mechanical benefit without depriving players of oportunities to play a character the way they envision it. Now your pixie barbarian can be just as effective as your dragonborn wizard. No feats you will never be able to qualify for due to missmatched ability score bonuses, no complaining the dwarven fighter does so much better because of the awesome racial feat support and no flipping through the PHB for hours to look up all the racial feats to build the uber-charging avenger. Kill a bunch of scarecrows with one stone
Last edited:
I agree. I would like to see races be written up as their own classes, but with the intention that you'll use the multiclass rules. So if you're playing an elf wizard, your class is "elf/wizard."
Li Shenron
Legend
I would like the choice of race to count more.
I would like the race to give some benefits immediately if they represent the biology of such race (vision, speed, ability modifiers), eventually also some penalties if appropriate for fluff and balance.
I would like the race to give additional benefits gradually at later character level, to represent the character getting deeper in her race's culture and attitudes.
But there is a very simple solution:
1) Make the immediate benefits/penalties being easy to ignore or offset. Besides vision (but I've never seen anyone complain that they don't want to see in the dark...) and maybe speed, ability modifiers can be easily offset by arranging your scores appropriately. And in case the player is really such an <insert_silly_word> that "I can't have -2 in Charisma, it makes my Sorcerer unplayable", fine... forsake the penalty and bonus if you want, let's make them optional.
2) Make the gradual benefits choosable, but also make it possible for the player to choose something not related to race. Starting from the 3e framework, this could mean for example:
2a) Give an extra racial benefit every X levels, with the option of just getting any one bonus feat instead. This means to give some extra to all PCs, but highlights the racial nature of these benefits more.
2b) Add race-restricted feats in the game. No change to character power, but it kinds of "hides" these in the pages more.
I would like the race to give some benefits immediately if they represent the biology of such race (vision, speed, ability modifiers), eventually also some penalties if appropriate for fluff and balance.
I would like the race to give additional benefits gradually at later character level, to represent the character getting deeper in her race's culture and attitudes.
But there is a very simple solution:
1) Make the immediate benefits/penalties being easy to ignore or offset. Besides vision (but I've never seen anyone complain that they don't want to see in the dark...) and maybe speed, ability modifiers can be easily offset by arranging your scores appropriately. And in case the player is really such an <insert_silly_word> that "I can't have -2 in Charisma, it makes my Sorcerer unplayable", fine... forsake the penalty and bonus if you want, let's make them optional.
2) Make the gradual benefits choosable, but also make it possible for the player to choose something not related to race. Starting from the 3e framework, this could mean for example:
2a) Give an extra racial benefit every X levels, with the option of just getting any one bonus feat instead. This means to give some extra to all PCs, but highlights the racial nature of these benefits more.
2b) Add race-restricted feats in the game. No change to character power, but it kinds of "hides" these in the pages more.
There are several ways to look at this question.
1> Strictly Heart -- Yes, an elf, a minotaur, and a halfling are different creatures and should act, look, and smell different. Mechanically, there should be differences between them.
This is where I have no trouble with 4e giving Minotaurs a charge attack, Dragonborn have a breath weapon, Elves get a re-roll on accuracy. Races are different like fighters and wizards are different in this way. I accept that an Elf with a bow will be slightly better at shooting at range but the Minotaur being able to put a hit on battle and still hold a bow can be almost as useful.
2> Trouble with my Heart -- Races often get taken to the extreme. It starts to seem like every race and their cousin can see in the dark. It loses the uniqueness and becomes a disadvantage when everyone can do this and your race choice can not.
This is the danger with mechanics is that you can lead to making things just as good as another choice or leave the other choices as poor.
4e did this to the crossbow. The crossbow in 4e compared to the long bow fires less distance, weighs more, does less damage, and takes a minor action between shooting. It costs 5gp less to own a crossbow then a long bow (which in game terms is nothing). The crossbow can be used by slightly more classes because it is not a Military weapon.
