The reason it would be boring for all races to have all possible attribute combinations to make them most mechanically suited for all classes is because it means that none of the factors that make the race be that race matter at all. All races become effectively the same as far as the mechanics go-- you may as well just do away with the narrative all together and just focus on the numbers on the sheet, because the character's race and associated physical appearance is no longer having any function. It just becomes about the dry numbers on the character sheet.
Counterpoint - maybe races currently rely a little too much on those "dry numbers" to communicate their flavor. Dexterity Bonus is not a personality, elf guy. Homogenizing stat allocation puts more emphasis on other racial features, and perhaps this change will drive content choices in future options.
I mean half the tables already roll for stats and end up sticking an 18STR on their halfling anyway. In contrast, my table uses the basic 27 point buy and moderate-to-high optimization that leave races like Lizardfolk collecting dust in a corner because the only classes they bring a meaningful stat bonus to are druid and frickin cleric.
End of the day, it's up to you to bring your character alive and make it more than numbers on a sheet. I don't see how a couple stat points is going to kill your roleplay.
Personally as a DM, I see a lot of potential in keeping fixed bonuses but shuffling them around. You want to be an Elf on Bizzaro Faerun? Cool, they have +2 CON, +1 INT because of (worldbuilding blah blah). Just as you don't have to use these variant rules, you could also use them in a different way to make a pretty compelling setting.
Species traits, the biological differentiators that set different species apart, are still in abundance. You simply don't have to be told by the DM that your half-orc monk who fled to the monasteries to try and gain control over their fiery temper is mechanically awful and will hold the party back so you should switch to a wood elf like every other proper monk, no matter the fact that you were hyped for that half-orc's story and the wood elf bores you to tears.
"You want to play a half-orc? Cool, our party does need a barbarian."
I guess that I have had a charmed 35+ years of D&D because this type of thing has never come up in any group I have ever played with. If people are doing this to you, you need to find better people to play with as this is more of a player problem than a rule problem.
First of all: DDB! FIX YOUR F&&*&^^ING QUOTE SYSTEM! IT'S BAD AND IT SHOULD FEEL BAD!
Yeah, it's tricky to get it right. You have to press the Enter button to get rid of the quote blocks, and use a combination of backspaces and enters as well. There's no easy way to get rid of them, and it is gimmicky.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
What if 2+ stats were from your class only, and racial stats were only a +1. Gnomes +1 int , half orc +1 to str, etc.
Fighters could get +2 str or dex your choose. Wizards +2 int and so on.
I've seen this be recommended on multiple discussions on this topic. I'm open to it, but I think they'd have to do that in 6e or 5.5e, not in this edition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
My post was long, so I guess you must have missed it.
The reason it would be boring for all races to have all possible attribute combinations to make them most mechanically suited for all classes is because it means that none of the factors that make the race be that race matter at all. All races become effectively the same as far as the mechanics go-- you may as well just do away with the narrative all together and just focus on the numbers on the sheet, because the character's race and associated physical appearance is no longer having any function. It just becomes about the dry numbers on the character sheet.
Except for the fact that it is only the ability score increases that are changing. Dragonborn still get breath weapons and damage resistance, Goliaths still get powerful build, and Gnomes still get Gnomish Cunning. Also, the races will fit mechanically and thematically with certain archetypes more than before. Like I said, Shadar-Kai aren't good shadow sorcerers in mechanics, but now they will be. Lizardfolk fit in well with Artificers in theme, but not mechanics. Now, you're hopefully going to be able to be mechanically encouraged for those combinations.
You're not making the races the same. Size still matters, racial features still matter, language still matters, skills still matter, natural armor and weapons exist still, and speed still matters. We're not making dwarves faster, goliaths shorter, or tabaxi less annoying. It doesn't become dry numbers, but it just allows for more customization.
Ultimately you are telling us that the 3' tall scrawny guy has a Strength of 20 but nothing about his physical appearance or background or demeanor remotely hints at such extreme superhuman poud-for-pound strength-- but he has the Strength of 20 because mechanically that gives him the larger bonus to rolls when making the rolls associated with his class.
Rather than that, it seems like it would be far, far better to simply eliminate attributes from the game all together. After all-- what purpose do they serve beyond pushing people to certain powergaming combinations or serving as traps for new players who don't know which attributes their abilities trigger off of yet? All of the numbers on the sheet that are currently derived from attributes could simply be given a flat bonus depending on one's class.
