No flame war intended - apologies if it came across like that. I am simply wary of the idea of actually pairing down the cultural information since most people tend to bounce of ideas in existing material (books we read, movies, etc.), and having examples/sources of inspiration within the rules makes it more approachable for many I think.
I'm not quite sure how your proposal differ from background though? If it is to offset some of the species specific additions only, I think it will be a bit of a struggle. Some (most) of the features (not feats!) would presumably be considered innate (e,g, dark vision, breath weapon, flight, keen sense, long limbs etc.) and a few are culturally defined (proficiencies, languages perhaps?). To be honest, aside from the "old" basic PHB races, there aren't many such features that aren't more innately linked with the species. If anything, it might be better to rework the human, elf, dwarf, halfling, to make them more interesting in the current race for adding features to the species? I appreciate where you are coming from, but to me it seems like a fairly substantial structural change to rules in order to deal with a low number of features/additions to some species.
Most races have no or at least questionably cultural traits. The lion's share of those you get through background already, and backgrounds are something you're explicitly encouraged to change or make up as needed anyway. As such, it wouldn't really be a matter of decoupling certain qualities - it'd likely be decoupling what's there, make up a whole bunch of other stuff to fill that out, balance out the remaining non-cultural qualities if so desired (it's not like the races are terribly well-balanced as is, so that's a take it or leave it issue), and possibly have a run at backgrounds to boot. Might be easier to remove the cultural stuff, replace with something genetic if necessary, and leave the cultural stuff to the background altogether.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The problem in the OP is that the PHB encourages deviation from their suggestions for people to make their own characters instead of relying on the text for everything. People don't need TCoE to remind them that they could always customize their character, but WotC saw people thinking that only what's written was the only way to do things (while ignoring what says it's not the only way to do things) . So, TCoE gets published to try to show people examples of how to think for themselves. It seems to me that it still hasn't worked.
If you want your Dwarf raised by Elves to be proficient with DEX weapons, do it. Stop thinking within a block of text.
EDIT: Just because the official tools go with what's written for official support doesn't mean you must only do what's officially supported. That was never the intent of DDB or any other WotC-sanctioned tool.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I just wish that we'd stop calling them races - that is way more problematic than the culture aspect in my opinion. By calling them races every species in the D&D word is further anthropomorphised. Of course, even species need to be anthropomorphised to be playable, but by clinging on to the race label brings up a lot of connotations about racism, when they are fundamentally different species as different capabilities demonstrate - even when you remove ASI.
I agree with you that the term "race" is problematic, but I disagree with you as to the reason. I also would object to using the term "species" as it is too scientific. I would prefer Ancestry or Lineage. I do think that all the sentient peoples of D&D should be seen as people, trying to distance the idea of different lineages from the term "race" by leaning harder into fictional biological differences does nothing to alleviate the controversial nature of the "races" but emphasizing that all the different lineages are still people and that they should be treated like people will help more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
No flame war intended - apologies if it came across like that. I am simply wary of the idea of actually pairing down the cultural information since most people tend to bounce of ideas in existing material (books we read, movies, etc.), and having examples/sources of inspiration within the rules makes it more approachable for many I think.
You're fine, I know you didn't intend to start one. The thing is, every single time people start talking about it, it always ends up descending into a flame war. If I don't see another such thread again, it'll be too soon. I needed to nip it in the bud and be firm about it. While there is some tangential relation, it'll just wreck any discussion when someone inevitably comes to tell you that you're wrong because x, y, z and someone will defend what you said and....yeah. At any rate, I actually agree that it shouldn't be removed or reduced, and my proposal didn't suggest any loss. If anything, it woukd allow for expansion.
I'm not quite sure how your proposal differ from background though? If it is to offset some of the species specific additions only, I think it will be a bit of a struggle. Some (most) of the features (not feats!) would presumably be considered innate (e,g, dark vision, breath weapon, flight, keen sense, long limbs etc.) and a few are culturally defined (proficiencies, languages perhaps?). To be honest, aside from the "old" basic PHB races, there aren't many such features that aren't more innately linked with the species. If anything, it might be better to rework the human, elf, dwarf, halfling, to make them more interesting in the current race for adding features to the species?
It would function similarly to backgrounds, I even drew that parallel in the OP. However, this is a compromise between having your species determine your cultural aspects, and losing the cultural aspects altogether. It accounts for the traits that you would have for having grown up in a given culture. Currently, you can't really do that. You could take the Outsider background, but there is no difference between a Goblin Outsider in a Goblin community, and a Goblin who has lived with Dwarves all their life. I mean, wouldn't he get Stone Cunning? Is that really genetically innate to Dwarves, would a Dwarf raised by Goblins really know all the history of any stone construction? Yeah, it would have a similar role to backgrounds, but really, backgrounds (at least until recently) a stripped down version of class - you just don't get abilities associated with levels. Culture also fills a different niche, too - a Nobleman with Elvish culture would be different to a Nobleman with Human culture. The only difference on an organisational level is that now you are not forced to be a Dwarf with Dwarven culture.
I appreciate where you are coming from, but to me it seems like a fairly substantial structural change to rules in order to deal with a low number of features/additions to some species.
Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that it would need to be a substantial overhaul. Still, I think you miss the purpose. It's not about spicing up a couple of races, though some do need it, and maybe you could use this to do so. No, my vision would be that it would:
Allow mechanical support for what is a very common fantasy trope - a character that was raised in an alien (to their species) culture. I imagine that this is also common in D&D games, especially for typically evil species such as Drow, Goblin etc to explain why they're good.
To provide better and more diverse player options.
To firmly make the point that your species does not determine your culture, decisions, and so forth.
To allow the breaking up of the monoculture idea that currently permeates D&D, at least mechanically and from what I've seen here on DDB.
It's possible that itncouod be part of 2024e, maybe 6e. It won't be part of 5e because as we've said, it's too much of an overhaul. You'd have to rework the races so that you don't get some with really good species traits but low cultural traits (like Dragonborn) and others with low species traits but high cultural ones (like Humans), so everyone isn't just going to choose Dragonborn raised in a Human family. That's not going to happen in 5e. 2024e or 6e is a possibility and I'd like to see hints reworked to allow this kind of thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It will likely devolve into a mix-and-match of "the culture I come from has all these attributes which perfectly match my ideal character build".
How is this different than it is now? People already pick the Race, Class and Background to perfectly match their ideal character build. The only way to prevent people from doing that would be to completely remove choice from character creation.
Responding to the relevant parts, you seem to be under the impression that I'm advocating the removal of the cultural aspects. I'm not, I'm advocating the decoupling of cultural aspects from the species traits. The choices made in character creation process, with variation in order, goes something like this:
Stats -> species -> class -> background.
Your culture is married to your species. I'm proposing this:
Stats -> species -> culture -> class -> background.
You may want to check out the homebrew 5.5e called "Level Up" for ideas on how this might look. They have split race into "heritage" and "culture" in just the way you're talking about.
It does add complexity though without always adding depth, and would certainly be another point of contention against "powergamers" who decide their elf wizard was raised by dwarves just so it can wear medium armor. I get why 5e hasn't gone there yet and why they still might not in the near future.
I could really go either way on this. There is some merit to leaving exceptional cases up to rule 0 so you're not inviting everyone to mix-and-match their origins.
If you want your Dwarf raised by Elves to be proficient with DEX weapons, do it. Stop thinking within a block of text.
EDIT: Just because the official tools go with what's written for official support doesn't mean you must only do what's officially supported. That was never the intent of DDB or any other WotC-sanctioned tool.
THIS! This is my OTP comment. I will squeeze it and love it and keep it forever!
I feel like this strict line of thinking is the core of a lot of issues more often than not; as is said here - the PHB itself even at points says it's just a suggestion not a rule so if you can explain via background why the dwarf is team elf then have them lean into eleven culture!
Yes biological elements such as darkvision can still be in play and thusly the dwarf can't trance like an elf or doesn't have that Fey Ancestry bonus but the fact they primarily speak Elvish rather than Dwarvish is fine in my opinion. Just because someone looks a certain way doesn't mean they speak the language of others associated with that look or that they speak just that language. The more open character creation gets in my opinion the better!
You can keep biological bonuses for species such as Darkvision for almost everyone except humans and then for those without that bonus give them the ability to pick an extra Skill or something so it feels like you have bonuses for picking different species beyond how tall or short they are for sneaking into places.
Skills - stop assuming select classss automatically would have X ability.
Just say every player at level one has 4 skill points and you can select ANY four as long as you can explain why your character would have them. Rogues shouldn't be handicapped to Sleight Of Hand just because "it's the rogue thing to do"...let them be a grifter type rogue who's proficient in Deception and Persuasion if that's how they want to play their character. Let the barbarian be proficient in History if he's a book lover who gets angry at spoilers for things!
Half kids - have the ability to pick from races so explain your mix; if a half-elf's other half is Human then pick something biological in trait to humans. If it's dwarf pick a biological dwarf trait and so forth. It doesn't even have to be limited to half-elves and half-orcs...you could do a half-dwarf and half-dragonborne if you can explain it via backstory! I'm sure someone would find a way to make an OP mixed race character so some limitations would need to be set I would imagine on what you can pick from the biological list but in the grand scope - customize, customize, customize!
If you want to play a stereotypical character then that is fine, but I do think people need to embrace stepping outside of the box when it comes to character building and running games because then you'd see more diversity in play and builds and that's cool in my opinion. 😁
In an world where WOTC asked what a revamped/6E PHB would look like for character building I would say...
You start with a Biological Traits option pool (this is your formerly race pool), then go to Background Traits & Personality Suggestions (backgrounds as is now where you are granted 2 Skill points and they list RECOMMENDED proficients), and finally you have Classes (classes) where you would be given 2 more Skill points and recommended list for the class build. Then you roll stats and apply them where you see fit. If you want a Dex based barbarian you do you; a bard who's more into history than Charisma skills fine...I know Intel and Charm and Wisdom matter for spellcasting reasons and to that you add that it's recommended a player puts their highest number in it for the spellcasting reason but if they don't want to do that still because they know they roll well let them play because if someone isn't having fun with their character they won't be playing for long.
And because I can feel someone wanting to mention nobles and how they get an extra skill from their upbringing training - you can still have that...backgrounds can have bonuses just like Biological Traits. Wander has less money than everyone because they wander but maybe in turn they get expertise on Survival instead of just proficiency. For Biological Traits and people wanting to build mix races you let them pick two features from each class or just one and make some special bonus for picking a halfling (not the species here); if one parent has Darkvision and the other doesn't you have half that Darkvision, 60ft becomes 30ft. Same with Speed - 30 + 30 = 30 but 20 + 30 = 25.
I know this will probably get the most "WHAT?!" from readers but I'd say open up the "monster" races as playable species as well because why does every XYZ have to be evil? You have the fact someone could be adopted by loving parents. You could have the fact the parents while they do evil things to others love their kid and so the kid isn't evil like most would think. You could have someone just saying they're done with that life and want a redemption!
You can still have bad guys in your games, but why do XYZ have to always be it? Evil should be actions based not biological based. A demonic species unless raised in H*ll and taught evil ways is out of the gate evil - the being is literally a blank slate being born, demonic species are usually demonic because they chose that life or were trained knowing no other way. This goes into the alignment debate which is a thing all it's own and needs a reminder to people it's a guide took not a rule because really playing from a human perspective what is good and evil exactly? Yes we have ideas but being varying people those answers will vary also and I'd venture to say there's more gray areas than hardcore set black or white.