The short bow is rated the same as the crossbow but has no loss of action, weighs less, and can be used by small characters.
There is no desire to use a crossbow because anyone focused on such a ranged weapon will choose to use a bow as it is at least as good in every category if not better. You need to take an extra feat to bring the crossbow up to the level of the bow.
It is clear by looking at a bow and a crossbow that they should be different but when you leave a choice without a good reason to choose then it becomes a problem.
Halflings suffer from this by being listed as small and unable to use certain weapons or use those weapons with a damage bonus. This makes it tough to be a halfling fighter and some people would think that is fine as there should not be many halfling fighters that are standing shoulder to shoulder with humans. 4e does allow some things like halflings to use other characteristics to get around their limitation like the Paladin using Cha and radiant energy attacks.
This allows the group to have the player play the race with theme of ability but not have a way to make the option work.
3> Reality -- Races become a min/max package to get more for a particular class then another race. This is where so much gets tied up in benefits that it becomes difficult to choose otherwise then a race with class combination.
4e suffers from often the same attribute being used for attack and damage bonus. There is usually a secondary attribute that controls your side benefits of powers (slide distance, additional damage). A race that gives a bonus to both of these creates a superior choice (hitting even 5% more often is noticeable over the life of a character and a more damage adds up). A few extras tossed on top like anything hit by dragonborn breath is marked and it really adds up.
The min/max interaction grows with additional race books added to a system. If the elf is penalized for being weak then someone will 'create' a fix that has 'Iron elves' from the deep forest that are strong like minotaurs or they will make 'star elves' with everything a regular elf has but extra magical bonuses because they are connected to 'stars'.
Players seeing the benefits and slights against a race will then respond with their 'ugly elves' which are described as 'short dumpy elves with beards that like to drink often and wield axes and hold their bows horizontal' because it is the only way to get their dwarf crossbow wielder to be on the equal footing to the elf archer.
If the mechanics go against the player then they will either 'fix' the mechanics with an 'improved' race or use the abilities of the improved race and 're-name/re-skin' it.
1> Strictly Heart -- Yes, an elf, a minotaur, and a halfling are different creatures and should act, look, and smell different. Mechanically, there should be differences between them.
This is where I have no trouble with 4e giving Minotaurs a charge attack, Dragonborn have a breath weapon, Elves get a re-roll on accuracy. Races are different like fighters and wizards are different in this way. I accept that an Elf with a bow will be slightly better at shooting at range but the Minotaur being able to put a hit on battle and still hold a bow can be almost as useful.
2> Trouble with my Heart -- Races often get taken to the extreme. It starts to seem like every race and their cousin can see in the dark. It loses the uniqueness and becomes a disadvantage when everyone can do this and your race choice can not.
This is the danger with mechanics is that you can lead to making things just as good as another choice or leave the other choices as poor.
4e did this to the crossbow. The crossbow in 4e compared to the long bow fires less distance, weighs more, does less damage, and takes a minor action between shooting. It costs 5gp less to own a crossbow then a long bow (which in game terms is nothing). The crossbow can be used by slightly more classes because it is not a Military weapon.
The short bow is rated the same as the crossbow but has no loss of action, weighs less, and can be used by small characters.
There is no desire to use a crossbow because anyone focused on such a ranged weapon will choose to use a bow as it is at least as good in every category if not better. You need to take an extra feat to bring the crossbow up to the level of the bow.
It is clear by looking at a bow and a crossbow that they should be different but when you leave a choice without a good reason to choose then it becomes a problem.
Halflings suffer from this by being listed as small and unable to use certain weapons or use those weapons with a damage bonus. This makes it tough to be a halfling fighter and some people would think that is fine as there should not be many halfling fighters that are standing shoulder to shoulder with humans. 4e does allow some things like halflings to use other characteristics to get around their limitation like the Paladin using Cha and radiant energy attacks.
This allows the group to have the player play the race with theme of ability but not have a way to make the option work.
