I love to mix races and builds that probably shouldn't go together, and giving races stat penalties makes that hard to do sometimes (I don't want to useless, I want to be flavorful). So as far as I'm concerned, this was a good move, because it makes more builds possible. I mean, who wants to play an orc, when they have the bonuses of a half orc, but MORE disadvantages? That's just silly.
@Kamigoroshi I love your idea of making the penalties be in things other than stats. Its a more meaningful difference and adds rp value.
I agree with @Kamigoroshi about trying to be more creative. Let's think of this in more abstract terms: let's say that you want to play as some sort of merfolk or any other aquatic race, either in D&D, Pathfinder, or any other RPG. I would argue that it makes sense for your character to be able to breathe underwater, something that humans, elves, orcs, etc cannot do. So that's their advantage. Their disadvantage, conceivably, would be that they are not as good on land as they are in water (whatever that means in terms of number crunching, it could be a percentage to arcane failure, or a reduction in speed, or whatever). No need to give your character's race something like +1 to intelligence and -1 to strength, or anything like that.
Let's say you want to play as a troll (nevermind if this is even possible in 5th edition D&D or if your DM would allow it). Your advantage would be regeneration, while your disadvantage would be that you can get permanently killed with fire or acid (so you cannot be resurrected). Again, no need to give your character +1 to strength and -1 to intelligence or whatever.
I understand that one could object by saying: "Don't you think that, for example giants, should have a strength bonus, simply because they are far bigger than other humanoids?".
In that case, sure, giants could have a strength of 20, 21, etc. What I'm skeptical about is using this same argument for half-orcs. Giants are much bigger than humans, so it makes sense for them to have higher strength and constitution. But the size difference between half-orcs and humans is not as pronounced as the one between humans and giants. So I don't think it's necessary to give half-orcs a +1 to strength.
As for the disadvantage, should half-orcs get -1 to intelligence? Not necessarily. If you want to play as an Ochre Jelly or a Green Slime (assuming that's possible and that your DM allows it), then I can see how you would get -1 or -2 or more to intelligence. But half-orcs? I'd say nah, they have the same intelligence as humans, and both of them are far more intelligent than a Ochre Jelly.
In other words, I think that even small numerical differences such as +1 or -1 to a certain attribute should represent huge differences, such as the size difference between humans and giants, or the intelligence difference between humans and slimes.
@Kamigoroshi I love your idea of making the penalties be in things other than stats. Its a more meaningful difference and adds rp value.
I do like that idea, as well. Races would have more distinct advantages, rather than a small generic one.
As for the disadvantage, should half-orcs get -1 to intelligence? Not necessarily. If you want to play as an Ochre Jelly or a Green Slime (assuming that's possible and that your DM allows it), then I can see how you would get -1 or -2 or more to intelligence.
I think you're downplaying it by more than a bit. Ochre jellies have an average intelligence score of 1 or 2.
I think you're downplaying it by more than a bit. Ochre jellies have an average intelligence score of 1 or 2.
True, it's an extreme example. I just think that one option for solving this whole bonus and penalty thing could be to simply squish what these numbers represent. It's because the other day I was reading about the plans for the new World of Warcraft expansion, and they're going to use level squishing, level 120 characters will be scaled down to level 50. Everything will be the same, but level progression will be much slower. I just thought that something similar could work for D&D ability scores, so that every single point would represent massive differences. 18 strength for example would be super rare, and it would mean that your character can basically turn a solid iron bar into a pretzel with their bare hands.
Probably not the best solution, but it's all I got right now.
As a related side tangent: Aside from really obvious things like, "Aquatic race on land", I like the concept of giving races different strengths, but no outright weaknesses. No race is outright weaker, they just have strengths in different areas.
I dunno. Weak races such as goblins and kobolds are interesting to play as precisely because they are the underdogs of the Fantasy genre. There exists a certain food chain that shouldn't be intentionally ignored. Pretty much all races are outright weaker than powerhouses such as dragons after all. And that's a good thing imho.
In general I am more of the philosophy of having interestingly elaborated weaknesses to balance out just one, single strength. Not the other way around. That's just the way I roll.
"I dunno. Weak races such as goblins and kobolds are interesting to play as precisely because they are the underdogs of the Fantasy genre. There exists a certain food chain that shouldn't be intentionally ignored."
That's such a cliche at this point. If a race is the "underdog" it should be because of culture, opportunity, or beliefs, not because of eugenics.
