So, WotC announced here, essentially saying that later this year there will be a player options book that will allow your player characters to swap the standard ability scores in your race with other ability score increases.
So, assuming that when this book comes out any race will be able to essentially choose any ability score increase that they want, with a +2 to X ability score and +1 to Y ability score, what character concepts do you have that will be mechanically supported by this change?
I personally have a few ideas, from a Lizardfolk Artificer that functions as a tribal crafter, to a Tiefling Conjuration Wizard that enjoys summoning elementals, and an Eladrin Druid that teleports while wild-shaped.
Any ideas? Are you excited for this? I know I am.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I only recently made a Forest Gnome Psionic Soul Sorcerer who doesn't have any addition to charisma - so I would swap the +2 intelligence to charisma. She's not a smart character so it would make sense RP-wise too.
I have a few other older characters too. A strength based Tabaxi Fighter built like a Siberian Tiger. A Half-Orc Monk. A Dwarf Land Druid. etc..
I never pick my character's race based on their ability scores - so I end up with a lot of what some people would call poorly optimised characters.
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.
That's the great thing about variant and optional rules though, if they don't add anything to your game, you don't need to use them. Heck, if the 'core' rules don't do anything for you, you can ignore those.
These variant rules will provide more options for people to make the game what they want. But they won't take anything away from the game.
That's the great thing about variant and optional rules though, if they don't add anything to your game, you don't need to use them. Heck, if the 'core' rules don't do anything for you, you can ignore those.
These variant rules will provide more options for people to make the game what they want. But they won't take anything away from the game.
Almost true, what if some people like the above posters are also in a group with people like me, someone who doesn't want homogenized races? In that case, your comment is wrong. What if the DM decides it's an awful idea but, some of the players really like it? Even optional rules are official rules, and that is a strong argument for inclusion. It's a completely unnecessary thing to model because, as you already pointed out, you can allow or disallow any rule anyway! Just Homebrew your Strength Gnome if you want it.
I'd like original material over Variant Whatever You Want +2 and +1 Stat Allocation, that's just me though I guess.
I am guessing it would only apply to the PHB races.
Some of those that were printed in Xander's Guide, particularly under the monster races section, could really use serious reworked variants. They range from "obviously overpowered" to "single gimmicky combat power and nothing else" to "did the person who wrote this even realize that 9 out of 12 classes automatically get all weapon and armor proficiencies that they would want?"
I'm not sure that simply switching around the attribute bonuses would fix those.
Also-- if one just lets players choose whatever attributes they like, I am betting we'll see a whole lot of swapping out of Strength and Intelligence for Dexterity.
And what does one do about Mountain Dwarfs who get more proficiency bonuses than anyone else?
That's the great thing about variant and optional rules though, if they don't add anything to your game, you don't need to use them. Heck, if the 'core' rules don't do anything for you, you can ignore those.
These variant rules will provide more options for people to make the game what they want. But they won't take anything away from the game.
Almost true, what if some people like the above posters are also in a group with people like me, someone who doesn't want homogenized races? In that case, your comment is wrong. What if the DM decides it's an awful idea but, some of the players really like it? Even optional rules are official rules, and that is a strong argument for inclusion. It's a completely unnecessary thing to model because, as you already pointed out, you can allow or disallow any rule anyway! Just Homebrew your Strength Gnome if you want it.
I'd like original material over Variant Whatever You Want +2 and +1 Stat Allocation, that's just me though I guess.
That's a session 0 conversation the DM should have with the group. If the DM is putting options on the table you don't like, maybe that's not the group for you?
That's the great thing about variant and optional rules though, if they don't add anything to your game, you don't need to use them. Heck, if the 'core' rules don't do anything for you, you can ignore those.
These variant rules will provide more options for people to make the game what they want. But they won't take anything away from the game.
Almost true, what if some people like the above posters are also in a group with people like me, someone who doesn't want homogenized races? In that case, your comment is wrong. What if the DM decides it's an awful idea but, some of the players really like it? Even optional rules are official rules, and that is a strong argument for inclusion. It's a completely unnecessary thing to model because, as you already pointed out, you can allow or disallow any rule anyway! Just Homebrew your Strength Gnome if you want it.