This is a SUPER long post I know but I'm very passionate about opening up customization as you maybe could tell by my chosen user name. :)
Your concept could even be extended into ASIs (this is already somewhat the case re different racial sub-types, i.e. cultures). Instead of high elves getting +1 INT and +2 DEX, PCs with high elf CULTURE would get +1 INT (their culture is based on more intellectual pursuits) and +1 DEX (elven cultural physical activities promote DEX), and PCs with the Elf RACE would get +1 DEX (physical attribute based on genetic factors). Dwarves as a race get +1 CON and mountain dwarf CULTURE conveys +2 STR.
Personally I would make STAT bonuses just a straight up +2 to one stat and +1 to another because it's the easiest thing and again let backstory explain it.
Backstory actually matters if you do all this customization so instead of just being what you take for bonuses you actually feel connected to your character and like what you're thinking for them matters. :)
A druid can then drop their +2 into Dex if they wanted because they're into dexterity based animals or Strength for strength based ones. Ha. Or a warlock can have +2 in Con to help them take hits. Arguably you could even allow a +3 to one stat so if someo rolls really bad they can have a not so large negative stat.
The idea you can only go to 20 with a level one stat is still in play because otherwise you have nowhere to grow power wise and you might as well be doing a level 20 one shot or series of them.
.You can of course reframe any game feature to suit your preferences, but they shouldn't be homogenized for your preference rather than distinct for others preference.
I'm really confused as to why you think this would increase homogeneity. Right now, Goblins are Goblins are Goblins. You have a Goblin adopted by Humans? You're still, mechanically, the same as any other Goblin with your class. Or you could have the Goblin be mechanically human but flavoured as Goblin, I guess. In the proposed system, you could instead build your Goblin to have Goblin physical traits while having Human cultural traits, which is a unique combination that Goblins and Humans generally don't have. That is decreasing homogeneity, not increasing it.
The goblins here are a bad example for this point, as they have no "cultural traits" in the race's features. Other than speaking goblin.
.You can of course reframe any game feature to suit your preferences, but they shouldn't be homogenized for your preference rather than distinct for others preference.
I'm really confused as to why you think this would increase homogeneity. Right now, Goblins are Goblins are Goblins. You have a Goblin adopted by Humans? You're still, mechanically, the same as any other Goblin with your class. Or you could have the Goblin be mechanically human but flavoured as Goblin, I guess. In the proposed system, you could instead build your Goblin to have Goblin physical traits while having Human cultural traits, which is a unique combination that Goblins and Humans generally don't have. That is decreasing homogeneity, not increasing it.
The goblins here are a bad example for this point, as they have no "cultural traits" in the race's features. Other than speaking goblin.
Sure they do. Nimble Escape is basically Rogue training, and Fury of the Small indicates a level of maladjustment that I don't think you could claim is biological.
I’m fine with separating out culture from races and I think that is where WotC is leaning anyway. The thing that I hope they do not do is put feats in backgrounds like they did in Strixhaven or the new Krynn UA.
If they did that with standard backgrounds I think it limits player choice culturally. For example, giving the knight background the feat Mounted Combat. So say you are playing in a Homebrew world and you are playing an Elven Barbarian that belongs to a nomadic tribe that are riders of horses and other beasts that roam the plains. It’s a particular culture your DM set up. But you feel that you should take the knight background because the feat seems appropriate for the culture. Yet the noble title and retainers doesn’t fit. Leave the feats as they are and maybe expand backgrounds for other things
I would agree with leaving FEATS as their own thing and open to everyone not just a few select classes or species.
Also I want to edit something I posted above quickly, nobles could for background flavor either take an extra skill option because of their vast subject educated upbringing or more money (like 10 extra gold); this allows flavoring of nobles because maybe you did care about what you were being taught and maybe you were just there for the cash! Ha
.You can of course reframe any game feature to suit your preferences, but they shouldn't be homogenized for your preference rather than distinct for others preference.
I'm really confused as to why you think this would increase homogeneity. Right now, Goblins are Goblins are Goblins. You have a Goblin adopted by Humans? You're still, mechanically, the same as any other Goblin with your class. Or you could have the Goblin be mechanically human but flavoured as Goblin, I guess. In the proposed system, you could instead build your Goblin to have Goblin physical traits while having Human cultural traits, which is a unique combination that Goblins and Humans generally don't have. That is decreasing homogeneity, not increasing it.
The goblins here are a bad example for this point, as they have no "cultural traits" in the race's features. Other than speaking goblin.
Sure they do. Nimble Escape is basically Rogue training, and Fury of the Small indicates a level of maladjustment that I don't think you could claim is biological.
I quite disagree, these traits aren't cultural at all. WotC even agrees since they didn't remove it or change it (other than how many times you could use Fury of the Small) in their new shitty book. They are just factors of what a goblin is, they are fast little buggers that can stab you real good.
I’m fine with separating out culture from races and I think that is where WotC is leaning anyway. The thing that I hope they do not do is put feats in backgrounds like they did in Strixhaven or the new Krynn UA.
If they did that with standard backgrounds I think it limits player choice culturally. For example, giving the knight background the feat Mounted Combat. So say you are playing in a Homebrew world and you are playing an Elven Barbarian that belongs to a nomadic tribe that are riders of horses and other beasts that roam the plains. It’s a particular culture your DM set up. But you feel that you should take the knight background because the feat seems appropriate for the culture. Yet the noble title and retainers doesn’t fit. Leave the feats as they are and maybe expand backgrounds for other things
I don't know I think something similar to the backgrounds from the UA or Strixhaven would be good. Give the background more mechanical heft so it can represent some of the cultural aspects taken away from choice of lineage, but also make sure that the backgrounds are flexible enough that it's not a monoculture. I don't want one Elven Background, I want something like Arboreal Lifestyle or Magical Heritage or Underdark Denizen or something like that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Re: Race/Lineage. I was hoping when WotC produced the Gothic Lineages (or Gothlines, (tm, Midnightplat)) that they were in fact moving to swap out the word race with lineages. That doesn't seem to have happened, with MMM calling 30 of them races and likely would have been the best place to do the shift prior to WOTC PROJEKT D&D 2024 GOLD or whatever it's called, RAW until a true new edition would simply refer to "Race or lineage" though it will be pretty clear where the language of the game is ultimately going. Part of me thinks the term may have been rejected a full embrace on "ego grounds", they don't want to be accused of following Pathfinder in this regard. Of course, lineage itself is not at all an innocent term, and ties in "bloodlines" and much historic and present day racism(s) is predicated on fictions about people being essentialized and defined by "their blood" or "what's in their blood" etc. Species is problematic in a game that has issues with bioessentialism for similar reasons. Language is hard sometimes.
That's drifting from the OP though. To get back to that and maybe riff on what Ophid's putting out here, it sounds like the present system of racially bound proficiencies that are presumably enculturated proficiencies (like "Elvin weapons" or "any race's weapons" etc) and the background system should be chucked in favor a different system where you get a sort of three tiered proficiency and background ability system that derive from 1.) natural environmentally (forrests, "city", desert, arctic, etc) 2.) A more varied set from the "culture" (martial/colonial, religious, agrarian, sylvan symbiosis ... these arent' fixed terms, they're thinking out loud terms) and lastly 3.) something that's sort of like the present background but more explicitly class and occupation and will likely have the most focused skills and proficiencies. I'm pretty sure I've seen this floated before. Anyway, I see that framework being a bit more generous to PCs that the present RAW but not by too much in terms of 1st level character challenges. None of these features should presumptively grow but rather a PC could grow through feats if they wanted to into "their own" and choose feats apart from their culture of origin BUT the culture of origin may also allow certain feats unique to those cultures. It's a rough thought, but it's something I'm pretty sure I've read on this board before.
Going to whine a bit first. In a recent floating ASI thread I made an argument if people are alright with floating ASI would they be alright with floating racial features and was told I was making a slippery slope argument. Well, here we are only a month or two later and the slippery slope is alive and well.
To the point of the OP, I tend to favor diversity and distinctness over the blurring I imagine would happen with more movement in this direction. That said I do like the custom lineage stuff from Tasha's, they allow for unique characters that don't fit neatly within distinct cultures and races, being able to change your proficiencies and languages seems enough if your intention is solely a character with an unconventional background. My bet would be that such a move would lead more to optimized builds than interesting characters.
Also, making character creation more a la cart would make entry into the game more difficult for new players. Something I think they want to avoid.
The traditional D&D setting take place in medievalish settings which in fact were isolated monocultures as opposed to the modern world which is much more cosmopolitan. I'm not very informed on all the different settings but maybe a more customizable cultural background would make more sense for a more cosmopolitan setting than it would for a more culturally isolated one.
Going to whine a bit first. In a recent floating ASI thread I made an argument if people are alright with floating ASI would they be alright with floating racial features and was told I was making a slippery slope argument. Well, here we are only a month or two later and the slippery slope is alive and well.
As I've already said, this really isn't the place to argue racial ASIs, but two quick notes. Firstly, I think you'll notice that I argued for them, or at least to have them as an option. Also, for some reason you seem to think that cultural aspects such as language or tool proficiencies are equivalent to having a giant be string. Im not sure what to say to that. It seems that you are complaining about the idea that D&D might change, rather than realism or otherwise.
To the point of the OP, I tend to favor diversity and distinctness over the blurring I imagine would happen with more movement in this direction.
Diversity would increase with this, as I've argued on this thread already. At the moment, an Dwarf is a Dwarf is a Dwarf. One thst grew.up in Dwarveb society is nondifferent to one that grew up in Human society. This wouldnchange that. Would there be blurring? Sure, but that's what happens with choice. I doubt you'd be on board with removing things like backgrounds to remove this blurring that is already occurring.
That said I do like the custom lineage stuff from Tasha's, they allow for unique characters that don't fit neatly within distinct cultures and races, being able to change your proficiencies and languages seems enough if your intention is solely a character with an unconventional background. My bet would be that such a move would lead more to optimized builds than interesting characters.
Also, making character creation more a la cart would make entry into the game more difficult for new players. Something I think they want to avoid.
You contradict yourself here. My way is much simpler way of doing Tasha's. Rather than having to mess about with each of the proficiencies, you just select Dwaven culture and it tells you what your character should get. It also allows you to transfer unconventional aspects of culture as well. An Orc growing up in Dwarven society would get Stone Cunning, a Dwarf growing up isolated from their culture would not. Also, given what D&D is already like, I don't think one more selection is going to make much difference. Besides, I think what WotC will do with this part of the character creation process to "fix" it if they don't go with my suggestion will be far more complicated than my suggestion.
The traditional D&D setting take place in medievalish settings which in fact were isolated monocultures as opposed to the modern world which is much more cosmopolitan. I'm not very informed on all the different settings but maybe a more customizable cultural background would make more sense for a more cosmopolitan setting than it would for a more culturally isolated one.
I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here, since you're mixing terms. Firstly, medieval times were not monotonous. There was a lot of mixing of people who were ancestrally from different locations. Come to Britain, we have tons of blonds, brunettes and gingers whose ancestors that gave them those traits have been here for over a thousand years, despite those traits all being, ah, generously donated from different parts of Europe. The Sardinians, an island in the Mediterranean, have major traits from Scandinavia. India has people who have traits from Europe that have been in India for thousands of years now. Again returning to Britain, we've had blacks for thousands of years now. Ancient populations weren't monotonous, and mixing occurred all the time. More the point, D&D has an implied cosmopolitan makeup. How else do you get the typical Human, Elf, Dwarf and a talking cat party? Every publishes adventure has had Dragonborn, Humans, Dwarves Elves and others living alongside each other. Very cosmopolitan.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Going to whine a bit first. In a recent floating ASI thread I made an argument if people are alright with floating ASI would they be alright with floating racial features and was told I was making a slippery slope argument. Well, here we are only a month or two later and the slippery slope is alive and well.
As I've already said, this really isn't the place to argue racial ASIs, but two quick notes. Firstly, I think you'll notice that I argued for them, or at least to have them as an option. Also, for some reason you seem to think that cultural aspects such as language or tool proficiencies are equivalent to having a giant be string. Im not sure what to say to that. It seems that you are complaining about the idea that D&D might change, rather than realism or otherwise.
To the point of the OP, I tend to favor diversity and distinctness over the blurring I imagine would happen with more movement in this direction.
Diversity would increase with this, as I've argued on this thread already. At the moment, an Dwarf is a Dwarf is a Dwarf. One thst grew.up in Dwarveb society is nondifferent to one that grew up in Human society. This wouldnchange that. Would there be blurring? Sure, but that's what happens with choice. I doubt you'd be on board with removing things like backgrounds to remove this blurring that is already occurring.
That said I do like the custom lineage stuff from Tasha's, they allow for unique characters that don't fit neatly within distinct cultures and races, being able to change your proficiencies and languages seems enough if your intention is solely a character with an unconventional background. My bet would be that such a move would lead more to optimized builds than interesting characters.
Also, making character creation more a la cart would make entry into the game more difficult for new players. Something I think they want to avoid.
You contradict yourself here. My way is much simpler way of doing Tasha's. Rather than having to mess about with each of the proficiencies, you just select Dwaven culture and it tells you what your character should get. It also allows you to transfer unconventional aspects of culture as well. An Orc growing up in Dwarven society would get Stone Cunning, a Dwarf growing up isolated from their culture would not. Also, given what D&D is already like, I don't think one more selection is going to make much difference. Besides, I think what WotC will do with this part of the character creation process to "fix" it if they don't go with my suggestion will be far more complicated than my suggestion.
The traditional D&D setting take place in medievalish settings which in fact were isolated monocultures as opposed to the modern world which is much more cosmopolitan. I'm not very informed on all the different settings but maybe a more customizable cultural background would make more sense for a more cosmopolitan setting than it would for a more culturally isolated one.
I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here, since you're mixing terms. Firstly, medieval times were not monotonous. There was a lot of mixing of people who were ancestrally from different locations. Come to Britain, we have tons of blonds, brunettes and gingers whose ancestors that gave them those traits have been here for over a thousand years, despite those traits all being, ah, generously donated from different parts of Europe. The Sardinians, an island in the Mediterranean, have major traits from Scandinavia. India has people who have traits from Europe that have been in India for thousands of years now. Again returning to Britain, we've had blacks for thousands of years now. Ancient populations weren't monotonous, and mixing occurred all the time. More the point, D&D has an implied cosmopolitan makeup. How else do you get the typical Human, Elf, Dwarf and a talking cat party? Every publishes adventure has had Dragonborn, Humans, Dwarves Elves and others living alongside each other. Very cosmopolitan.
Its not that I'm against change, I think things can almost always be made better. I'm wary of the unintended consequences of changing complex systems and the potential for good intentions to lead to worse outcomes. I do tend to balk at attitudes that put forward changes and only focus on selling the potential positive aspects. That said and having thought about it a bit more, in the real world I'm of the opinion that being able to divorce race from culture, ethnicity and class would be a positive step towards unraveling racism so maybe from a social progress step this would be a positive change.
Something about it doesn't sit right with me, but sitting here trying to think of arguments, it isn't the worst idea I've heard. I think maybe I like the idea of making the most with the cards you're given and more customization leads to more optimization and power creep. For example in the real world the creative and innovative process is usually enhanced by a level of constraint and wide open choice leads to indecision. That's just a general argument against an unconstrained set of choices, not your idea in particular.
Something about it doesn't sit right with me, but sitting here trying to think of arguments, it isn't the worst idea I've heard. I think maybe I like the idea of making the most with the cards you're given and more customization leads to more optimization and power creep. For example in the real world the creative and innovative process is usually enhanced by a level of constraint and wide open choice leads to indecision. That's just a general argument against an unconstrained set of choices, not your idea in particular.
In the case of D&D, most of the constraint is produced by the class and level system. Allowing race/culture/background/whatever to be more al la carte (much like how flexible ASIs were essentially introduced to de-couple class and race choice) would not be a huge deal, since those don't have nearly the mechanical depth of class and level.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No flame war intended - apologies if it came across like that. I am simply wary of the idea of actually pairing down the cultural information since most people tend to bounce of ideas in existing material (books we read, movies, etc.), and having examples/sources of inspiration within the rules makes it more approachable for many I think.
I'm not quite sure how your proposal differ from background though? If it is to offset some of the species specific additions only, I think it will be a bit of a struggle. Some (most) of the features (not feats!) would presumably be considered innate (e,g, dark vision, breath weapon, flight, keen sense, long limbs etc.) and a few are culturally defined (proficiencies, languages perhaps?). To be honest, aside from the "old" basic PHB races, there aren't many such features that aren't more innately linked with the species. If anything, it might be better to rework the human, elf, dwarf, halfling, to make them more interesting in the current race for adding features to the species?
I appreciate where you are coming from, but to me it seems like a fairly substantial structural change to rules in order to deal with a low number of features/additions to some species.
Most races have no or at least questionably cultural traits. The lion's share of those you get through background already, and backgrounds are something you're explicitly encouraged to change or make up as needed anyway. As such, it wouldn't really be a matter of decoupling certain qualities - it'd likely be decoupling what's there, make up a whole bunch of other stuff to fill that out, balance out the remaining non-cultural qualities if so desired (it's not like the races are terribly well-balanced as is, so that's a take it or leave it issue), and possibly have a run at backgrounds to boot. Might be easier to remove the cultural stuff, replace with something genetic if necessary, and leave the cultural stuff to the background altogether.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The problem in the OP is that the PHB encourages deviation from their suggestions for people to make their own characters instead of relying on the text for everything. People don't need TCoE to remind them that they could always customize their character, but WotC saw people thinking that only what's written was the only way to do things (while ignoring what says it's not the only way to do things) . So, TCoE gets published to try to show people examples of how to think for themselves. It seems to me that it still hasn't worked.
If you want your Dwarf raised by Elves to be proficient with DEX weapons, do it. Stop thinking within a block of text.
EDIT: Just because the official tools go with what's written for official support doesn't mean you must only do what's officially supported. That was never the intent of DDB or any other WotC-sanctioned tool.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I agree with you that the term "race" is problematic, but I disagree with you as to the reason. I also would object to using the term "species" as it is too scientific. I would prefer Ancestry or Lineage. I do think that all the sentient peoples of D&D should be seen as people, trying to distance the idea of different lineages from the term "race" by leaning harder into fictional biological differences does nothing to alleviate the controversial nature of the "races" but emphasizing that all the different lineages are still people and that they should be treated like people will help more.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
You're fine, I know you didn't intend to start one. The thing is, every single time people start talking about it, it always ends up descending into a flame war. If I don't see another such thread again, it'll be too soon. I needed to nip it in the bud and be firm about it. While there is some tangential relation, it'll just wreck any discussion when someone inevitably comes to tell you that you're wrong because x, y, z and someone will defend what you said and....yeah. At any rate, I actually agree that it shouldn't be removed or reduced, and my proposal didn't suggest any loss. If anything, it woukd allow for expansion.
It would function similarly to backgrounds, I even drew that parallel in the OP. However, this is a compromise between having your species determine your cultural aspects, and losing the cultural aspects altogether. It accounts for the traits that you would have for having grown up in a given culture. Currently, you can't really do that. You could take the Outsider background, but there is no difference between a Goblin Outsider in a Goblin community, and a Goblin who has lived with Dwarves all their life. I mean, wouldn't he get Stone Cunning? Is that really genetically innate to Dwarves, would a Dwarf raised by Goblins really know all the history of any stone construction? Yeah, it would have a similar role to backgrounds, but really, backgrounds (at least until recently) a stripped down version of class - you just don't get abilities associated with levels. Culture also fills a different niche, too - a Nobleman with Elvish culture would be different to a Nobleman with Human culture. The only difference on an organisational level is that now you are not forced to be a Dwarf with Dwarven culture.
Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that it would need to be a substantial overhaul. Still, I think you miss the purpose. It's not about spicing up a couple of races, though some do need it, and maybe you could use this to do so. No, my vision would be that it would:
It's possible that itncouod be part of 2024e, maybe 6e. It won't be part of 5e because as we've said, it's too much of an overhaul. You'd have to rework the races so that you don't get some with really good species traits but low cultural traits (like Dragonborn) and others with low species traits but high cultural ones (like Humans), so everyone isn't just going to choose Dragonborn raised in a Human family. That's not going to happen in 5e. 2024e or 6e is a possibility and I'd like to see hints reworked to allow this kind of thing.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
How is this different than it is now? People already pick the Race, Class and Background to perfectly match their ideal character build. The only way to prevent people from doing that would be to completely remove choice from character creation.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
You may want to check out the homebrew 5.5e called "Level Up" for ideas on how this might look. They have split race into "heritage" and "culture" in just the way you're talking about.
It does add complexity though without always adding depth, and would certainly be another point of contention against "powergamers" who decide their elf wizard was raised by dwarves just so it can wear medium armor. I get why 5e hasn't gone there yet and why they still might not in the near future.
I could really go either way on this. There is some merit to leaving exceptional cases up to rule 0 so you're not inviting everyone to mix-and-match their origins.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
THIS! This is my OTP comment. I will squeeze it and love it and keep it forever!
I feel like this strict line of thinking is the core of a lot of issues more often than not; as is said here - the PHB itself even at points says it's just a suggestion not a rule so if you can explain via background why the dwarf is team elf then have them lean into eleven culture!
Yes biological elements such as darkvision can still be in play and thusly the dwarf can't trance like an elf or doesn't have that Fey Ancestry bonus but the fact they primarily speak Elvish rather than Dwarvish is fine in my opinion. Just because someone looks a certain way doesn't mean they speak the language of others associated with that look or that they speak just that language. The more open character creation gets in my opinion the better!
You can keep biological bonuses for species such as Darkvision for almost everyone except humans and then for those without that bonus give them the ability to pick an extra Skill or something so it feels like you have bonuses for picking different species beyond how tall or short they are for sneaking into places.
Skills - stop assuming select classss automatically would have X ability.
Just say every player at level one has 4 skill points and you can select ANY four as long as you can explain why your character would have them. Rogues shouldn't be handicapped to Sleight Of Hand just because "it's the rogue thing to do"...let them be a grifter type rogue who's proficient in Deception and Persuasion if that's how they want to play their character. Let the barbarian be proficient in History if he's a book lover who gets angry at spoilers for things!
Half kids - have the ability to pick from races so explain your mix; if a half-elf's other half is Human then pick something biological in trait to humans. If it's dwarf pick a biological dwarf trait and so forth. It doesn't even have to be limited to half-elves and half-orcs...you could do a half-dwarf and half-dragonborne if you can explain it via backstory! I'm sure someone would find a way to make an OP mixed race character so some limitations would need to be set I would imagine on what you can pick from the biological list but in the grand scope - customize, customize, customize!
If you want to play a stereotypical character then that is fine, but I do think people need to embrace stepping outside of the box when it comes to character building and running games because then you'd see more diversity in play and builds and that's cool in my opinion. 😁
In an world where WOTC asked what a revamped/6E PHB would look like for character building I would say...
You start with a Biological Traits option pool (this is your formerly race pool), then go to Background Traits & Personality Suggestions (backgrounds as is now where you are granted 2 Skill points and they list RECOMMENDED proficients), and finally you have Classes (classes) where you would be given 2 more Skill points and recommended list for the class build. Then you roll stats and apply them where you see fit. If you want a Dex based barbarian you do you; a bard who's more into history than Charisma skills fine...I know Intel and Charm and Wisdom matter for spellcasting reasons and to that you add that it's recommended a player puts their highest number in it for the spellcasting reason but if they don't want to do that still because they know they roll well let them play because if someone isn't having fun with their character they won't be playing for long.
And because I can feel someone wanting to mention nobles and how they get an extra skill from their upbringing training - you can still have that...backgrounds can have bonuses just like Biological Traits. Wander has less money than everyone because they wander but maybe in turn they get expertise on Survival instead of just proficiency. For Biological Traits and people wanting to build mix races you let them pick two features from each class or just one and make some special bonus for picking a halfling (not the species here); if one parent has Darkvision and the other doesn't you have half that Darkvision, 60ft becomes 30ft. Same with Speed - 30 + 30 = 30 but 20 + 30 = 25.
I know this will probably get the most "WHAT?!" from readers but I'd say open up the "monster" races as playable species as well because why does every XYZ have to be evil? You have the fact someone could be adopted by loving parents. You could have the fact the parents while they do evil things to others love their kid and so the kid isn't evil like most would think. You could have someone just saying they're done with that life and want a redemption!
You can still have bad guys in your games, but why do XYZ have to always be it? Evil should be actions based not biological based. A demonic species unless raised in H*ll and taught evil ways is out of the gate evil - the being is literally a blank slate being born, demonic species are usually demonic because they chose that life or were trained knowing no other way. This goes into the alignment debate which is a thing all it's own and needs a reminder to people it's a guide took not a rule because really playing from a human perspective what is good and evil exactly? Yes we have ideas but being varying people those answers will vary also and I'd venture to say there's more gray areas than hardcore set black or white.
This is a SUPER long post I know but I'm very passionate about opening up customization as you maybe could tell by my chosen user name. :)
Personally I would make STAT bonuses just a straight up +2 to one stat and +1 to another because it's the easiest thing and again let backstory explain it.
Backstory actually matters if you do all this customization so instead of just being what you take for bonuses you actually feel connected to your character and like what you're thinking for them matters. :)
A druid can then drop their +2 into Dex if they wanted because they're into dexterity based animals or Strength for strength based ones. Ha. Or a warlock can have +2 in Con to help them take hits. Arguably you could even allow a +3 to one stat so if someo rolls really bad they can have a not so large negative stat.
The idea you can only go to 20 with a level one stat is still in play because otherwise you have nowhere to grow power wise and you might as well be doing a level 20 one shot or series of them.
The goblins here are a bad example for this point, as they have no "cultural traits" in the race's features. Other than speaking goblin.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
Sure they do. Nimble Escape is basically Rogue training, and Fury of the Small indicates a level of maladjustment that I don't think you could claim is biological.
I’m fine with separating out culture from races and I think that is where WotC is leaning anyway. The thing that I hope they do not do is put feats in backgrounds like they did in Strixhaven or the new Krynn UA.
If they did that with standard backgrounds I think it limits player choice culturally. For example, giving the knight background the feat Mounted Combat. So say you are playing in a Homebrew world and you are playing an Elven Barbarian that belongs to a nomadic tribe that are riders of horses and other beasts that roam the plains. It’s a particular culture your DM set up. But you feel that you should take the knight background because the feat seems appropriate for the culture. Yet the noble title and retainers doesn’t fit. Leave the feats as they are and maybe expand backgrounds for other things
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I would agree with leaving FEATS as their own thing and open to everyone not just a few select classes or species.
Also I want to edit something I posted above quickly, nobles could for background flavor either take an extra skill option because of their vast subject educated upbringing or more money (like 10 extra gold); this allows flavoring of nobles because maybe you did care about what you were being taught and maybe you were just there for the cash! Ha
I quite disagree, these traits aren't cultural at all. WotC even agrees since they didn't remove it or change it (other than how many times you could use Fury of the Small) in their new shitty book. They are just factors of what a goblin is, they are fast little buggers that can stab you real good.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
I don't know I think something similar to the backgrounds from the UA or Strixhaven would be good. Give the background more mechanical heft so it can represent some of the cultural aspects taken away from choice of lineage, but also make sure that the backgrounds are flexible enough that it's not a monoculture. I don't want one Elven Background, I want something like Arboreal Lifestyle or Magical Heritage or Underdark Denizen or something like that.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Re: Race/Lineage. I was hoping when WotC produced the Gothic Lineages (or Gothlines, (tm, Midnightplat)) that they were in fact moving to swap out the word race with lineages. That doesn't seem to have happened, with MMM calling 30 of them races and likely would have been the best place to do the shift prior to WOTC PROJEKT D&D 2024 GOLD or whatever it's called, RAW until a true new edition would simply refer to "Race or lineage" though it will be pretty clear where the language of the game is ultimately going. Part of me thinks the term may have been rejected a full embrace on "ego grounds", they don't want to be accused of following Pathfinder in this regard. Of course, lineage itself is not at all an innocent term, and ties in "bloodlines" and much historic and present day racism(s) is predicated on fictions about people being essentialized and defined by "their blood" or "what's in their blood" etc. Species is problematic in a game that has issues with bioessentialism for similar reasons. Language is hard sometimes.
That's drifting from the OP though. To get back to that and maybe riff on what Ophid's putting out here, it sounds like the present system of racially bound proficiencies that are presumably enculturated proficiencies (like "Elvin weapons" or "any race's weapons" etc) and the background system should be chucked in favor a different system where you get a sort of three tiered proficiency and background ability system that derive from 1.) natural environmentally (forrests, "city", desert, arctic, etc) 2.) A more varied set from the "culture" (martial/colonial, religious, agrarian, sylvan symbiosis ... these arent' fixed terms, they're thinking out loud terms) and lastly 3.) something that's sort of like the present background but more explicitly class and occupation and will likely have the most focused skills and proficiencies. I'm pretty sure I've seen this floated before. Anyway, I see that framework being a bit more generous to PCs that the present RAW but not by too much in terms of 1st level character challenges. None of these features should presumptively grow but rather a PC could grow through feats if they wanted to into "their own" and choose feats apart from their culture of origin BUT the culture of origin may also allow certain feats unique to those cultures. It's a rough thought, but it's something I'm pretty sure I've read on this board before.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Going to whine a bit first. In a recent floating ASI thread I made an argument if people are alright with floating ASI would they be alright with floating racial features and was told I was making a slippery slope argument. Well, here we are only a month or two later and the slippery slope is alive and well.
To the point of the OP, I tend to favor diversity and distinctness over the blurring I imagine would happen with more movement in this direction. That said I do like the custom lineage stuff from Tasha's, they allow for unique characters that don't fit neatly within distinct cultures and races, being able to change your proficiencies and languages seems enough if your intention is solely a character with an unconventional background. My bet would be that such a move would lead more to optimized builds than interesting characters.
Also, making character creation more a la cart would make entry into the game more difficult for new players. Something I think they want to avoid.
The traditional D&D setting take place in medievalish settings which in fact were isolated monocultures as opposed to the modern world which is much more cosmopolitan. I'm not very informed on all the different settings but maybe a more customizable cultural background would make more sense for a more cosmopolitan setting than it would for a more culturally isolated one.
As I've already said, this really isn't the place to argue racial ASIs, but two quick notes. Firstly, I think you'll notice that I argued for them, or at least to have them as an option. Also, for some reason you seem to think that cultural aspects such as language or tool proficiencies are equivalent to having a giant be string. Im not sure what to say to that. It seems that you are complaining about the idea that D&D might change, rather than realism or otherwise.
Diversity would increase with this, as I've argued on this thread already. At the moment, an Dwarf is a Dwarf is a Dwarf. One thst grew.up in Dwarveb society is nondifferent to one that grew up in Human society. This wouldnchange that. Would there be blurring? Sure, but that's what happens with choice. I doubt you'd be on board with removing things like backgrounds to remove this blurring that is already occurring.
You contradict yourself here. My way is much simpler way of doing Tasha's. Rather than having to mess about with each of the proficiencies, you just select Dwaven culture and it tells you what your character should get. It also allows you to transfer unconventional aspects of culture as well. An Orc growing up in Dwarven society would get Stone Cunning, a Dwarf growing up isolated from their culture would not. Also, given what D&D is already like, I don't think one more selection is going to make much difference. Besides, I think what WotC will do with this part of the character creation process to "fix" it if they don't go with my suggestion will be far more complicated than my suggestion.
I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here, since you're mixing terms. Firstly, medieval times were not monotonous. There was a lot of mixing of people who were ancestrally from different locations. Come to Britain, we have tons of blonds, brunettes and gingers whose ancestors that gave them those traits have been here for over a thousand years, despite those traits all being, ah, generously donated from different parts of Europe. The Sardinians, an island in the Mediterranean, have major traits from Scandinavia. India has people who have traits from Europe that have been in India for thousands of years now. Again returning to Britain, we've had blacks for thousands of years now. Ancient populations weren't monotonous, and mixing occurred all the time. More the point, D&D has an implied cosmopolitan makeup. How else do you get the typical Human, Elf, Dwarf and a talking cat party? Every publishes adventure has had Dragonborn, Humans, Dwarves Elves and others living alongside each other. Very cosmopolitan.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Its not that I'm against change, I think things can almost always be made better. I'm wary of the unintended consequences of changing complex systems and the potential for good intentions to lead to worse outcomes. I do tend to balk at attitudes that put forward changes and only focus on selling the potential positive aspects. That said and having thought about it a bit more, in the real world I'm of the opinion that being able to divorce race from culture, ethnicity and class would be a positive step towards unraveling racism so maybe from a social progress step this would be a positive change.
Something about it doesn't sit right with me, but sitting here trying to think of arguments, it isn't the worst idea I've heard. I think maybe I like the idea of making the most with the cards you're given and more customization leads to more optimization and power creep. For example in the real world the creative and innovative process is usually enhanced by a level of constraint and wide open choice leads to indecision. That's just a general argument against an unconstrained set of choices, not your idea in particular.
In the case of D&D, most of the constraint is produced by the class and level system. Allowing race/culture/background/whatever to be more al la carte (much like how flexible ASIs were essentially introduced to de-couple class and race choice) would not be a huge deal, since those don't have nearly the mechanical depth of class and level.