D&D 5E What Makes an Orc an Orc?

[Micah Sweet]

Like what mechanics? That is part of what I was asking in my OP: what are we using describe races, both mechanically and in the lore? Both are important.

I meant to put this outside the quote. Sorry about that.

Realism has to be your starting point, so you have somewhere to stand when you start generating the fantastical elements of your story. Also, I hardly think having a 16 in your primary score is sucking.

 

[Charlaquin]

Having races be mechanically different in ways meaningful to game play is one of the main reasons we have different races at all.

Yes, and we can do that without making certain race-class combinations worse than others. Each race has a whole slew of abilities that meaningfully impact the way they play, without shoehorning them into any particular class. We can make races more nimble with abilities like the wood elf’s fleet of foot or the halfling’s halfling nimbleness. We can make races tougher with abilities like the hill dwarf’s dwarven toughness or the half-orc’s relentless endurance. We can make races stronger with abilities like the goliath’s strong build or the half-orcs savage attacks. We can make races smarter with abilities like the half-elf’s skill versatility or the dwarf’s stonecunning, or by giving them inherent spellcasting based on intelligence. We can make races wiser with abilities like the elf’s keen senses or the firbolg’s speech of beast and leaf, or by giving them inherent spellcasting based on wisdom. We can make races more charismatic with abilities like the half-orc’s menacing or the changeling’s changeling instincts, or by giving them inherent spellcasting based on charisma. It is not difficult to make races feel and play differently without forcing them into certain class niches.

 

[Charlaquin]

You can't stop at ability scores though. You need to get rid of a lot of the other features too. Most of them are not equally useful to all classes.

It’s fine that some race features are not equally useful to all classes. It becomes a problem when you can’t play a race/class combination you want to play without being at a significant disadvantage (such as having -1 on all attack and damage rolls, and/or -1 on spell attacks and spell save DCs compared to a character of a different race).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, and we can do that without making certain race-class combinations worse than others. Each race has a whole slew of abilities that meaningfully impact the way they play, without shoehorning them into any particular class. We can make races more nimble with abilities like the wood elf’s fleet of foot or the halfling’s halfling nimbleness. We can make races tougher with abilities like the hill dwarf’s dwarven toughness or the half-orc’s relentless endurance. We can make races stronger with abilities like the goliath’s strong build or the half-orcs savage attacks. We can make races smarter with abilities like the half-elf’s skill versatility or the dwarf’s stonecunning, or by giving them inherent spellcasting based on intelligence. We can make races wiser with abilities like the elf’s keen senses or the firbolg’s speech of beast and leaf, or by giving them inherent spellcasting based on wisdom. We can make races more charismatic with abilities like the half-orc’s menacing or the changeling’s changeling instincts, or by giving them inherent spellcasting based on charisma. It is not difficult to make races feel and play differently without forcing them into certain class niches.

But classes still have primary stats that directly affect their performance, so wouldn't a race that is mechanically shown to have an aptitude in one of those still be an optimal choice for certain classes? Maybe not to the same degree, but it's still there.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It’s fine that some race features are not equally useful to all classes. It becomes a problem when you can’t play a race/class combination you want to play without being at a significant disadvantage (such as having -1 on all attack and damage rolls, and/or -1 on spell attacks and spell save DCs compared to a character of a different race).

That is just arbitrary. Either affects the performance of the class. And no one has -1, everyone can start with a +2 at worst (now that Orc int penalty is gone.) Making a race better in some class via ability bonus is no different than making them better via a feature that benefits that class. However, these benefits should be spread out, so that each race gets something that is at least somewhat useful regardless of which class they choose. Some re-balancing could be done there.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Are we ready to abandon the idea that some races are more inclined to certain adventuring professions than others?

I don't think it's particularly useful in-and-of itself. PCs are often portrayed as heroic or exceptional, either explicitly in the rules or implicitly through character backgrounds or campaign adventures themselves. For the same reason that it's not useful to the narrative or mechanics of the game that female characters be less strong than male characters, it's not really useful to the narrative or mechanics for player ancestry stats to carry an adjustment. There's nothing wrong with letting a player play a Elven Fighter that's strong, or a Gnome Rogue who is nimble, or a Dwarven Bard who is charismatic, etc. Even if certain races tend to have better talents in certain areas, there's no reason for the PCs to be exemplars of their race.

And if not, how do we represent that without ASI?