3> Reality -- Races become a min/max package to get more for a particular class then another race. This is where so much gets tied up in benefits that it becomes difficult to choose otherwise then a race with class combination.
4e suffers from often the same attribute being used for attack and damage bonus. There is usually a secondary attribute that controls your side benefits of powers (slide distance, additional damage). A race that gives a bonus to both of these creates a superior choice (hitting even 5% more often is noticeable over the life of a character and a more damage adds up). A few extras tossed on top like anything hit by dragonborn breath is marked and it really adds up.
The min/max interaction grows with additional race books added to a system. If the elf is penalized for being weak then someone will 'create' a fix that has 'Iron elves' from the deep forest that are strong like minotaurs or they will make 'star elves' with everything a regular elf has but extra magical bonuses because they are connected to 'stars'.
Players seeing the benefits and slights against a race will then respond with their 'ugly elves' which are described as 'short dumpy elves with beards that like to drink often and wield axes and hold their bows horizontal' because it is the only way to get their dwarf crossbow wielder to be on the equal footing to the elf archer.
If the mechanics go against the player then they will either 'fix' the mechanics with an 'improved' race or use the abilities of the improved race and 're-name/re-skin' it.
Deal breaker.
As for the many variants of this phrase:
That just makes zero sense to me. If the average Dragonborn, Goliath or Minotaur weighs 8x the mass (or more) of the average Gnome, Halfling or Kobold, there SHOULD be a difference in their average strength and dexterity. A race noted for being unusually intelligent or hardy beyond the norm SHOULD be at a variance in Int and Con from the bell curve of other races.
Last edited:
Giltonio_Santos
Hero
Dwarves suck at arcane magic. Haflings make for poor fighters. This is what I call an implied setting, and D&D was developed with one in mind from day one, I believe.
As a DM, you're free to change the implied setting, but that's a big part of what makes D&D being, well... D&D. It was one of the major reasons keeping me away from 4E; the amount of offense to what came before (eladrin? new cosmology? evil paladins?).
That said, the implied setting deserves mechanical support. You can easily house rule racial differences out of your game, if you want to. Creating different races out of nowhere is not that simple.
Cheers,
As a DM, you're free to change the implied setting, but that's a big part of what makes D&D being, well... D&D. It was one of the major reasons keeping me away from 4E; the amount of offense to what came before (eladrin? new cosmology? evil paladins?).
That said, the implied setting deserves mechanical support. You can easily house rule racial differences out of your game, if you want to. Creating different races out of nowhere is not that simple.
Cheers,
harlokin
First Post
No, DnD started with a tired rehash of Tolkien stereotypes. The game has happily improved since then, so let's not afflict a new generation of gamers with such blinkered concepts.
The central point of a lot of the people complaining about races having special mechanic seems to be the issue of ability score bonuses forcing certain races to play certain classes, and punishing other race/class combinations. But isn't that ultimately more a problem with the ability score system and class design than it is with race? The central problem is that D&D class/ability score design is that each class has one stat that it needs a lot of, and a bunch of stats that don't give near as much benefit. As such, there is not much room for a rogue that has more strength than dexterity, or a fighter with high intelligence. Wouldn't coming up with a solution to that problem solve the problem of race mechanical diversity?
Not that I think it is too big of a problem currently. In 3E or 4E, race ability score bonuses never added up to be bigger than +2 or -2. As such, even a dwarf wizard could always achieve a functional 16 base Int, if someone really wanted to play that character. A 16 in a core stat is perfectly playable in both editions. I admit that player would have to give up quite a bit for that, but it should still be viable.
Not that I think it is too big of a problem currently. In 3E or 4E, race ability score bonuses never added up to be bigger than +2 or -2. As such, even a dwarf wizard could always achieve a functional 16 base Int, if someone really wanted to play that character. A 16 in a core stat is perfectly playable in both editions. I admit that player would have to give up quite a bit for that, but it should still be viable.
Similar Threads