At least at that point if we are told there is an Orc Paladin who has a +5 to hit and damage with his sword and a Gnome Paladin who has a +5 to hit and damage with his sword, we can at least imagine that the Orc one's bonuses come more from being so big that when he swings, he has a larger surface area to hit with, and the damage is coming from the raw power of his muscles-- while in the Gnome's case, that +5 to hit is coming from being quick and small enough to slip past opponent's defenses and the damage bonus comes from being clever and tactical enough to strike the opponent in the most vulnerable of areas.
One can explain flat bonuses to hit and damage just fine as being from different sources-- we already do that anyway given how a Strength-based fighter can get the same to-hit and to-damage bonuses from strength as the Dexterity-based Rogue gets from Dexterity. Without specifically labeled attributes, one could even imagine that one's cleverness or knowledge of anatomy or even their magnetic and distracting aura could be contributing to one's success in combat while the current system of explicitly labeled attributes outright states that those things have no effect whatsoever.
But instead we have a system where we specifically have an attribute labeled "Strength" that explicitly states that it is one's ability to assert force on their environment with their physical body. And what is being said is that we need to alter player races so that the 3' tall, 30-pound people universally can can lift, push, carry and pull exactly the same amount of weight as the naturally 7' tall, 300-pound people. That we can just ignore all aspects of the race because every single one-- even on the most extreme ends of the scale-- have precisely the exact same physical and mental characteristics without one iota of uniqueness. Every single Gnome in the world is as strong as every single Orc in the world, every single Dwarf in the world is as swift as every single Elf in the world, every single Halfling in the world is exactly as tough as every single Tortle in the world. Everything about their description is simply misleading and should simply be ignored-- because none of them have any advantage over any others in any imaginable situation.
Except, no. We're not changing things for NPCs. Orcs will still have 16 Strength in the Monster Manual, and Deep Gnomes will have high intelligence. Player characters are unique, though. They're exceptional versions of their races, and therefore will have higher versatility when it comes to ability score improvements.
We're not ending the uniqueness of each race, they're changing one character trait as a racial feature to be more open. Additionally, it's going to be an optional rule, so if you don't like it, ignore this feature.
And the argument for why this should be the case stems entirely from the fact that D&D has traditionally had the same attributes ever since it was first conceived and the designers created classes and mechanics by, somewhat arbitrarily, deciding which sole attributes contributed to one's ability to use which ability. And edition by edition, more and more they have streamlined things so that all of the abilities of classes are pulling only from 1 to 3 attributes. So in order to have an effective character, someone needs the attributes associated with their class to be as high as possible or else they will be at a disadvantage on the rolls associated with the things the class does. Moreover, the game has also been designed so that the attributes that lie outside of the class's focus can be almost entirely ignored during the lifespan of the character with only very selective situations, at the DM's discretion, be introduced into the game session to force one to make a roll based on a "dump stat". So whatever boost the character got to their other attributes in exchange for the ones designated as those associated with the class are never worth the penalty one will face for having a worse bonus on all of the rolls associated with the class.
Other TTRPGs have systems that don't rely on race for ability score increases, and they do fine.
So while it could be interesting and imaginable to have a Gnome Paladin who is just as effective at fighting as a Dragonborn who is a Paladin, it is specifically being done in a way that makes it so that all these radically different sized people with wildly different appearances that suggest they have wildly different physical traits are now made instead to have precisely the exact same physical attributes. That is what would make it more boring. Because none of what makes them different and unique would remain.
Except, Dragonborn are Medium and therefore more viable at using heavy weapons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Monk gnomes Gnomes currently have +2 intelligence which is basically just used for wizards. Looking at the gnomes abilities they have the standard dark vision, alongside a cantrip and skills. The main reason people want to play a gnome is for the advantage on magic saves which is useful for every class. Picking a monk gnome would make up for the lack of movement speed and could better use their size to move through large enemies. I know halflings are already a decent pick, but I overvalue darkvision.
I still dont think this changes the race meta even within the PHB. We already have the "cool factor" elves and tieflings with good traits, and the variant human with an initial advantage. Obviously people are going to experiment when the rules come out but even if everyone uses them, I dont see much changing after having a year to settle. Maybe gnomes become 15% more common after using the rule, but overall it changed them from 4% picked to 5% picked.