I'd like original material over Variant Whatever You Want +2 and +1 Stat Allocation, that's just me though I guess.
That's a session 0 conversation the DM should have with the group. If the DM is putting options on the table you don't like, maybe that's not the group for you?
One of the questions of the original poster was, "Any ideas?"
I posted my ideas and opinions. I'm sure some people agree with me and some don't. Nobody needs to be reminded that "all rules are optional" but, it's something you enjoy doing so, have at it!
Homogeneity of species and culture is a thing that should be solved by worldbuilding and set-up more than enforced mechanical roles. I would argue that cultural trappings should be removed from races altogether - get rid of Elf/Dwarf Weapon/Armor training, Stonecunning, all the other shit that assumes every single member of a given species is brought up the exact same way. 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.
You should not be significantly penalized for wanting to play an off-trope character or an unusual example of your species. Species that are already mechanically unattractive, like dragonborn, really do not need to also be disadvantaged by bad stat allocations. The whole "but then everybody will have +2 to Dex!" thing is an argument against 5e's godawful stat design, not an argument against more broadly divergent species.
Species can have their identities without it necessarily being completely hard-coded into their base stats. Elves can be serene, mystical Better-Than-Yous living in their reclusive nature cities without necessarily HAVING to be the best choice default period done for any Dex-based build you can think of. Not every tiefling is a vivacious People Person despite the long history of suspicion and intolerance against them written into their lore - sometimes that shit gets you down. So on and so forth. Even if that template holds true for most members of a species, PCs are explicitly supposed to be exceptional, ne?
I look forward to official support for making them just that. Your bloodline should only decide what you are if you let it.
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?
Also, the races aren't being homogenized by this, it's only the ability score improvements that are. And, if this does come, it's probably going to be a variant rule, and the PHB rules will still be the base.
Additionally, the races still have most of the things that make them unique. Elves can't fall asleep and live more than 7 centuries. Gnomes still have advantage on mental-saves against magic. Dwarves still get poison resistance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
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 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.
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?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think changing up character stats is an interesting idea and I am sure it can be done well, but I will admit that I am a little hung up on some ideas. For example, I would have a hard time believing that a 35 pound Gnome could be as strong as a 350 pound Goliath without the gnome having to put in an ASI or two. I am sure I would adjust to the changes eventually, it just would take some time I think.
For me, it would be making my warlock a Shadar-kai. It is the perfect species/race fit for the character, but upping dexterity and constitution wouldn't have been helpful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
For me, it would be making my warlock a Shadar-kai. It is the perfect species/race fit for the character, but upping dexterity and constitution wouldn't have been helpful.
Yes! Absolutely the point.
Dragonborn and Kobolds can be better Draconic Sorcerers now (assuming this change is universal). Shadar-Kai are better Shadow Sorcerers and Hexblades. You can actually have a +2 to wisdom without being a shifter, dragonmarked, githzerai, or firbolg.
All shifters can be better barbarians. Any race can be a viable sorcerer. Orcs can be good paladins.
The choices are near to unlimited.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
So, WotC announced here, essentially saying that later this year there will be a player options book that will allow your player characters to swap the standard ability scores in your race with other ability score increases.
So, assuming that when this book comes out any race will be able to essentially choose any ability score increase that they want, with a +2 to X ability score and +1 to Y ability score, what character concepts do you have that will be mechanically supported by this change?
I personally have a few ideas, from a Lizardfolk Artificer that functions as a tribal crafter, to a Tiefling Conjuration Wizard that enjoys summoning elementals, and an Eladrin Druid that teleports while wild-shaped.
Any ideas? Are you excited for this? I know I am.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I always thought it was weird you couldn’t easily make a good Dwarf Artificer; that’d be my first pick!
I only recently made a Forest Gnome Psionic Soul Sorcerer who doesn't have any addition to charisma - so I would swap the +2 intelligence to charisma. She's not a smart character so it would make sense RP-wise too.
I have a few other older characters too. A strength based Tabaxi Fighter built like a Siberian Tiger. A Half-Orc Monk. A Dwarf Land Druid. etc..
I never pick my character's race based on their ability scores - so I end up with a lot of what some people would call poorly optimised characters.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
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.
That's the great thing about variant and optional rules though, if they don't add anything to your game, you don't need to use them. Heck, if the 'core' rules don't do anything for you, you can ignore those.
