Should races have mechanical effects?

[Rampant]

HOnestly I don't see why the ability score argument gets used on 4e so much. Many 3e classes were largely the same way. Wizard, Sorc, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and druid could all be run just about fine only investing in 2 or fewer stats.

Though Pally, Monk, Ranger, And to a lesser extent bards and barbarians tended to want 3+.

 

[Greg K]

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.

That is a DM issue (if they allow it) and an issue among some power gamers that need to min/max and think they are entitled to do so without DM permisson. However, it not true of all players.

If a DM does not want it, they are in their right to tell their player, "No."

Race creation/alteration, in my opinion, should be a DM decision based on their campaign not a player's decision. The same for weapons. A player tries to pull the re-skin of race or weapons (they can talk to me about powers) in a game I run will have two options: make a new character using the races as I allow and presented in the game I am running (which mean any house rules/campaign rules) or take the door. And, I know this to be true for every DM that, I, personally, know.

The players I know also respect this (One will try CharOps stuff and, deliberately, overstep boundaries with character creation to test a "new" GM. He has no respect for a GM that does not set limits and will continue pushing the envelope with a GM that won't. However, he is non-problematic and a great player when the DM shows the can say, "No").

 

[Salamandyr]

I'm sure that racial choice will have some mechanical effect. I simply hope that the effect is relatively minor, and does not synergize overly with class choice.

I prefer to play in campaigns that are either all human, or whose nonhuman races are of limited number and have defined roles within the cosmology. Thus, 4e was extremely disappointing to me that often, depending on your class, there was often a race that was far and away the most powerful choice. An ever expanding list of racial options, each with a new and powerful feat chain was great for selling books (finally, a Con/Int race for shielding swordmages!), but it was death for a rational campaign world (or at least the one I'd constructed).

 

[Dausuul]

HOnestly I don't see why the ability score argument gets used on 4e so much. Many 3e classes were largely the same way. Wizard, Sorc, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and druid could all be run just about fine only investing in 2 or fewer stats.

Though Pally, Monk, Ranger, And to a lesser extent bards and barbarians tended to want 3+.

And this was the source of a lot of complaints about 3E. Me, I don't see why the "It was like this in 3E, so why are you hating on it in 4E?" argument gets used so much. The fact that a thing is bad now does not exclude the possibility that it was also bad back in the day.

 

[hanez]

In Monte Cookes Arcana Evolved characters can take a few levels in their race. Sprites at level 3 have perfect flight, Giants gain size. Its quite awesome and the best example of a way to make races interesting that I have seen in a while.

If you don't have meaningful mechanical effects then player will just ignore it.

 

[Greg K]

In Monte Cookes Arcana Evolved characters can take a few levels in their race. Sprites at level 3 have perfect flight, Giants gain size. Its quite awesome and the best example of a way to make races interesting that I have seen in a while.

If you don't have meaningful mechanical effects then player will just ignore it.

Personally, I never liked racial levels (or monster levels) that tie biological aspects (e.g., physical growth) to leveling through adventuring. However, I think it is fine for an optional module for those that want it.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

I think everyone agrees that Ogres should be stronger than Humans, who should be stronger than Gnomes. Giving PCs of those races a bonus or penalty isn't the only way to handle that though.

In fact, you could go old school and declare that you can't be an Ogre unless you have an 18 Strength (or whatever).

The simulated reality and the choices available to players are two different things.

 

[GM Dave]

That is a DM issue (if they allow it) and an issue among some power gamers that need to min/max and think they are entitled to do so without DM permisson. However, it not true of all players.

If a DM does not want it, they are in their right to tell their player, "No."

Race creation/alteration, in my opinion, should be a DM decision based on their campaign not a player's decision. The same for weapons. A player tries to pull the re-skin of race or weapons (they can talk to me about powers) in a game I run will have two options: make a new character using the races as I allow and presented in the game I am running (which mean any house rules/campaign rules) or take the door. And, I know this to be true for every DM that, I, personally, know.

The players I know also respect this (One will try CharOps stuff and, deliberately, overstep boundaries with character creation to test a "new" GM. He has no respect for a GM that does not set limits and will continue pushing the envelope with a GM that won't. However, he is non-problematic and a great player when the DM shows the can say, "No").

The vote people off the island approach may seem a workable idea and in a large enough city then you can 'find' the players that will accept that.

I live in a small city where twenty-five or so role-players that game regularly all know each other. There might be a small periphery of people beyond that core group but there is one store in the eight towns around here that sells RPGs resulting in most gamers knowing the store owner and the gamers knowing each other.

You choose to say that a person can not play with you because they do not 'conform' to your vision on elves or dwarves and then you've likely lost them and possibly two or three of their friends as your player base. You might even have knocked yourself out of one or two potential game groups.

I've done online from time to time but I prefer a regular stable group that I see from week to week and a question on the abilities of a race and how that race 'appears' or operates is a minor detail in the overall fun of gaming.

 

[kitsune9]

To me, if I have a race strictly as a roleplaying choice with no mechanic involved, then I'd always be playing a human. There's no point in choosing a dwarf, an elf, or a whatever only for the token statement, "I'm an elf, hear me roar."

I like the idea of humans getting nothing in terms of bonuses or flaws and each race gets some kind of bonus but then must contend with some kind of drawback.

Again, that's just me though.

 

[Greg K]

The vote people off the island approach may seem a workable idea and in a large enough city then you can 'find' the players that will accept that.

You choose to say that a person can not play with you because they do not 'conform' to your vision on elves or dwarves and then you've likely lost them and possibly two or three of their friends as your player base. You might even have knocked yourself out of one or two potential game groups.

One has to decide whether no gaming is better than settling with people whose style you don't enjoy. I prefer the former and refuse to settle on doing the latter. I have no tolerance for gaming with min/maxing power gamers with entitlement issues (but they are free to play how they want at their table). So losing access to those players and their friends would be no loss to me. YMMV.