Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 1618339" data-attributes="member: 2205"> <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">An ethno-cultural group that is distinct from other etho-cultural groups, and which has a separate "starting package" from a game-mechanics point of view.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">That depends.  If you look at the many, many ethno-cultural groups that you could put together for a historical medieval Europe game, and take that perspective, then you can make a case for having dozens and it being believable.  Also, if you have a game in which multiplanar contacts are common, then you should have yet more.  However, if you define race differently than I just did, then a much smaller number should be the default -- in fact, it becomes difficult to imagine more than half a dozen if races are equivalent to biological species, for instance.</li> </ol>The problems come from the separate treatment in the core game of humans and other races, IMO.  For example, under elves, even in the MM, we have, what, half a dozen varieties, all with different starting packages in terms of ability score modifiers, favored class, etc.?  These all make sense from an ethno-cultural standpoint.  Yet humans, regardless of culture, are all the same.  In the FR setting, and the Wheel of Time game (and Oriental Adventures too, IIRC) this is handled by crafting a hybrid system wherein the human bonus feat can be a regional (i.e., "racial") feat that is specific, as well as a few other minor bonuses, like a certain culture always has certain skills be class skills, for instance.Which is really the "correct" way to handle races; the sub-race mechanical standpoint, the regional packages mechanical standpoint, or the plain old Core Rulebook human "it's all in the roleplaying" standpoint?  And why isn't it handled consistently across the various demihuman varieties?It's stuff like this that makes races problematic for homebrewers, IMO.  What I've done for my current campaign is eliminated all the deminhuman and humanoid races except human.  My intention was to create regional "starting packages" for various cultures, but I never got around to it, and nobody's making new characters at the moment.  Then, I created a few "races" that historically were humans bred for certain purposes by former slavemasters, much like various working breeds of dogs.  Therefore, much as a St. Bernard, a Bloodhound and a Chihuahua should probably all have different stats and different strengths and weaknesses, my races are technically human, but have most of the mechanical considerations of race.  They don't have any of the cultural considerations of race, though.  I guess my campaign is a bit different than most, though.If I were running a more standardized setting (and I do have one in the back of my head under development at any given time) I'd eliminate all of the subraces, and get rid of most of the humanoid races as well, except as one off strange occurances.  That'd leave me with no more than 8-10 races tops for the whole world.</blockquote>

Verification