These variant rules will provide more options for people to make the game what they want. But they won't take anything away from the game.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Almost true, what if some people like the above posters are also in a group with people like me, someone who doesn't want homogenized races? In that case, your comment is wrong. What if the DM decides it's an awful idea but, some of the players really like it? Even optional rules are official rules, and that is a strong argument for inclusion. It's a completely unnecessary thing to model because, as you already pointed out, you can allow or disallow any rule anyway! Just Homebrew your Strength Gnome if you want it.
I'd like original material over Variant Whatever You Want +2 and +1 Stat Allocation, that's just me though I guess.
I am guessing it would only apply to the PHB races.
Some of those that were printed in Xander's Guide, particularly under the monster races section, could really use serious reworked variants. They range from "obviously overpowered" to "single gimmicky combat power and nothing else" to "did the person who wrote this even realize that 9 out of 12 classes automatically get all weapon and armor proficiencies that they would want?"
I'm not sure that simply switching around the attribute bonuses would fix those.
Also-- if one just lets players choose whatever attributes they like, I am betting we'll see a whole lot of swapping out of Strength and Intelligence for Dexterity.
And what does one do about Mountain Dwarfs who get more proficiency bonuses than anyone else?
That's a session 0 conversation the DM should have with the group. If the DM is putting options on the table you don't like, maybe that's not the group for you?
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
One of the questions of the original poster was, "Any ideas?"
I posted my ideas and opinions. I'm sure some people agree with me and some don't. Nobody needs to be reminded that "all rules are optional" but, it's something you enjoy doing so, have at it!
Homogeneity of species and culture is a thing that should be solved by worldbuilding and set-up more than enforced mechanical roles. I would argue that cultural trappings should be removed from races altogether - get rid of Elf/Dwarf Weapon/Armor training, Stonecunning, all the other shit that assumes every single member of a given species is brought up the exact same way. 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.
You should not be significantly penalized for wanting to play an off-trope character or an unusual example of your species. Species that are already mechanically unattractive, like dragonborn, really do not need to also be disadvantaged by bad stat allocations. The whole "but then everybody will have +2 to Dex!" thing is an argument against 5e's godawful stat design, not an argument against more broadly divergent species.
Species can have their identities without it necessarily being completely hard-coded into their base stats. Elves can be serene, mystical Better-Than-Yous living in their reclusive nature cities without necessarily HAVING to be the best choice default period done for any Dex-based build you can think of. Not every tiefling is a vivacious People Person despite the long history of suspicion and intolerance against them written into their lore - sometimes that shit gets you down. So on and so forth. Even if that template holds true for most members of a species, PCs are explicitly supposed to be exceptional, ne?
I look forward to official support for making them just that. Your bloodline should only decide what you are if you let it.
Please do not contact or message me.
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?
Also, the races aren't being homogenized by this, it's only the ability score improvements that are. And, if this does come, it's probably going to be a variant rule, and the PHB rules will still be the base.
Additionally, the races still have most of the things that make them unique. Elves can't fall asleep and live more than 7 centuries. Gnomes still have advantage on mental-saves against magic. Dwarves still get poison resistance.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
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 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.
Please do not contact or message me.
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?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think changing up character stats is an interesting idea and I am sure it can be done well, but I will admit that I am a little hung up on some ideas. For example, I would have a hard time believing that a 35 pound Gnome could be as strong as a 350 pound Goliath without the gnome having to put in an ASI or two. I am sure I would adjust to the changes eventually, it just would take some time I think.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
For me, it would be making my warlock a Shadar-kai. It is the perfect species/race fit for the character, but upping dexterity and constitution wouldn't have been helpful.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Yes! Absolutely the point.
Dragonborn and Kobolds can be better Draconic Sorcerers now (assuming this change is universal). Shadar-Kai are better Shadow Sorcerers and Hexblades. You can actually have a +2 to wisdom without being a shifter, dragonmarked, githzerai, or firbolg.
All shifters can be better barbarians. Any race can be a viable sorcerer. Orcs can be good paladins.
The choices are near to unlimited.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please do not contact or message me.
"You want to play a half-orc? Cool, our party does need a barbarian."
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System