Let those things be part of an improved Backgrounds system, or perhaps part of a new Starter Species Feat variant system that lets you opt into expanded options for your species.
I agree with this part 100%.
People say they don't want to be forced into a Stereotype, or a Trope. Everyone trying to be their own special snowflake, doesn't even understand what these words really mean, let alone, to understand they are NOT negative descriptors. A stereotype or trope is a commonly held standard as it applies to something, meaning the majority of "X" are "Y". The only negative use of a stereotype or trope is when you unfairly address it to ALL "Xs" being "Y".
Stereotype: Fighters are for bashing baddies. I think most people agree this is true. Example of a Notable Exception: Arcane Archer Fighters are excellent Ranger/Archer type characters.
The real world and imagined worlds are based on stereotypes, that's fact. Being an exception is possible. Everyone being an exception? Well, as was noted earlier, if you are going to change everything that MOST people feel defines something, maybe your something is(or should be) something else?
Making races just flavor instead of having mechanical benefits just seems boring to me. How far will this concept go? My Orc Paladin is rocking mad Charisma! Oh, and my Paladin class is just flavor too because mechanically it works like a Fighter.
It seems boring? In what way? Isn't it more boring to be forced into different tropes mechanically? Like a gnome artificer? Why not a gnome paladin?
If Gnome Paladins were as common as Gnome Illusionists or Gnome Bards, or if they were as common a Dwarf Paladins or Dragonborn Paladins-- then it would stop feeling like Gnomes have a distinct culture. So much of what we are said is distinct about Gnome culture are things that would make them naturally inclined towards certain classes and, when you meet a Gnome, you should generally be expecting them to be skilled in magic and technology since, because of their background, they generally would have had a greater opportunity to learn those things by osmosis alone even if they didn't devote themselves to being an expert in it.
And, by all means, there can be an exception. But if every Gnome you ever spend more than 2 minutes with is an exception, then they aren't an exception-- they become the standard. Just like in Star Wars, outside of a very small scene, Chewbacca is the only Wookie one ever sees. So what a Wookie is gets defined entirely by Chewbacca. If one went to his planet and found out that absolutely no one else there communicates exclusively with bear noises, no one else there is anywhere near as tall, and everyone else there wears clothing just like all the other aliens do and Chewbacca has just been a weird tall, nudist with a debilitating speech impediment-- well, that would be rather confusing, wouldn't it? And even if we were assured that Chewbacca was an oddball, he would still remain the default baseline for what people think a Wookie is-- and, sure enough, all Star Wars media that features them have them be just like Chewbacca.
Actually-- maybe my example should have been JarJar Binks. Absolutely none of the other Gungins shown in the Phantom Menace talk like JarJar nor show his extreme slapstick clumsiness mixed with dumb luck. Yet, despite literally being shown that he was an outcast and considered a clumsy idiot even among his people, he is still the baseline on how Gungins are perceived to be-- and everyone who makes associated Star Wars products is so embarrassed by that character that I don't think any Star Wars video game or RPG has ever allowed/encouraged anyone to play as a Gungin ever since. Simply because they all know that if they allow it, people will act like JarJar because he is the default from having been the one that got the most screentime.
It is also slightly weird to absolutely in no way mechanically acknowledge the fact that we have some PC races that weight less than a quarter of others and yet their physical stats are all identical.
Maybe it is funny the first time when you see someone 7' tall with bounding muscles, scaly skin, bony protrusions all over their body, large enough clawed hands to be able to nearly wrap them around your entire head and razor sharp teeth.... and yet they are a 1st level wizard with 6 hit points and an 8 Strength that will drop like a sack of potatoes on the first blow.
But if that's just the norm, that the physical appearances of characters offers absolutely 0 insight to what the character is about-- then why pay attention to physical descriptions at all? They are nothing but entirely misleading-- rather than the description of things in the world, or the narrative aspect-- all that matters is a bunch of numbers on a character sheet. So one would be correct in ignoring those other misleading aspects and just focusing on the raw numbers.
I don't know exactly where the correct balance point between the "freedom for people to make whatever character concept pops in their head without being penalized" and "a character's species matters, has a meaningful impact on the character and when you look at them, you understand what you are going to get."
That's all a good argument, but it isn't an answer to the question that was asked. "Is it more boring to have more choices and player agency with character generation, or is it more boring to be mechanically forced into a niche?"