Are we counting Dragons as pc races now? Can I play an Asmodeus?
"Are we counting Dragons as pc races now? Can I play an Asmodeus?
I mean, technically you can play as anything. Not to be a contrarian, it's just that I think the game can have any house rules that you want. During one of our campaigns, our DM got frustrated because we turned into a bunch of murder hobos, and he made a joke that if that's what we want to do, we should just play as a bunch of monsters. So we did a one-shot were we did just that, I played as an ochre jelly, and among the other players there was a carrion crawler, a gelatinous cube, and a giant rat. The story was that we were living in a dungeon and a group of adventures went it to get treasures, our mission was to kill the adventurers. We failed and died. But it was hilarious and super fun.
@m7600 "I mean, technically you can play as anything."
For the purpose of player race balancing. Elves, humans, dwarves, etc. need to have roughly equivalent usefulness. No one is arguing that dragons or tarrasques need to be balanced as player races...
That's such a cliche at this point. If a race is the "underdog" it should be because of culture, opportunity, or beliefs, not because of eugenics.
Are we counting Dragons as pc races now?
I am glad to inform you that my post has nothing to do with eugenics. Like, at all. A food chain and selective breeding are two separate concepts and completely unrelated to each other. As I am sure you're aware.
But yes: D&D had playable dragons for decades now. Nothing new to that. Even Dragonlance's draconians had the dragon type. Let alone the whole "dragonblood" subtype movement which started back in 3rd edition. That is to say those races were of course not true dragons themselves. But that doesn't change the fact that true dragons are apex predators of the Fantasy genre food chain. If you think that's cliche, then I guess we just have to accept our differences in taste.
@Kamigoroshi "I am glad to inform you that my post has nothing to do with eugenics. "
I'm sure you aren't making a case for eugenics. But when a race is "lesser" because of what they are? Yeah, there's some unfortunate implications there.
"But yes: D&D had playable dragons for decades now. Nothing new to that. Even Dragonlance's draconians had the dragon type. Let alone the whole "dragonblood" subtype movement which started back in 3rd edition. That is to say those races were of course not true dragons themselves."
Then this has nothing to do with my point. I was referring to true dragons.
"Only if I can play as an Lathander and make him into an undead-loving Necromancer. Equaling a whole species to an individual does that usually."
There's a big difference between "this is a boss monster" and "this is a pc". My comment was hyperbole pointing out the distinction.
@ThacoBell Still nothing to do with eugenics though. And I do indeed feel this was a rather poor word choice you made. I would appreciate it if this does not continue further.
My comment was hyperbole pointing out the distinction.
And my comment elaborated about the complexity and relations of different species with each other via the food chain example inside the Fantasy genre as a whole. My main point is worldbuilding, yours appears to be mechanical balancing. So we apparently talked past each other quite a bit.
I don't know about others, but I personally have the tendecy of rooting for the underdog inside a story. Any story for that matter. Since I found perfect characters without weaknesses to be both unrelateable and boring. As such I see races like goblins not as "lesser". But as indeed "weaker". I reiterate here: I *like* disadvantages. I adore them. Heck, it's not an understatement to say that I love them. They're more important for me than advantages any day of the week.
And that will not change even if WotC waters down the distinction of playable races even further. Since this will only mean I will switch to other IP's completely.
@Kamigoroshi If a race is weaker because of their genetics, then what do you call it? But I'll drop it here. No worries.
If someone is an underdog, it should be because of circumstances, things that are 100% worldbuilding, not because a kobold is somehow inferior to a human because of genetics or some other such nonsense.
If a race is weaker because of their genetics, then what do you call it?
I'd call that ecological nieches. If there is too much competition due to natural enemies in a geographical biome for a species, it'll lead to such lifeforms adapting a different "role" which faces less pressure instead. Or seek another place with less predators in it. Or failing to adapt and die out trying.
The same would also hold true for sapient races in Fantasy settings as well. The goblinoids make a perfect example of utilizing various ecological niches inside the campaign setting actually. With goblins being the equivalent of small-sized burrowing scavengers. Hobgoblins becoming more territorial, stronger and able to compete with other medium-sized races on equal footing. And bugbears becoming part of the "humanoid megafauna" in their own right. Their current genetics, as you put it, would thus be a result of generations upon generations of adapting to their race's circumstances. 100% worldbuilding stuff here.
Their social standing is a seperate issue from their physical body structure and differs greatly from setting to setting. Zakhara had at least one clan of goblins becoming what the natives call "Enlightened" and now life as proud citizens inside a major human city as sewer architects, workers and miners if memory serves right. In Faerun's case goblins are seen as little more than vermin by other humanoids... including from the standpoint of other goblinoids. And Pathfinder made them into a core race with a completely different backstory to their D&D cousins - elaborating their social standing to the point of becoming paizo's mascot race. Still all in the realm of worldbuilding.
You are of course free to disagree with anything I said. I don't mind. My taste is my own after all.
Regarding the strength bonus and intelligence penalty for half-orcs, I feel like part of the problem surpasses the scope of D&D. It's almost as if, generally speaking, we keep buying into this idea that physical strength is inversely proportional to intelligence. It's somehow implied that if a character is physically strong, such as the stereotypical warrior or barbarian, then they must be stupid. Conversely, if a character is highly intelligent, such as the stereotypical wizard, then we somehow assume that they must be physically weak. I say that this goes beyond the scope of D&D because we find this trope almost everywhere. Think of the distinction between jocks and nerds. It's almost as if we can't fathom a character who is both strong and smart at the same time. But I know a lot of people like that. It's not as rare as it might initially seem. Hell, there's tons of examples just from comic books alone. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc., are all physically strong and smart at the same time. Or at the very least, it would be almost impossible to argue that they are as stupid as the "strong but stupid barbarian" trope.
Alright, enough ranting from me : P
@Kamigoroshi "I'd call that ecological nieches. If there is too much competition due to natural enemies in a geographical biome for a species, it'll lead to such lifeforms adapting a different "role" which faces less pressure instead. Or seek another place with less predators in it. Or failing to adapt and die out trying."
I suspect that we actually agree with each other and have been arguing for the same thing, but using different language to do so. I'm arguing against player races being objectively weaker or stronger and in favor of being good at different things.
While you seem to be arguing...the same thing. I feel like genetics wasn't a great choice of words. I instantly got what you were saying with ecological niches. Specialization, not measureable
"this is weak and this is strong as a player race."
Comments
@Kamigoroshi I love your idea of making the penalties be in things other than stats. Its a more meaningful difference and adds rp value.
Let's say you want to play as a troll (nevermind if this is even possible in 5th edition D&D or if your DM would allow it). Your advantage would be regeneration, while your disadvantage would be that you can get permanently killed with fire or acid (so you cannot be resurrected). Again, no need to give your character +1 to strength and -1 to intelligence or whatever.
I understand that one could object by saying: "Don't you think that, for example giants, should have a strength bonus, simply because they are far bigger than other humanoids?".
In that case, sure, giants could have a strength of 20, 21, etc. What I'm skeptical about is using this same argument for half-orcs. Giants are much bigger than humans, so it makes sense for them to have higher strength and constitution. But the size difference between half-orcs and humans is not as pronounced as the one between humans and giants. So I don't think it's necessary to give half-orcs a +1 to strength.
As for the disadvantage, should half-orcs get -1 to intelligence? Not necessarily. If you want to play as an Ochre Jelly or a Green Slime (assuming that's possible and that your DM allows it), then I can see how you would get -1 or -2 or more to intelligence. But half-orcs? I'd say nah, they have the same intelligence as humans, and both of them are far more intelligent than a Ochre Jelly.
In other words, I think that even small numerical differences such as +1 or -1 to a certain attribute should represent huge differences, such as the size difference between humans and giants, or the intelligence difference between humans and slimes.
I do like that idea, as well. Races would have more distinct advantages, rather than a small generic one.
I think you're downplaying it by more than a bit. Ochre jellies have an average intelligence score of 1 or 2.
True, it's an extreme example. I just think that one option for solving this whole bonus and penalty thing could be to simply squish what these numbers represent. It's because the other day I was reading about the plans for the new World of Warcraft expansion, and they're going to use level squishing, level 120 characters will be scaled down to level 50. Everything will be the same, but level progression will be much slower. I just thought that something similar could work for D&D ability scores, so that every single point would represent massive differences. 18 strength for example would be super rare, and it would mean that your character can basically turn a solid iron bar into a pretzel with their bare hands.
Probably not the best solution, but it's all I got right now.
In general I am more of the philosophy of having interestingly elaborated weaknesses to balance out just one, single strength. Not the other way around. That's just the way I roll.
That's such a cliche at this point. If a race is the "underdog" it should be because of culture, opportunity, or beliefs, not because of eugenics.
