Imo, and as others have said: racial abilities should be more defining if we're going to completely remove racial ASIs.
E.g.,
Powerful Build (Orcs) should grant Advantage to Athletics checks (i.e., Grapple, Shove) and +PB to damage when using melee weapons. Not the totally lame: "your carrying capacity doubles"...
Dwarves are pretty good already. Resistance to poison, stonecunning, and possible +1 HP/level are all solid character-defining features. Perhaps they should get Advantage in *all* Con STs, and *all* subraces should get +1 HP/level.
Elves should get a bonus to Dex (maybe just acrobatic) checks and a +PB bonus to damage when using ranged or finesse weapons (& spells?).
Gnomes are also pretty good. Adv on all mental STs is perfect for a "more cunning" race. Perhaps they could get a +1 to the Save DC of their spells and/or certain int & wis checks...
Tieflings should get more unique (non-spell) features relating to their heritage/blood/demonic features. Using blood to empower spells, moving their shadow or making their eyes glow red to Intimidate enemies, etc.
Small Races should get at the very least get Disadvantage on contested Athletics checks against larger creatures, and maybe a penalty to damage on melee & thrown weapons in exchange for +1 AC.
The above would retain the notable differences between the races (an Orc always does more damage/is more effective in melee than a Human) while still allowing for them to have the same stats and be effective at any class. Importantly, these racial abilities *shouldn't* be easily made redundant by class abilities or simply be "you know X spell."
* Optionally, replace any instances of "Advantage" with "Expertise" or "+ X bonus."
I think part of the issue is that "race" really is the wrong word here. In practice, we're really talking about species, aren't we? Dwarf, elf, hafling, human, all species of genus humanoid, more or less.
Comparing a halfling to a half-orc is like comparing a leopard shark to a great white, or a river dolphin to an orca. There are real and meaningful differences.
The problem is that you are mixing things up. Strength is not only how strong is your character, but also how often he can hit, how much damage he inflicts, but also how much he can carry and how it can interact with other creatures. An halfling is already "weaker" than an orc, because of its size that gives him disadvantage interacting with creatures bigger than him and making him carry and lift less (IIRC). Why do you want to make it also a worse swordman?
Because he has a completely different center of gravity, lower hand reach, worse grip and obvious problems handling weapons that are too big for his size. In D&D there is even a debuff (oversized weapons) applied to you if you try use weapons that are too big for your size.
A massive two-handed sword would simply never reach the same potential in the hands of a halfling as it would in the hands of someone of optimal height for it.
And by doing so the game loses a lot of flavor, just to please the minmaxers who come with terrible excuses for why all races should be the same mechanically.
Agreed. And numbers are boring is a strange claim to make while promoting PF2 - mathfinder is absurdly crunchy!
I'd add that when people come up with substitutes for species wide traits they almost inevitably substitute colonial stereotypes for that missing flavor. I'm just going to eliminate orcs from from my homebrew campaign so I don't have to deal with people drawing on stereotypes of oppressed nomadic peoples.
Quote
I think Pathfinder 2e does it right, offering each ancestry(their term for races) a selection of racial feats that they can choose from every handful of levels.
I mean that's fine but it really a wish for a PF2 game, no? 5e decided to move away from feats and to return to something that resembled the 1-2e system. (Which I liked for many, many reasons) Of course 5e it was designed to be played fans of all editions so there are some feats in the game but feats are side dishes - scores are the main meal.
I wouldn't oppose implementing some interesting feats but even then I would prefer that the ASI system remain in place.
Originally Posted by Sangsang2
Everything about this is just horrible, I'm sorry. It only leads to an unfun and unimaginative experience where every race is nothing but a stereotype of itself.
There's a difference between type and stereotype. And I would argue - quite strenuously - that Golorian relies more on cultural stereotypes than does Faerun. This not say the Forgotten Realms isn't guilty of the same (please, please delete Matizca from the setting) but Golorian is magnitudes worse.
The concept is right mrfuji3, but I wouldn't touch things like AC and DC. Bounded accuracy is stable and amazing, but also delicate. PB to damage on the other hand is interesting for orcs, but feels more like a cultural thing rather than physical for elves. I'd go with a double range on ranged weapons to stress their long sight. The advantage on identifying spells that as been suggested before is even cooler because it's usable by more classes.
On top of that, IIRC, small creatures already have disadvantage against bigger creatures.
There are one thousands way to improve races and make them more unique. We can list them for months without getting short of new ideas. The point is that a feature will always be more interesting than a number.
In D&D there is even a debuff (oversized weapons) applied to you if you try use weapons that are too big for your size.