Sure, if there were as many gnome paladins as gnome illusionists or artificers in most D&D worlds, they would stop feeling distinct, but is that a bad thing? Is it bad to have the base races be customizable?
This argument, taken to its ultimate conclusion, would ask: why play D&D at all? There are systems which give much more player agency while allowing for players to make a story together. Therefore, that one is playing D&D at all is a concession to mechanics over pure agency.
My opinion on this watering down of races is... well, it's essentially the same as my above point: if races aren't distinct, why include them at all? It's one less point of bookkeeping and a step towards character standardisation. Unless they make a difference, otherwise they don't merit inclusion. If you aren't interested in the tropes of a fantasy world, why are you playing a fantasy game? As the rules stand, you CAN play a gnomish paladin or a orcish wizard or whatever your heart's content already: very few classes are race-locked. And actually playing a character who isn't racially min-maxed to their class could be... an interesting character beat? I mean, in 5e you don't need to make sure your character is optimised: it's not a hard game. And would it not be more interesting for a Paladin who comes from a bookish Gnomish family who, despite their rejection of academics and the like, to have actually a decent understanding of history through osmosis rather than being +2 cha, +1 str or whatever. Non-optimal stats are a gift. They give your character a lot of personality.
But instead we have a system where we specifically have an attribute labeled "Strength" that explicitly states that it is one's ability to assert force on their environment with their physical body. And what is being said is that we need to alter player races so that the 3' tall, 30-pound people universally can can lift, push, carry and pull exactly the same amount of weight as the naturally 7' tall, 300-pound people. That we can just ignore all aspects of the race because every single one-- even on the most extreme ends of the scale-- have precisely the exact same physical and mental characteristics without one iota of uniqueness. Every single Gnome in the world is as strong as every single Orc in the world, every single Dwarf in the world is as swift as every single Elf in the world, every single Halfling in the world is exactly as tough as every single Tortle in the world. Everything about their description is simply misleading and should simply be ignored-- because none of them have any advantage over any others in any imaginable situation. ... That is what would make it more boring. Because none of what makes them different and unique would remain.
First of all: DDB! FIX YOUR F&&*&^^ING QUOTE SYSTEM! IT'S BAD AND IT SHOULD FEEL BAD!
Second of all: I'd like to point out that none of this is true. A Strength 20 Halfling is still Small, and thus cannot use Heavy weapons without suffering disadvantage, and a Strength 20 Goliath counts as Large for their push, drag, and lift weights. Dwarves still have a moment speed of 25 feet, while the swiftest Elves have a movement speed of 35 feet. No naked halfling is as tough as a naked tortle.
Species traits, the biological differentiators that set different species apart, are still in abundance. You simply don't have to be told by the DM that your half-orc monk who fled to the monasteries to try and gain control over their fiery temper is mechanically awful and will hold the party back so you should switch to a wood elf like every other proper monk, no matter the fact that you were hyped for that half-orc's story and the wood elf bores you to tears.
The better solution would be so that a strength-based monk is an entirely viable option that make it so they is no mechanical physical difference between an Orc and a Gnome.
In fact, it is incredibly silly that there is no way to make a good strength/constitution based monk putting the orc aspect entirely aside. An unarmed, unarmed monk character who is physical rock rather than a flipping, tumbling monkey ought to be a thing.
Similarly, the writers of the game have heavily suggested that strength, intelligence, wisdom and charisma based rogues all ought to be viable things.
This is all attempting to alter races when the actual failure is the bad class design that makes the entire class all about a single attribute and completely disregarding others having any contribution.
Either removing attributes from the game entirely or divorcing them from bonuses to basic class and attack mechanics will achieve your aim better than giving all races the same attributes while insisting those attributes are still those attributes.
Why alter every other aspect of the game to be nonsense to serve the bad class design rather than fixing the classes?
Also, I also believe the "heavy" property having no effect but to ban small characters from using them is crap design. There should be some reason for medium sized characters, which is most, to choose a non-heavy weapon over a heavy.
So if ones only arguement is "but this other crappily designed element..." then you have no real arguement because eventually WotC pride will waver enough to allow them to admit it was a mistake and fix it.