Well, it's not a very good idea to be a small Barbarian because you can't use Heavy Weapons. I played a Goblin Barbarian and found that out first hand. I was nearly unkillable, but my damage output was low until I multiclassed Fighter to get a fighting style. High Elves gain a wizard cantrip, longsword proficiency, and longbow proficiency which can suit a high Int or high Str or high Dex character. Mountain Dwarves gain armor proficiency, which is useful for any class which doesn't normally have it. Races with darkvision are significantly better at scouting, too.

There are several traits already built into the races that make them better suited to certain roles. It's just that all of those pale next to ability modifiers because ability scores are far more mechanically relevant. I'm sure that the abilities that the races currently have don't push PCs towards the classes those races traditionally occupied, but that's rather a consequence of the current design. It's not difficult to correct.

Also, it's going to force WotC to make humans actually have meaningful abilities! Holy crap! The race won't be defined by the milquetoast of milquetoast "+1 to all stats and a free language" anymore. I'm sure WotC will continue to make them extraordinarily bland, but at least they won't have the excuse that their attributes make up for their design failure.

 

[Charlaquin]

But classes still have primary stats that directly affect their performance, so wouldn't a race that is mechanically shown to have an aptitude in one of those still be an optimal choice for certain classes? Maybe not to the same degree, but it's still there.

Not especially. Sure, the half-orc’s savage attacks is probably more useful to barbarians than it is to wizards, but a wizard might still find it useful, and more importantly, it doesn’t put you at a significant disadvantage for playing an orc wizard over a gnome wizard. Your orc wizard will play differently than a gnome wizard would - maybe you rely more on attacking with your staff, and you often threaten to turn people into frogs, while the gnome wizard is more inclined to focus on studying magic items. That’s a good thing! But neither one has a penalty on 90% of the d20 rolls they make.

 

[Charlaquin]

That is just arbitrary. Either affects the performance of the class. And no one has -1, everyone can start with a +2 at worst (now that Orc int penalty is gone.)

-1 compared to characters of other races. +4 is at -1 compared to +5.

Making a race better in some class via ability bonus is no different than making them better via a feature that benefits that class.

It is absolutely different. See my above post. Having a 2-point lower score in your class’s primary ability is a 5% hit on most of the d20 rolls you will make. Missing out on a proficiency is if comparatively little impact, especially when it’s compensated for by some other ability. Maybe your mountain dwarf fighter doesn’t get as much use out of that medium armor proficiency as a mountain dwarf sorcerer might have, but you probably get more use out of not having your speed reduced by wearing heavy armor. Compare this to the difference between a mountain dwarf fighter vs. sorcerer when you include the +2 Strength and +2 con, and you can see how those ability score increases punish you for playing a hill dwarf sorcerer.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

-1 compared to characters of other races. +4 is at -1 compared to +5.

Yes, I suspected you meant this. It ispretty sad state of affairs if one point differnce in an ability modifier is unbearable injustice. If that is unacceptable than just just make all characters to be clones with identical abilities.

It is absolutely different. See my above post. Having a 2-point lower score in your class’s primary ability is a 5% hit on most of the d20 rolls you will make. Missing out on a proficiency is if comparatively little impact, especially when it’s compensated for by some other ability. Maybe your mountain dwarf fighter doesn’t get as much use out of that medium armor proficiency as a mountain dwarf sorcerer might have, but you probably get more use out of not having your speed reduced by wearing heavy armor. Compare this to the difference between a mountain dwarf fighter vs. sorcerer when you include the +2 Strength and +2 con, and you can see how those ability score increases punish you for playing a hill dwarf sorcerer.

5% is not a huge deal. Also, under your system Mountain Dwarfs will be the absolutely the best casters as they get to rock a medium armour while other races only get some useless robes. That is likely to be more than 5% increase in AC we are talking about here!

 

[BrokenTwin]

I think there's a gap between "suboptimal" and "bad" that's not really being addressed. Playing a halfling barbarian is suboptimal. But that -1 isn't going to make your character drag the party down.

D&D is a game where you try to synergise different mechanical templates (race/class/equipment) to make something fun to play. When I want to play a game that's purely about character concept, then I'm going to play something like FATE. Removing my ability to optimise (half-orc barbarian) or subvert (half-orc wizard) the provided framework removes a large part of what makes D&D interesting to me.

I get that D&D is the nine thousand pound gorilla in the room right now, but certainly it would be better to move to a system that does support the framework you want rather than try to force D&D to change its basic structure.

Granted, there's a really interesting Ship of Theseus argument to make too. Considering how much D&D has changed already, how much does it need to change before it's no longer D&D?