There are not bigger and smaller weapons in 5e. An halfling can use the same longsword of an orc. The only limitation are "Heavy" weapons, so yeah, an halfling can't use a greatsword like an orc, but it's completely on fair ground when they both use a longsword or a spear.
Quote
Agreed. And numbers are boring is a strange claim to make while promoting PF2 - mathfinder is absurdly crunchy!
That's fair honestly. I don't play PF2, but I still know the system because I've a little passion about game design and I know some systems. I think that PF2 have a good idea because it makes both sides happy.
Races should be different and yes it should be natural that you orc mage will be dumber then a high elf even if he tries his damndest, especially if the high-elf also ties his damndest. The more radical the differences between the various races, the better, and we should do EVERYTHING in order to make that happen, including racial speels, skills, and ability scores. In fact, we should bring back NEGATIVE ability adjustments as well, and the ASI adjustments shouldn't be re-arrangable, except for maybe the half elves. The race system should become MORE rigid, not less so. Back in BG2, we had certain classes locked to certain races and the limitations of the races actually defined who they were. The racial system in current D&D is way too individualistic and fluid, and it gives people the illusion that non-human races are basically just humans with exotic body party and shin colours.
Everything about this is just horrible, I'm sorry. It only leads to an unfun and unimaginative experience where every race is nothing but a stereotype of itself.
There is a reason if most games are moving away from these kind of "features", and it's because they are just arbitrary limitations that says nothing about the world and the game. D&D is giving all races floating stats. Pathfinder 2ed (which have a better idea) gives static bonuses and floating bonuses which in the end brings every race to be able to do everything, putting an orc wizard on pair with an high elf wizard.
If I'm playing an orc shaman (reflavour of a druid or a cleric) that lives by worshipping the gods of nature, spent his life studying ways to heals his army and preparing magics to unleash the power of nature against his foes, you can bet I want it to be good as a wood elf druid.
As I suggested before, races are not defined by numbers. Races are defined by their unique features, like dark vision, breathing fire, or being fast learners.
This is an extremely perversive take that is outright wrong. You can't call racial attributes just numbers, because they are not. They are numerical equivalent of real values, such as a relevant racial intelligence, a relevant racial strength, wisdom etc. Your misleading assessment is easily dismantled by replacing numbers with wording, for example you could replace +2 bonus to Intelligence with "naturally more intelligent than other races". An ape is not as intelligent as a human, it is given. But the ape is much more agile 99% of the time. They are different species dude, they have different brain and muscle. As I've said before in a different thread, the rule should set the exception, not the other way around. I usually try to avoid stereotypical names but I can't call your take any other than woke in the very bad way. What you are doing here is twisting and stretching the obvious, it is an equivalent of saying that IQ is just numbers. Please, reconsider and appeal to common sense.
Last edited by neprostoman; 05/07/2308:34 PM. Reason: typo
The concept is right mrfuji3, but I wouldn't touch things like AC and DC. Bounded accuracy is stable and amazing, but also delicate. PB to damage on the other hand is interesting for orcs, but feels more like a cultural thing rather than physical for elves. I'd go with a double range on ranged weapons to stress their long sight. The advantage on identifying spells that as been suggested before is even cooler because it's usable by more classes.
On top of that, IIRC, small creatures already have disadvantage against bigger creatures.
There are one thousands way to improve races and make them more unique. We can list them for months without getting short of new ideas. The point is that a feature will always be more interesting than a number.
Sure, my specific examples were just that: examples. What's important is that the racial differences are mechanically impactful, (mostly) unique, and define core aspects of races.
You're only partly right about small creatures. If I'm not mistaken, the only differences between Medium and Small creatures is that the latter have disadvantage when using Heavy (i.e., Two-Handed) weapons and cannot grapple/shove Large creatures. With normal weapons, a Halfling is mechanically as effective as a Medium creature. And small races can grapple & shove medium creatures at no penalty (I *strongly* disagree with this rule). So there are certain characters that you can't do with small races (two-handed barbarian titan-grappler), but most character concepts are relatively unaffected.
Afaik, small races have the *same* carrying capacity as larger races. It's only Tiny creatures that have their carrying capacity halved.
In sum: imo 5e messed up by removing most size differences and thus making races more homogenous = boring.
An ape is not as intelligent as a human, it is given. But the ape is much more agile 99% of the time.
You are mixing up ASI with statblocks. A dragon is stronger than a human too, but it's not because it's born with +2 to strength. It is because it's a dragon. Luckily 5e left behind the idea of building the bestiary with the same rules as PC.
Quote
As I've said before in a different thread, the rule should set the exception, not the other way around.