But instead we have a system where we specifically have an attribute labeled "Strength" that explicitly states that it is one's ability to assert force on their environment with their physical body. And what is being said is that we need to alter player races so that the 3' tall, 30-pound people universally can can lift, push, carry and pull exactly the same amount of weight as the naturally 7' tall, 300-pound people. That we can just ignore all aspects of the race because every single one-- even on the most extreme ends of the scale-- have precisely the exact same physical and mental characteristics without one iota of uniqueness. Every single Gnome in the world is as strong as every single Orc in the world, every single Dwarf in the world is as swift as every single Elf in the world, every single Halfling in the world is exactly as tough as every single Tortle in the world. Everything about their description is simply misleading and should simply be ignored-- because none of them have any advantage over any others in any imaginable situation. ... That is what would make it more boring. Because none of what makes them different and unique would remain.
First of all: DDB! FIX YOUR F&&*&^^ING QUOTE SYSTEM! IT'S BAD AND IT SHOULD FEEL BAD!
Second of all: I'd like to point out that none of this is true. A Strength 20 Halfling is still Small, and thus cannot use Heavy weapons without suffering disadvantage, and a Strength 20 Goliath counts as Large for their push, drag, and lift weights. Dwarves still have a moment speed of 25 feet, while the swiftest Elves have a movement speed of 35 feet. No naked halfling is as tough as a naked tortle.
Species traits, the biological differentiators that set different species apart, are still in abundance. You simply don't have to be told by the DM that your half-orc monk who fled to the monasteries to try and gain control over their fiery temper is mechanically awful and will hold the party back so you should switch to a wood elf like every other proper monk, no matter the fact that you were hyped for that half-orc's story and the wood elf bores you to tears.
The better solution would be so that a strength-based monk is an entirely viable option that make it so they is no mechanical physical difference between an Orc and a Gnome.
In fact, it is incredibly silly that there is no way to make a good strength/constitution based monk putting the orc aspect entirely aside. An unarmed, unarmed monk character who is physical rock rather than a flipping, tumbling monkey ought to be a thing.
Similarly, the writers of the game have heavily suggested that strength, intelligence, wisdom and charisma based rogues all ought to be viable things.
This is all attempting to alter races when the actual failure is the bad class design that makes the entire class all about a single attribute and completely disregarding others having any contribution.
Either removing attributes from the game entirely or divorcing them from bonuses to basic class and attack mechanics will achieve your aim better than giving all races the same attributes while insisting those attributes are still those attributes.
Why alter every other aspect of the game to be nonsense to serve the bad class design rather than fixing the classes?
Also, I also believe the "heavy" property having no effect but to ban small characters from using them is crap design. There should be some reason for medium sized characters, which is most, to choose a non-heavy weapon over a heavy.
So if ones only arguement is "but this other crappily designed element..." then you have no real arguement because eventually WotC pride will waver enough to allow them to admit it was a mistake and fix it.
I agree with part of your argument that heavy property is bad design especially when there is no explicit positive to being small. I also agree that some of the classes need major tweaks monk's for example need a choose of how their evasion works like substituting Dex for Str. Warlocks should also be able to choose their mental casting stat as I think there should be multiple ways of obtaining the pact. It would also be nice to allow sorcerers to choose Con or Cha. Making a lot classes more versatile like fighters who can have at least 2 chooses of main stat.
This argument, taken to its ultimate conclusion, would ask: why play D&D at all? There are systems which give much more player agency while allowing for players to make a story together. Therefore, that one is playing D&D at all is a concession to mechanics over pure agency.
My opinion on this watering down of races is... well, it's essentially the same as my above point: if races aren't distinct, why include them at all? It's one less point of bookkeeping and a step towards character standardisation. Unless they make a difference, otherwise they don't merit inclusion. If you aren't interested in the tropes of a fantasy world, why are you playing a fantasy game? As the rules stand, you CAN play a gnomish paladin or a orcish wizard or whatever your heart's content already: very few classes are race-locked. And actually playing a character who isn't racially min-maxed to their class could be... an interesting character beat? I mean, in 5e you don't need to make sure your character is optimised: it's not a hard game. And would it not be more interesting for a Paladin who comes from a bookish Gnomish family who, despite their rejection of academics and the like, to have actually a decent understanding of history through osmosis rather than being +2 cha, +1 str or whatever. Non-optimal stats are a gift. They give your character a lot of personality.
It's not really watering down the races, they still appear the same physically, have every trait they used to have except their unique ability score increases, changed to make them more open.
To address the emboldened text, physical traits of the races don't make a mechanical difference, but they are included in the game.
