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

[Urriak Uruk]

I can accept that, but we still need to determine how to present those other mechanical factors. For example, what are you using to differentiate orcs and other humanoids from other races and each other mechanically and in the lore? I feel both aspects need attention.

We don't need to determine how to present those mechanical factors, in all honesty. The current trajectory that Crawford seems to hint at for racial mechanics seems to be to divorce physical appearance of the race from racial mechanics, though we won't really know till we see it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, this assumes point buy. Most characters I've seen with rolled stats have a 16 on the dice, which allows them to have an 18 at level 1 if they want it, and thus a 20 at level 4.

But if you choose to roll your stats then you really can't complain about balance anyway. It is a method to create intentional imbalance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But if you choose to roll your stats then you really can't complain about balance anyway. It is a method to create intentional imbalance.

Fair enough. That degree of balance was never that important to me anyway.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Again, this assumes point buy. Most characters I've seen with rolled stats have a 16 on the dice, which allows them to have an 18 at level 1 if they want it, and thus a 20 at level 4.

rolled stats are random, and despite presentation of the phb, not what most people use, as far as I can tell.

And yeah, most of us assume point buy, because it's much easier to actually have a discussion with some kind of common ground.

 

[Micah Sweet]

rolled stats are random, and despite presentation of the phb, not what most people use, as far as I can tell.

And yeah, most of us assume point buy, because it's much easier to actually have a discussion with some kind of common ground.

Fair enough as far as discussion goes. I don't think we'll ever know what system is most used, as I suspect most rollers are not forum visitors.

 

[Remathilis]

What if, instead, every character had a primary stat, and there were rules within each class for how each score functions as the primary score for a character of that class?

That is, imagine the gnome fighter. Let's say, Rock Gnome, to just make sure that there is no synergy with strength or dex fighter, but also the concept is a sword and shield fighter in medium or heavy armor. Why shouldn't that Rock Gnome Fighter use Intelligence as their main stat, with the Fighter class function in a subtly different way for an Int primary Fighter than for a Strength primary Fighter? For the Figther, this would need to be a very simple difference, perhaps a bonus to critical hits, perhaps an extra skill, perhaps something else. A Charisma fighter might have the ability to apply their short rest abilities to an ally 1/day, as another example. I'm sure the flavor of these options is fairly obvious, but lets look at something less obvious.

A Goliath Wizard is going to be based on Strength, right? So how can Strength make you a better Wizard? How can Strength vs Intelligence make a Goliath and Gnome Wizard feel different?
The Goliath Wizard is understood to be more forceful, be more powerful in abjuration and evocation, perhaps? Perhaps they can push back on someone's magic when they pass a saving throw, potentially pushing the source of the effect or knocking them prone? Perhaps a Dexterous Wizard can move after passing a saving throw, as another example.

At best, you are effectively eliminating the need for primary ability scores for classes since everyone can use their favorite ability score anyway. 4e did this to a certain degree with the Melee Training feat (which was a patch because many classes used weird stats on Int, Con, or Cha to hit with melee attacks, but were forced to use Str for Basic Attacks like OAs) or 3.0 Psionics, where every discipline was tied to a certain score (Str for Psychmetabolic, Wis for Clairsentience, Cha for Telepathy, etc). Note that both of these were not especially well received (as 3.5 psionics abandoned it, and 4e viewed it as a feat tax).

At worst, you are going make every class MAD, esp if some of these abilities don't look especially racial (or put another way, there is no reason a wizard with an 19 dex can't move after passing a save, but an elf with a 14 dex can). I guess you can say you have to specialize based on your ability scores (so you can't have the dexterous wizard bonus, the strong wizard bonus, or the tough wizard bonus, you have to choose) but that still ends up limiting certain options to certain races (why should goliaths be better abjurers, or gnomes be better battlemasters?) but you've broken it down the suboptional stage rather than the class stage.

Personally, I think at the point you'd be better untying ability scores from class altogether, much like how it was in OD&D. You could have spell attacks/DCs purely based on class level rather than proficiency+ability mod, for example. You could also institute some manner of weapon specialization to allow warrior types to rely less on raw ability and more on training and class-derived bonuses. You could also slow down the bonuses from ability scores to something closer to Basic D&Ds (max +3) so that while a strong fighter might have an edge in raw talent, a dedicated gnome fighter could close the gap with class ability.