I beg to differ. The PC are the exceptions. Not every drow is drizzit, not every human is mordenkainen, and I'm not playing the average sailor with 10 in each stat for sure. The rules to build a PC must consider the fact that they are the exceptions.
Quote
can't call your take any other than woke in the very bad way.
Just omg. It's not woke. It's fun. Sadly it seems like you are still attached to an idea where your only option to have fun is to limit others freedom and imagination.
I promise not use the W word after this post but, @neprostoman while I mostly agree with your position I also (partially) agree with @theredqueen that using the word "woke" doesn't help the discussion. I am "woke" and I am speaking from "woke" perspective that is concerned that the changes make people MORE likely to invoke harmful stereotypes.
Humans aren't divided into different species, we're the only culture making creature in this world. Faerun, on the other hand, has different species with very different bodies . . .
Don't want to see the thread locked.
@Sangsang2 In truth I don't play PF2 either I'm really responding to a reading of the rules and the reviews.
This is a long review but if you start at 17:00 the DM discusses the crunchiness of the system. It seems like a good system for video games - because who wants to keep track of all those numbers at the table - but I would find it difficult to DM.
I've seen the same video a long ago, it's a good channel.
I do prefer a more narrative experience myself, but I've a few friends who play it and they like it. Sure, they also despise 5e, so I don't know how much I should take into account their opinion haha
That said I think it does have a few good ideas, like having various degree of proficiency or 4 degrees of success, but they still suffer from the neverending amount of bonuses to the roll, necessary magic weapons to keep up with DCs, and a plethora of feats to choose every level that just bore me to death at the sole idea.
Quote
In sum: imo 5e messed up by removing most size differences and thus making races more homogenous = boring.
I totally agree with this, not because it's boring but because it's hard to DM these situations, personally. A medium sized character using a troll club? reducing a character from small to tiny? It would be more helpful to have standardized size rules rather than having every spell specify it's own effect. Probably I've Houseruled the disadvantage for small creatures and forgot about it just because it felt good.
Also take into account that in a fantasy setting, evolution and biology don't have to follow along scientific lines. Elves can be more agile because their god made them so.
If a Dragon was a playable race, then I would hope it got a racial score bonus, I would also appreciate some old fashioned 3e size category adjustments, such as Huge Creatures getting +4 strength -4 Dex.
Calling the PCs exceptional isn't a great rationale. The rules aren't just for your PC, they're supposed to be a translation of the world into the mechanics of the game.
You are mixing up ASI with statblocks. A dragon is stronger than a human too, but it's not because it's born with +2 to strength. It is because it's a dragon. Luckily 5e left behind the idea of building the bestiary with the same rules as PC.
Sorry, were you even trying to pay attention to my words? I've just, literal minutes ago, thoroughly explained that numbers are an equivalent of real values. What is not clear about it? Your example is embarrassing, because the dragon does not have +2 to strength, it has lets say +6 to strength and this is an equivalent of 'because it's a dragon'. Do you know how numbers apply to evaluate certain things and distinguish small from big, right? Like small is 1 and big is 10? Can you draw those parallels and accept them for what they are?
Originally Posted by Sansang2
I beg to differ. The PC are the exceptions. Not every drow is drizzit, not every human is mordenkainen, and I'm not playing the average sailor with 10 in each stat for sure. The rules to build a PC must consider the fact that they are the exceptions.
Okay, I don't necessarily agree with the generality of your statement, you should respect what everyone thinks of their PCs and not push your narrative as universal. But even if we respect your take and say you are universally true, then those exceptional characters still operate within the system of racial (or you may call it inter-species) differences. The thing that can define your uniqueness is already in the game and it is called allocatable attributes. If you want to push the boundaries, there is already a rule that states 'DM can override rules for your fun'. But this is the exception, not the general rule, once again.
Last edited by neprostoman; 05/07/2309:18 PM. Reason: typo
promise not use the W word after this post but, @neprostoman while I mostly agree with your position I also (partially) agree with @theredqueen that using the word "woke" doesn't help the discussion.
Hey, KillerRabbit, I can totally understand where you are coming from. Yet we should not be afraid of discussion. The word can mean so many things to so many different people, some of these things can be outright offensive, but regulating my speech would not make the facts go away. I am not interested in leading the discussion into the dead end though, so the least I can do is put some context behind my application of 'woke' in my particular statement. By 'woke' I meant nothing other than 'facts altering logic in a pursuit of some personally just vision', where 'personally' does not necessarily mean that only @Sansang2 wants this. I am completely fine with people playing the game how they want, but once again, the rule should set the exception, this is non other than common sense.
Edit: By the way, I like how Pathfinder handles things in the matter and I am completely fine with the system that respects both its world and its player in such a delicate way.
Last edited by neprostoman; 05/07/2309:23 PM. Reason: typo
Humans aren't divided into different species, we're the only culture making creature in this world. Faerun, on the other hand, has different species with very different bodies . . .
That's fair, but you also have to think that you are playing a game where everything can be everything. If you give an option to someone, that option needs to be fair. An orc and an elf wizard needs to be on the same page, otherwise you are not giving an option, you are tricking someone, you are creating a trap, and that's bad design. You shouldn't propose something to someone only to have them realize that they perform worse than anyone else because of them not knowing better. That's 3.X design and it's horrible.
And be care, we are not talking about min/maxing here. We are talking about being on par with an average anyone else. Min maxing is playing a sorcadin, or doing some weird trick to sneak attack twice a round every round, or playing a twilight cleric (lol). Playing a druid with 16-17 WIS is not mix-maxing.
If you don't want that everything should be everything, then we should have a game were every race (or species) have it's own classes like in those old MMOs like lineage 2.
A human can be a warrior, a strider, a wizard and a cleric. An elf can be a sword mage, an enchanter, a light envoy. An orc can be a shaman, a destroyer, and so on.
Every class would be designed around the species that can select it and it would be cool, but this is not the system we are playing.
@neprostoman I refuse to engage in further discussions with you. Bye.
Can't we just discuss the pros and cons of D&D race-related ASIs in a friendly and constructive way, respecting each other's points of view, and without bringing "wokeness" into it? I'm sure it's possible!
I'd recommend at least two things to help us here. Let's focus on what we here on these forums think and debate that, and not worry about what some notional other people might or might not say. And let's say exactly what we mean (courteously and respectfully, of course!), rather than using terms that are ambiguous and, in some senses, derogatory.
EDIT: Btw, for context, I wrote the above before seeing the prior two posts.
Last edited by The Red Queen; 05/07/2309:47 PM.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
I am not opposed to a more interesting alternative than stat boosts or maluses, but I am also not in favour of removing them.
Attributes represent our characters capabilities, and those are and should be affected by our character race. If halfling can’t be a strong as an half-orc or needs to invest more to get to similar level - that’s fine, that’s a consequence of our roleplaying choice. I also think it is fine for some races to be optimal or sub-optimal for certain builds - as long as wider variety of builds is viable.
I think extra racial features are a nice bonus as they can give extra utility to an otherwise sub-optimal character, but I don’t think sub-optimal is wrong in a cRPG, as long as it brings something else of value (reactivity, secondary stat bonus etc.)
Seeing politics brought to this topic makes me sad. I'm only interested in discussing ASI as a game mechanic, so I'm gonna pretend I didn't see that. Apologies for the length of this post but please bear with me.
To all of you saying numerical stat bonuses are important to represent the natural strengths and weaknesses of a race compared to the rest of the setting - I get it. I used to think that way too and a couple years back I'd be right there with you all defending it. But trying to play without them helped me realize one thing - the whole ability score system is a simplistic and arbitrary abstraction. Its ability to accurately model the in-world reality behind the characters is already tenuous at best. Any effort to see one's Strength score as a precise, non-arbitrary representation of a character's physical strength and athleticism will fall apart once you realize it makes an average human fighter stronger than a bear.
So what're ability bonuses really good for? Why do they make us feel like they make races distinct? Why, because they speak of averages. An orc getting +2 Strength means if you take a random orc and a random human out of a thousand, the orc is more likely to be the stronger one. One would therefore think the strongest orc would be stronger than the strongest human, and yet their Strength scores share the same cap of 20. Why? Because the ability score system is arbitrary that way. It's a game mechanic.
It's also very worth noting that racial ASI isn't even always due to some innate, biological property of the race, unlike what some of you assume if I'm not mistaken. The githyanki, for example, are lanky and emaciated. They receive a +2 Strength bonus despite their scrawny physicality because they are a war-like people and most among them undergo martial training. Therefore, how can we be sure a wood elf's Wisdom bonus is also not cultural and if I want to play a city wood elf raised by a wizard, why doesn't it make sense to start with decent Intelligence instead of Wisdom? To give a fair answer: wood elves are usually wise and one unusual exception shouldn't take away from their identity. But please see things from my viewpoint here - there is no excuse to limit the player playing the exception because of an arbitrary mechanic that only represents the average.
In conclusion I think the solution that would please both those who like racial bonuses and those who don't care much for them is to keep racial bonuses as they are but allow a very costly point-buy to 17 for unaffected abilities.