And, non-optimal stats are a gift? How? If it's the main stat that your character should be using, non-optimal numbers in that ability is normally more of a curse than a gift.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
What if 2+ stats were from your class only, and racial stats were only a +1. Gnomes +1 int , half orc +1 to str, etc.
Fighters could get +2 str or dex your choose. Wizards +2 int and so on.
I've seen this be recommended on multiple discussions on this topic. I'm open to it, but I think they'd have to do that in 6e or 5.5e, not in this edition.
I really want 5.5e to really smooth out the edges of 5e like two weapon fighting some class and subclass issues. But they seem to be dead set against it.
What if 2+ stats were from your class only, and racial stats were only a +1. Gnomes +1 int , half orc +1 to str, etc.
Fighters could get +2 str or dex your choose. Wizards +2 int and so on.
I've seen this be recommended on multiple discussions on this topic. I'm open to it, but I think they'd have to do that in 6e or 5.5e, not in this edition.
I really want 5.5e to really smooth out the edges of 5e like two weapon fighting some class and subclass issues. But they seem to be dead set against it.
Yes, there are some rules that need fixing (grappling, shoving, so on).
I do think overall this change will be positive, even if we could get a better one in 5.5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
That balance point is going to be different for every table. Some tables, if you play a half-orc you get to be a barbarian. Period. If you're a halfling, you're a rogue. End of discussion. if you're an elf, you're a ranger. Maybe, maybe, you can convince the DM to let you be a druid, but that's it. Species (because seriously, STOP using the word 'race' when you are talking about a different species) and class are so tightly linked that they're not separate choices; pick one and you have, by default, chosen the other.
The point of optional rules like the ones in development is in allowing tables to find their own balance point between "All [X] are the exact same thing, period, forever - no exceptions at all", and "species is just an MTX skin pulled over whatever stats you like." For people who'd like more variety, or more intraspecies variance, these rules are a big boon. For people who don't? Take them off your table.
Easy as that.
"Species" would be an even less accurate descriptor than "race" in D&D, due to how the game conforms to precisely no taxonomic systems.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It honestly is, since "race" is a less-defined term in real life. We have "humanoids," which are grouped based on having two legs, two hands, a bipedal method of locomotion, and not being more than 8 feet tall or possessing certain magic traits that would have automatically caused them to be "fey" or "monstrosity" or "fiend" or "celestial" or even "elemental." So we might as well leave it as is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The biggest problem I see with the idea of shifting stats around are that some races offer things that certain classes are balanced to not have.
A prime example is the wizard. The wizard is balanced around not having armor. Now a wizard can get around this by MC (a fairly heavy price) or picking a race such as mountain dwarf. Since Mt Dwarf has no bonus to INT, that's a price being paid by the wizard to get his armor. if you let the dwarf put his stats wherever he wants them, now a prime balancing feature of the wizard (no armor) is removed, without any price being paid. It's strictly superior to the high elf for example, who's "supposed" to be a good wizard candidate race.
That's simply not right.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
The biggest problem I see with the idea of shifting stats around are that some races offer things that certain classes are balanced to not have.
A prime example is the wizard. The wizard is balanced around not having armor. Now a wizard can get around this by MC (a fairly heavy price) or picking a race such as mountain dwarf. Since Mt Dwarf has no bonus to INT, that's a price being paid by the wizard to get his armor. if you let the dwarf put his stats wherever he wants them, now a prime balancing feature of the wizard (no armor) is removed, without any price being paid. It's strictly superior to the high elf for example, who's "supposed" to be a good wizard candidate race.
That's simply not right.
I agree that simply freeing up the stat bonuses would create some imbalances, so hopefully the optional rules will be a bit more comprehensive than "Put your bonus where ever."
To be clear, I'd like to see some more flexibility than the present system has. I think it needs to be done carefully though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Counterpoint - maybe races currently rely a little too much on those "dry numbers" to communicate their flavor. Dexterity Bonus is not a personality, elf guy. Homogenizing stat allocation puts more emphasis on other racial features, and perhaps this change will drive content choices in future options.
I mean half the tables already roll for stats and end up sticking an 18STR on their halfling anyway. In contrast, my table uses the basic 27 point buy and moderate-to-high optimization that leave races like Lizardfolk collecting dust in a corner because the only classes they bring a meaningful stat bonus to are druid and frickin cleric.
