Level Up (A5E) Where to put ability bonuses during character creation

[Micah Sweet]

This. In my experience, most players choose a race because they just think that race is cool, interesting, fun, or sets up a cool, interesting, or fun combo with whatever class they have in mind, or with whatever story/background they're going for. I don't get the feeling that would change much even if race choices came with no features or bonuses at all.

I've found that really depends on the player. Some people choose based on what they think would be cool, others strictly on what makes the math do what they want, and others because they really like gnomes (like my wife, bless her!)

 

[Derren]

For good or worse, Pathfinder 2 has already established "ancestry" as the "race" replacement term in D&D-adjacent gaming. Other fantasy rpgs simply don't come into this.

I really feel it would be a mistake for Level Up to take upon itself to split the terminology here. (Of course, as a 5E-compatible product, rather than it's own thing, I feel LU should retain "race". But if that term is deemed sufficiently unacceptable, going with the already-established alternative should be strongly considered)

Levelup is a D&D supplement and while WotC announcwd intentions to do so they have not changed the term race yet so thats what levelup should use until WotC comes up with something new.

I've found that really depends on the player. Some people choose based on what they think would be cool, others strictly on what makes the math do what they want, and others because they really like gnomes (like my wife, bless her!)

And which of those players would really benefit from ASI being removed from races? None of them really.

 

[Kinematics]

Is there any reason to not go for the term "ancestry"?

I see nothing good coming out of splitting the terminology, and like it or not, Pathfinder 2 was first to coin a term here.

Because naming things is a hard problem, and we're not nearly at a point yet where the mechanics have been defined enough that the right name is a concern.

'Race' is simple and clear, and implies a direct mapping which can include things like half-elves and half-orcs. It does, however, have a lot of people try to find ways to make it equivalent to race relations in the real world, despite it not being the same thing.

'Ancestry' implies a 'pure' mapping because it stretches into the past (see: Draconic Ancestry for Dragonborn). Thus there would be no half-elf or half-orc ancestries, but only human or elf or orc. That in turn means you would need to be able to define multiple ancestral types for a given character, which means you need mechanics for combining human and elf ancestries to get the equivalent of the half-elf. Pathfinder uses a human base and then adds a racial feat to get there, which means it's not mechanically compatible with the 5E approach. That may not be what the game designers want to allow for.

'Species' sounds like you have a bunch of bodies pinned up to a board in a scientist's lab somewhere. Frankly, it doesn't fit the aesthetic of pseudo-medieval D&D settings.

'Breed' sounds like you're talking about your pet dog.

Lineage might work, though it's somewhat close to Ancestry in implications.

Kindred is maybe. Folk is probably too 'casual' a term. Descent, Origin, Forebears, Heredity, and so forth. Each suggests things slightly different about what the mechanic is intended to convey, and how it's intended to work.


Basically, while I like Ancestry as a term, using it just because Pathfinder adopted it seems liable to introduce confusion for those who would use the term in both systems, since they would not work the same way, mechanically. Any other choice at the moment is putting the cart before the horse, because, as I said, naming things is a hard problem, and is not an urgent issue for the board that's just brainstorming for mechanics changes.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Just back story and dependents the DM can use for story beats?

I now that most D&D players love to have mechanics that go with the fluff, but I myself have a huge love for narrative-first, storytelling systems. So having the race only be relevant for the story or, maybe sometime leveraged for an advantage if it fits the in-game description of the character actions using its fluff to deal with a situation is not a deal breaker for me.

Use the physical traits of the PC to give flavor to the in-fiction description of your action. Elves generally have good sight, so if you want to play that interesting angle of the elves race, train yourself in perception, dont dump wis and describe how you use your super elven eyes when you make a perception check. You cannot see better than most human, but still cant see in darkness: seeing in the dark is the domain of magic or class features. You aaracokra has wings that help him in long jump: when you describe your PC making a long jump, describe him as spreading its wing to glide to the spot he wants to. If you dump Str, well you are a physically weak aaracokra, your wings are mangy, or twisted and wont help you much in reaching high or distant places. You still wont be soaring the sky at first level, again, this is from the domain of magic and class feature.

If you want to say you developed your aarakocra flight aptitude, boost your Str, be a Eagle Bard, be a Storm sorcerer, a Monk with step of the wind, a Fighter with Remarkable athlete, a Thief rogue, a Celestial warlock with ascendant step etc, and describe the flight feature as being not only from your magic features, but also from developing your inherent fluff with said class aptitude.

Now, this will never be a thing in D&D, but many game does that just fine. If the game is built around it, you do not need mechanical rules for races.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Levelup is a D&D supplement

No, this is a new game using the OGL. The game can use the term the designer wants.

Adventures in Middle-Earth uses the term Cultures for its ''races''.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Is there any reason to not go for the term "ancestry"?

From what I gathered from Morrus' comments, I think the devs will favor the use of ''Heritage''.

I'm partial to Folk, myself, but I've no preference as long as it is not ''race''.

 

[DND_Reborn]

a Monk with step of the wind

Seeing some of the moves Jackie Chan does in climbing walls and jumping using things around him, I've never had any issue with Step of the Wind or see it as having to be magical. It can be, certainly, but doesn't need to be IMO.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Seeing some of the moves Jackie Chan does in climbing walls and jumping using things around him, I've never had any issue with Step of the Wind or see it as having to be magical. It can be, certainly, but doesn't need to be IMO.

Exactly. All is in the description of the character's action. An aarakocra could say he uses its wind to simulate the effect of that feature, a strong goliath could say he jumps and quickly swing from rock outcrops, vines or whatever, the effect stays the same: the jump distance is doubled and the speed increased.

 

[Undrave]

Basically, while I like Ancestry as a term, using it just because Pathfinder adopted it seems liable to introduce confusion for those who would use the term in both systems, since they would not work the same way, mechanically. Any other choice at the moment is putting the cart before the horse, because, as I said, naming things is a hard problem, and is not an urgent issue for the board that's just brainstorming for mechanics changes.

Levelup is a D&D supplement and while WotC announcwd intentions to do so they have not changed the term race yet so thats what levelup should use until WotC comes up with something new.

Well, it's not like Level-Up will be published tomorrow, so it's highly possible that WOTC will release their replacement term to 'Race' before Level-Up is ready to go. I think waiting until mechanics are locked down and we're closer to publishing to lock down the right term is a wise move, but I don't mind using 'Species' until then.

And which of those players would really benefit from ASI being removed from races? None of them really.

For the "Coolsville" player it doesn't actually change what they pick since they never considered the math. The "Mathamancer" player will be happy to have the math do what they want even more, and the "Gnome Lover" will be happy to not be met with groan when they bring a Gnome Cleric or something to a table of Mathamancers.

The net benefit is obvious to me.

 

[Derren]

No, this is a new game using the OGL. The game can use the term the designer wants.

Adventures in Middle-Earth uses the term Cultures for its ''races''.

The impression I have is that it is intended to be backward compatible with 5E, thus you should use the same names.

And using culture is a very bad idea as it means there is only one culture per race and that it is impossible to escape said culture like a hobbit growing up in a nearby human city.

Well, it's not like Level-Up will be published tomorrow, so it's highly possible that WOTC will release their replacement term to 'Race' before Level-Up is ready to go. I think waiting until mechanics are locked down and we're closer to publishing to lock down the right term is a wise move, but I don't mind using 'Species' until then.



For the "Coolsville" player it doesn't actually change what they pick since they never considered the math. The "Mathamancer" player will be happy to have the math do what they want even more, and the "Gnome Lover" will be happy to not be met with groan when they bring a Gnome Cleric or something to a table of Mathamancers.

The net benefit is obvious to me.

If WotC announces a new name then of course Levelup should use that one.

So Coolplayer and XLover have no problems with the current ASI as they choose races based on other things.
Mathplayer don't really care what race they play as long as it is the best and will just look for new best combinations they will play exclusively.
So, why water races down when most don't have a problem with them?