 

[Sadras]

What makes an orc an orc?

Strength, Tusks, Power, Ferocity, Danger, Savageness....a couple other things but if I had to distill it down to one thing (for myself) it would have to be

Zug-zug!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

At best, you are effectively eliminating the need for primary ability scores for classes since everyone can use their favorite ability score anyway. 4e did this to a certain degree with the Melee Training feat (which was a patch because many classes used weird stats on Int, Con, or Cha to hit with melee attacks, but were forced to use Str for Basic Attacks like OAs) or 3.0 Psionics, where every discipline was tied to a certain score (Str for Psychmetabolic, Wis for Clairsentience, Cha for Telepathy, etc). Note that both of these were not especially well received (as 3.5 psionics abandoned it, and 4e viewed it as a feat tax).

At worst, you are going make every class MAD, esp if some of these abilities don't look especially racial (or put another way, there is no reason a wizard with an 19 dex can't move after passing a save, but an elf with a 14 dex can). I guess you can say you have to specialize based on your ability scores (so you can't have the dexterous wizard bonus, the strong wizard bonus, or the tough wizard bonus, you have to choose) but that still ends up limiting certain options to certain races (why should goliaths be better abjurers, or gnomes be better battlemasters?) but you've broken it down the suboptional stage rather than the class stage.

Personally, I think at the point you'd be better untying ability scores from class altogether, much like how it was in OD&D. You could have spell attacks/DCs purely based on class level rather than proficiency+ability mod, for example. You could also institute some manner of weapon specialization to allow warrior types to rely less on raw ability and more on training and class-derived bonuses. You could also slow down the bonuses from ability scores to something closer to Basic D&Ds (max +3) so that while a strong fighter might have an edge in raw talent, a dedicated gnome fighter could close the gap with class ability.

I didn't like 4e's 'use whatever' approach as then everyone was still doing the same thing but used different stat. This just broke the illusion that the abilities actually represented something.

Now many classes having a fixed main stat is fine, but I feel there should be more variety in choosing what secondary stats to utilise. This could be achieved with subclasses. Basically main class requires one stat, and each subclass requires some other stat. For example all Monks might need Dex, but only 'Monastic Mystic' subclass requires Wis, then there could be 'Pugilist' subclass that requires Str, 'Dancer' which requires Cha and so forth. 'Warlord' would be an obvious choice for Cha based Fighter subclass.

 

[Remathilis]

I didn't like 4e's 'use whatever' approach as then everyone was still doing the same thing but used different stat. This just broke the illusion that the abilities actually represented something.

Now many classes having a fixed main stat is fine, but I feel there should be more variety in choosing what secondary stats to utilise. This could be achieved with subclasses. Basically main class requires one stat, and each subclass requires some other stat. For example all Monks might need Dex, but only 'Monastic Mystic' subclass requires Wis, then there could be 'Pugilist' subclass that requires Str, 'Dancer' which requires Cha and so forth. 'Warlord' would be an obvious choice for Cha based Fighter subclass.

I mean, some subclasses in 5e already have that baked in. Edlritch knights need Int, War bards need Str, trickery clerics need Dex, etc. I could see the idea expanded further, but I don't think it would fix the problem @doctorbadwolf was trying to fix.

 

[Charlaquin]

Doesn't matter, people will find patterns. Right now, I can name a dozen real-world analogies to Forgotten Realms locations, some overt (Moonshaes, Calimshsan) and some subtle (Dalelands, Waterdeep). The father from the Sword Coast, the more obvious it gets (Chult, Mulhorand, Zakhara, Kara-Tur).

Even Eberron, where the major countries were designed with D&Dism rather than real world cultures in mind, can be mapped vaguely to real culture; Breeland is America, Thrane is the Holy Roman Empire, Aundair is France, Karnth is Germany, Mhor Holds is Switzerland, Lhazzaar is the Caribbean, Xen'drik is Africa, etc. I'm sure that wasn't the intention, but certain tropes that the designers wanted because they fit the pulp genre unintentionally linked them to the Earth areas that inspired them.

Like orcs and PoC.

Fair enough.