End of the day, it's up to you to bring your character alive and make it more than numbers on a sheet. I don't see how a couple stat points is going to kill your roleplay.
Personally as a DM, I see a lot of potential in keeping fixed bonuses but shuffling them around. You want to be an Elf on Bizzaro Faerun? Cool, they have +2 CON, +1 INT because of (worldbuilding blah blah). Just as you don't have to use these variant rules, you could also use them in a different way to make a pretty compelling setting.
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
I guess that I have had a charmed 35+ years of D&D because this type of thing has never come up in any group I have ever played with. If people are doing this to you, you need to find better people to play with as this is more of a player problem than a rule problem.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
What if 2+ stats were from your class only, and racial stats were only a +1. Gnomes +1 int , half orc +1 to str, etc.
Fighters could get +2 str or dex your choose. Wizards +2 int and so on.
Yeah, it's tricky to get it right. You have to press the Enter button to get rid of the quote blocks, and use a combination of backspaces and enters as well. There's no easy way to get rid of them, and it is gimmicky.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I've seen this be recommended on multiple discussions on this topic. I'm open to it, but I think they'd have to do that in 6e or 5.5e, not in this edition.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Except for the fact that it is only the ability score increases that are changing. Dragonborn still get breath weapons and damage resistance, Goliaths still get powerful build, and Gnomes still get Gnomish Cunning. Also, the races will fit mechanically and thematically with certain archetypes more than before. Like I said, Shadar-Kai aren't good shadow sorcerers in mechanics, but now they will be. Lizardfolk fit in well with Artificers in theme, but not mechanics. Now, you're hopefully going to be able to be mechanically encouraged for those combinations.
You're not making the races the same. Size still matters, racial features still matter, language still matters, skills still matter, natural armor and weapons exist still, and speed still matters. We're not making dwarves faster, goliaths shorter, or tabaxi less annoying. It doesn't become dry numbers, but it just allows for more customization.
Except, no. We're not changing things for NPCs. Orcs will still have 16 Strength in the Monster Manual, and Deep Gnomes will have high intelligence. Player characters are unique, though. They're exceptional versions of their races, and therefore will have higher versatility when it comes to ability score improvements.
We're not ending the uniqueness of each race, they're changing one character trait as a racial feature to be more open. Additionally, it's going to be an optional rule, so if you don't like it, ignore this feature.
Other TTRPGs have systems that don't rely on race for ability score increases, and they do fine.
Except, Dragonborn are Medium and therefore more viable at using heavy weapons.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Monk gnomes
Gnomes currently have +2 intelligence which is basically just used for wizards. Looking at the gnomes abilities they have the standard dark vision, alongside a cantrip and skills. The main reason people want to play a gnome is for the advantage on magic saves which is useful for every class. Picking a monk gnome would make up for the lack of movement speed and could better use their size to move through large enemies. I know halflings are already a decent pick, but I overvalue darkvision.
I still dont think this changes the race meta even within the PHB. We already have the "cool factor" elves and tieflings with good traits, and the variant human with an initial advantage. Obviously people are going to experiment when the rules come out but even if everyone uses them, I dont see much changing after having a year to settle. Maybe gnomes become 15% more common after using the rule, but overall it changed them from 4% picked to 5% picked.
I agree with this part 100%.
People say they don't want to be forced into a Stereotype, or a Trope. Everyone trying to be their own special snowflake, doesn't even understand what these words really mean, let alone, to understand they are NOT negative descriptors. A stereotype or trope is a commonly held standard as it applies to something, meaning the majority of "X" are "Y". The only negative use of a stereotype or trope is when you unfairly address it to ALL "Xs" being "Y".
Stereotype: Fighters are for bashing baddies. I think most people agree this is true. Example of a Notable Exception: Arcane Archer Fighters are excellent Ranger/Archer type characters.
The real world and imagined worlds are based on stereotypes, that's fact. Being an exception is possible. Everyone being an exception? Well, as was noted earlier, if you are going to change everything that MOST people feel defines something, maybe your something is(or should be) something else?
This argument, taken to its ultimate conclusion, would ask: why play D&D at all? There are systems which give much more player agency while allowing for players to make a story together. Therefore, that one is playing D&D at all is a concession to mechanics over pure agency.