Are we counting Dragons as pc races now? Can I play an Asmodeus?
I mean, technically you can play as anything. Not to be a contrarian, it's just that I think the game can have any house rules that you want. During one of our campaigns, our DM got frustrated because we turned into a bunch of murder hobos, and he made a joke that if that's what we want to do, we should just play as a bunch of monsters. So we did a one-shot were we did just that, I played as an ochre jelly, and among the other players there was a carrion crawler, a gelatinous cube, and a giant rat. The story was that we were living in a dungeon and a group of adventures went it to get treasures, our mission was to kill the adventurers. We failed and died. But it was hilarious and super fun.
For the purpose of player race balancing. Elves, humans, dwarves, etc. need to have roughly equivalent usefulness. No one is arguing that dragons or tarrasques need to be balanced as player races...
But yes: D&D had playable dragons for decades now. Nothing new to that. Even Dragonlance's draconians had the dragon type. Let alone the whole "dragonblood" subtype movement which started back in 3rd edition. That is to say those races were of course not true dragons themselves. But that doesn't change the fact that true dragons are apex predators of the Fantasy genre food chain. If you think that's cliche, then I guess we just have to accept our differences in taste.
Only if I can play as an Lathander and make him into an undead-loving Necromancer. Equaling a whole species to an individual does that usually.
That's not a submarine. That's Otiluke's Resilient Sphere.
I'm sure you aren't making a case for eugenics. But when a race is "lesser" because of what they are? Yeah, there's some unfortunate implications there.
"But yes: D&D had playable dragons for decades now. Nothing new to that. Even Dragonlance's draconians had the dragon type. Let alone the whole "dragonblood" subtype movement which started back in 3rd edition. That is to say those races were of course not true dragons themselves."
Then this has nothing to do with my point. I was referring to true dragons.
"Only if I can play as an Lathander and make him into an undead-loving Necromancer. Equaling a whole species to an individual does that usually."
There's a big difference between "this is a boss monster" and "this is a pc". My comment was hyperbole pointing out the distinction.
And my comment elaborated about the complexity and relations of different species with each other via the food chain example inside the Fantasy genre as a whole. My main point is worldbuilding, yours appears to be mechanical balancing. So we apparently talked past each other quite a bit.
I don't know about others, but I personally have the tendecy of rooting for the underdog inside a story. Any story for that matter. Since I found perfect characters without weaknesses to be both unrelateable and boring. As such I see races like goblins not as "lesser". But as indeed "weaker". I reiterate here: I *like* disadvantages. I adore them. Heck, it's not an understatement to say that I love them. They're more important for me than advantages any day of the week.
And that will not change even if WotC waters down the distinction of playable races even further. Since this will only mean I will switch to other IP's completely.
If someone is an underdog, it should be because of circumstances, things that are 100% worldbuilding, not because a kobold is somehow inferior to a human because of genetics or some other such nonsense.
The same would also hold true for sapient races in Fantasy settings as well. The goblinoids make a perfect example of utilizing various ecological niches inside the campaign setting actually. With goblins being the equivalent of small-sized burrowing scavengers. Hobgoblins becoming more territorial, stronger and able to compete with other medium-sized races on equal footing. And bugbears becoming part of the "humanoid megafauna" in their own right. Their current genetics, as you put it, would thus be a result of generations upon generations of adapting to their race's circumstances. 100% worldbuilding stuff here.
Their social standing is a seperate issue from their physical body structure and differs greatly from setting to setting. Zakhara had at least one clan of goblins becoming what the natives call "Enlightened" and now life as proud citizens inside a major human city as sewer architects, workers and miners if memory serves right. In Faerun's case goblins are seen as little more than vermin by other humanoids... including from the standpoint of other goblinoids. And Pathfinder made them into a core race with a completely different backstory to their D&D cousins - elaborating their social standing to the point of becoming paizo's mascot race. Still all in the realm of worldbuilding.
You are of course free to disagree with anything I said. I don't mind. My taste is my own after all.
Alright, enough ranting from me : P
I suspect that we actually agree with each other and have been arguing for the same thing, but using different language to do so. I'm arguing against player races being objectively weaker or stronger and in favor of being good at different things.
While you seem to be arguing...the same thing. I feel like genetics wasn't a great choice of words. I instantly got what you were saying with ecological niches. Specialization, not measureable
"this is weak and this is strong as a player race."
But that's why he's a boss, and not a trash mob.