My opinion on this watering down of races is... well, it's essentially the same as my above point: if races aren't distinct, why include them at all? It's one less point of bookkeeping and a step towards character standardisation. Unless they make a difference, otherwise they don't merit inclusion. If you aren't interested in the tropes of a fantasy world, why are you playing a fantasy game? As the rules stand, you CAN play a gnomish paladin or a orcish wizard or whatever your heart's content already: very few classes are race-locked. And actually playing a character who isn't racially min-maxed to their class could be... an interesting character beat? I mean, in 5e you don't need to make sure your character is optimised: it's not a hard game. And would it not be more interesting for a Paladin who comes from a bookish Gnomish family who, despite their rejection of academics and the like, to have actually a decent understanding of history through osmosis rather than being +2 cha, +1 str or whatever. Non-optimal stats are a gift. They give your character a lot of personality.
The better solution would be so that a strength-based monk is an entirely viable option that make it so they is no mechanical physical difference between an Orc and a Gnome.
In fact, it is incredibly silly that there is no way to make a good strength/constitution based monk putting the orc aspect entirely aside. An unarmed, unarmed monk character who is physical rock rather than a flipping, tumbling monkey ought to be a thing.
Similarly, the writers of the game have heavily suggested that strength, intelligence, wisdom and charisma based rogues all ought to be viable things.
This is all attempting to alter races when the actual failure is the bad class design that makes the entire class all about a single attribute and completely disregarding others having any contribution.
Either removing attributes from the game entirely or divorcing them from bonuses to basic class and attack mechanics will achieve your aim better than giving all races the same attributes while insisting those attributes are still those attributes.
Why alter every other aspect of the game to be nonsense to serve the bad class design rather than fixing the classes?
Also, I also believe the "heavy" property having no effect but to ban small characters from using them is crap design. There should be some reason for medium sized characters, which is most, to choose a non-heavy weapon over a heavy.
So if ones only arguement is "but this other crappily designed element..." then you have no real arguement because eventually WotC pride will waver enough to allow them to admit it was a mistake and fix it.
I agree with part of your argument that heavy property is bad design especially when there is no explicit positive to being small. I also agree that some of the classes need major tweaks monk's for example need a choose of how their evasion works like substituting Dex for Str. Warlocks should also be able to choose their mental casting stat as I think there should be multiple ways of obtaining the pact. It would also be nice to allow sorcerers to choose Con or Cha. Making a lot classes more versatile like fighters who can have at least 2 chooses of main stat.
It's not really watering down the races, they still appear the same physically, have every trait they used to have except their unique ability score increases, changed to make them more open.
To address the emboldened text, physical traits of the races don't make a mechanical difference, but they are included in the game.
And, non-optimal stats are a gift? How? If it's the main stat that your character should be using, non-optimal numbers in that ability is normally more of a curse than a gift.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I really want 5.5e to really smooth out the edges of 5e like two weapon fighting some class and subclass issues. But they seem to be dead set against it.
Yes, there are some rules that need fixing (grappling, shoving, so on).
I do think overall this change will be positive, even if we could get a better one in 5.5e.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
"Species" would be an even less accurate descriptor than "race" in D&D, due to how the game conforms to precisely no taxonomic systems.
"Species" would be an even less accurate descriptor than "race" in D&D, due to how the game conforms to precisely no taxonomic systems.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Species isn't any less accurate than race, IMO.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It honestly is, since "race" is a less-defined term in real life. We have "humanoids," which are grouped based on having two legs, two hands, a bipedal method of locomotion, and not being more than 8 feet tall or possessing certain magic traits that would have automatically caused them to be "fey" or "monstrosity" or "fiend" or "celestial" or even "elemental." So we might as well leave it as is.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The biggest problem I see with the idea of shifting stats around are that some races offer things that certain classes are balanced to not have.
A prime example is the wizard. The wizard is balanced around not having armor. Now a wizard can get around this by MC (a fairly heavy price) or picking a race such as mountain dwarf. Since Mt Dwarf has no bonus to INT, that's a price being paid by the wizard to get his armor. if you let the dwarf put his stats wherever he wants them, now a prime balancing feature of the wizard (no armor) is removed, without any price being paid. It's strictly superior to the high elf for example, who's "supposed" to be a good wizard candidate race.
That's simply not right.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I agree that simply freeing up the stat bonuses would create some imbalances, so hopefully the optional rules will be a bit more comprehensive than "Put your bonus where ever."
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To be clear, I'd like to see some more flexibility than the present system has. I think it needs to be done carefully though.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha