Are DnD Races kind of weird? What if we just got rid of them.

[PopeLinus1]

It's sort of disturbing to think that Gnomes just... have smarter brains? And that Half-Elves are better at making friends? I know that half-elves have more charisma because they "live between two worlds" but... that's backstory, isn't it? My wood-elf spent his entire life in a library studying, why is he so good at hiding in bushes? And why does my dwarf adopted by human's know how to wield a war hammer?

I really don't like the idea that, regardless of circumstances, one race will be on average smarter than another.

My solution? Just ditch mechanical bonuses to races, and add stat bonuses to backgrounds. Everyone still has a race, but it doesn't do much, aside from potentially influencing backstories and social interactions.

[Magicspook]

In my homebrew world, I've done away with racial bonuses. Each race does have two or three cultural traits (derived from the culture of these races) and physical traits (derived from the physiology of the race). The main difference between each race remains the reaction of NPCs to them, but still each race feels distinct and unique without forcing a certain race-class combo.

If you're interested in my setup, here's a link to my homebrewery page:
https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SJqfBHuES

[PopeLinus1]

In my homebrew world, I've done away with racial bonuses. Each race does have two or three cultural traits (derived from the culture of these races) and physical traits (derived from the physiology of the race). The main difference between each race remains the reaction of NPCs to them, but still each race feels distinct and unique without forcing a certain race-class combo.

If you're interested in my setup, here's a link to my homebrewery page:
https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SJqfBHuES

That sounds really cool, although even culture feels weird to provide mechanics to. Take any culture around the world, or at any time, there remains massive variation among them. I mean, even in the most extreme examples, not every Scandinavian was good at sailing during the Iron century.

[Magicspook]

That sounds really cool, although even culture feels weird to provide mechanics to. Take any culture around the world, or at any time, there remains massive variation among them. I mean, even in the most extreme examples, not every Scandinavian was good at sailing during the Iron century.

True, true, but my world is heavily inspired by mythology, and mythological creatures are always bound to stereotypes. Anyway, most of the cultural features present the player with a choice between (a set of) proficiencies which reflect different facets of their society, so the scandinavian from your example would have a choice of being a fisherman, a raider or a tundra strider.

If you want to completely strip your races of non-physical traits (if they all live in some multicultural super-tolerant society where everyone is free to persue their own ambitions and no race is just innately more suitable for certain jobs or something), it will be hard to differentiate between the races in terms of flavour. You risk making the races feel like just another piece of clothing that a player decides on.

Stereotypes may be frowned upon in western society today, but fundamentally, stereotypes reflect some truth about what characterises a society, ór how others percieve that society, which often evolves to be the same thing. Stereotypes about my personal gender, country and demographic are all based on truths that I am not about to deny.

Uhm, that became more of a political rant than intended. Take home message: some stereotypes are not bad and it is interesting to explore via roleplay whether your character is part of the stereotype or not and how the defining traits of their society shaped them. And some measure of sterotyping helps define races as different from each other.

[FaerieGodfather]

You can have a perfectly viable D&D-slash-Fantasy setting in which human beings, or variants of human beings, are the only civilized species-- or even the only intelligent species-- in the world. You can have fantasy settings in which all nonhuman intelligence is terrifying and alien and not at all suitable for player character use.

This isn't my jam, but I get it.

I really don't get why people think it's so necessary to have so many different nonhuman races... and then object to the fact that they're nonhuman and their minds/souls are different from human minds/souls.

What's the point?

[Lvl45DM!]

It's sort of disturbing to think that Gnomes just... have smarter brains? And that Half-Elves are better at making friends? I know that half-elves have more charisma because they "live between two worlds" but... that's backstory, isn't it? My wood-elf spent his entire life in a library studying, why is he so good at hiding in bushes? And why does my dwarf adopted by human's know how to wield a war hammer?

I really don't like the idea that, regardless of circumstances, one race will be on average smarter than another.

My solution? Just ditch mechanical bonuses to races, and add stat bonuses to backgrounds. Everyone still has a race, but it doesn't do much, aside from potentially influencing backstories and social interactions.

Then why have races?
Why play a dwarf if its just a short bearded human, and elves are pointy eared humans and halflings are short humans?
Gnomes are smarter because their god values intelligence more, and put more in. The smartest human can be smart as the smartest gnome and any individual gnome can be almost as dumb as you like.
Most wood elves are raised at home with their parents, and they learn to hide in bushes well. If yours wasnt, then change it. One does wonder why you care about being a wood elf though, if youre not gonna be an elf from the woods.
The races have stat bonuses and skills and everything because its a game.

[Garfunion]

I’ve been amusing myself with a similar idea. Putting stat bonuses and other learned features into backgrounds instead of sub-races. I treat these backgrounds as mini 1st level feats.

[FaerieGodfather]

I’ve been amusing myself with a similar idea. Putting stat bonuses and other learned features into backgrounds instead of sub-races. I treat these backgrounds as mini 1st level feats.

I'm okay with this. I'm not attached to ability score adjustments by race, and things like weapon familiarity don't strike me as inherent the way that other racial features are. When it comes down to it, my ideal model for demihumans aren't human is BECMI and it doesn't even have racial stats. I don't generally think that the weapon familiarity that most races get is innate to either their biology or their spirituality.

I'm not attached to ability score adjustments, and I can understand a number of reasons why someone might find them undesirable-- balance, versatility, even diversity-- but I really can't wrap my head around why it would strain someone's suspension of disbelief.

Frankly... I grew up on AD&D, but I think separating race and class was a big mistake, and then removing the resrictions on race and class combinations in Third Edition was an even bigger one. If there's less difference between an Elf Fighter and a Dwarf Fighter than there is between a Dwarf Fighter and a Dwarf Rogue, what is the point of even maintaining the distinction?

[PopeLinus1]

[QUOTE=Magicspook;24465299
Stereotypes may be frowned upon in western society today, but fundamentally, stereotypes reflect some truth about what characterises a society, ór how others percieve that society, which often evolves to be the same thing. Stereotypes about my personal gender, country and demographic are all based on truths that I am not about to deny.
[/QUOTE]

"Truth" is a weird term in this context though. Is it true that stereotypes about a group usually evolve based on true things about a group, sure. That truth, however, has no relevance outside of talking about the group as a whole. It is true that Elves tend to be good with bows? Sure, but if elves really existed, that "truth" would not apply to every single Elf you met, therefore it is not a truth on a specific level. Now, elves don't really exist, and where they do exist, in DnD, every elf would at least be proficient in archery. That's the part that irks me, the stereotypes are all true, always.

I suppose the divine element mentioned by Lvl45DM makes some sense, although it doesn't disturb me any less, specifically because certain races being born smarter because the gods chose to make them smarter is... something people believe in the real world.

[FaerieGodfather]

I suppose the divine element mentioned by Lvl45DM makes some sense, although it doesn't disturb me any less, specifically because certain races being born smarter because the gods chose to make them smarter is... something people believe in the real world.

It would be a Thermian argument to claim that racial differences in D&D aren't similar to real-life racism because the false arguments for real-life racism science are simply true in-setting-- but, at the same time, that doesn't change the fact that they are simply true in-setting unless you deliberately change them. I'm not going to argue for or against this on moral grounds, because while I'm comfortable with those parallels, I think it's perfectly legitimate not to be.

But that still brings us back around to the point that if you're deliberately changing the in-setting lore that explains why the different races are different, and you don't want the different races to be different, there isn't really any argument I understand for why the different races exist at all. Just make them all human, and make human morphology diverse enough to cover all the variations you want.

I am definitely including many non-human ancestries in Shroompunk, but they're all sufficiently inhuman that I'm willing to make the range of what people consider human to be considerably wider.

[LudicSavant]

It's sort of disturbing to think that Gnomes just... have smarter brains? And that Half-Elves are better at making friends? I know that half-elves have more charisma because they "live between two worlds" but... that's backstory, isn't it? My wood-elf spent his entire life in a library studying, why is he so good at hiding in bushes? And why does my dwarf adopted by human's know how to wield a war hammer?

I really don't like the idea that, regardless of circumstances, one race will be on average smarter than another.

My solution? Just ditch mechanical bonuses to races, and add stat bonuses to backgrounds. Everyone still has a race, but it doesn't do much, aside from potentially influencing backstories and social interactions.

If you're going to go this route just let people choose their stat bonuses. Tying them to backgrounds means that people will start feeling pigeonholed by those in a way they weren't before.

That said, getting rid of racial stat bonuses has a lot of positives from a game design perspective, which is precisely why we see it happening more and more frequently in games other than D&D. And their role diminishing with each successive edition of D&D.

And frankly D&D is mostly keeping them around as a sacred cow by 5e, since they no longer serve the game design purpose that they originally did. Now a half-orc Barbarian and a Human Barbarian are both likely to start with 16 Strength, and both end up with 20 Strength. It's hard to even say there's notable flavor differentiation when no race differs from a Human by more than +/-1, and they have the same max anyways. It's just that an elf is going to feel left behind optimization-wise if they actually decide to use a Str-based Longsword, or if a Hobgoblin decides to be a Fighter instead of a Wizard. Oh, those characters will still end up with a 20 in their main stat, they'll just be worse at all their other stats in exchange. To the point that the Half-Orc Wizard with the same Int as a Gnome might actually have less Strength, due to the way point buy math works out. The whole thing is just a vestigial mess, if you ask me.

[FaerieGodfather]

If you're going to go this route just let people choose their stat bonuses. Tying them to backgrounds means that people will start feeling pigeonholed by those in a way they weren't before.

PF2 has a good approach to this, where your Class and your Ancestry both give you a choice of non-overlapping +2 bonuses. Your Class gives you what you need to play your Class, and your Ancestry at least offers you multiple choice stereotypes to play into.

[GalacticAxekick]

It's sort of disturbing to think that Gnomes just... have smarter brains?

[...]

I really don't like the idea that, regardless of circumstances, one race will be on average smarter than another.
How do you think other hominids thought about us? How do you think average people feel about 160+ IQ savants? You might not like it, but while knowledge is acquired, intelligence is innate, and it varies. Just-smarter-brains are as normal as just-bigger-muscles.


And that Half-Elves are better at making friends? I know that half-elves have more charisma because they "live between two worlds" but... that's backstory, isn't it?Everything I said about intelligence, I could say about social skill. Some species and some individuals are simply more sociable than others.

But half-elves are a great example of a race with cultural features. Their high charisma is meant to represent their lifestyle. This should definitely be a background trait, just like the dwarven weapon training you mention later.


My wood-elf spent his entire life in a library studying, why is he so good at hiding in bushes?If Mask of the Wild just meant "you are good at hiding in bushes" I would agree with you.

But it doesnt.

Mask of the Wild is magical camouflage. Wood Elves can literally disappear into bushes, or dust storms. or heavy rainfall. This isnt somethin they learned in the outdoors. It's a chameleon doing what it was born to do.


My solution? Just ditch mechanical bonuses to races, and add stat bonuses to backgrounds. Everyone still has a race, but it doesn't do much, aside from potentially influencing backstories and social interactions.I would only take this halfway.

Races still offer stat bonuses and certain innate mechanics. Backgrounds offer proficiencies and other forms of learning.

You could argue that background should offer stat bonuses too, but one thing I like about backgrounds is that they are open ended. If the soldier background offered Strength, for example, it would no longer be suitable for an archer or a spellslinger. If the sage background.

[Tvtyrant]

It's sort of disturbing to think that Gnomes just... have smarter brains? And that Half-Elves are better at making friends? I know that half-elves have more charisma because they "live between two worlds" but... that's backstory, isn't it? My wood-elf spent his entire life in a library studying, why is he so good at hiding in bushes? And why does my dwarf adopted by human's know how to wield a war hammer?

I really don't like the idea that, regardless of circumstances, one race will be on average smarter than another.

My solution? Just ditch mechanical bonuses to races, and add stat bonuses to backgrounds. Everyone still has a race, but it doesn't do much, aside from potentially influencing backstories and social interactions.

They aren't members of the same species though? Homo Sapiens are smarter then our relatives, from Gorillas to Homo Erectus. Intelligence is biological, and hiding in bushes is instinct as well as training.

I think the bigger issue is the races aren't differentiated enough. Why would Elves be thin humans and dwarves short and portly ones? Why are giants just big humans? Angels are magical winged ones.

I prefer dwarves to be more like Mole/Badger/Pangolin folk. Heavy, short beings that have a natural burrowing speed due to their claws and a totally insectivorous diet. Elves are more like ferrets, long, lithe, great at climbing, swimming and have night vision but are extremely fragile carnivores. Making the playable species demi-humans is the bigger issue IMO, they would either all breed into one species or be much less similar.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

How do you think other hominids thought about us? How do you think average people feel about 160+ IQ savants? You might not like it, but while knowledge is acquired, intelligence is innate, and it varies. Just-smarter-brains are as normal as just-bigger-muscles.

Everything I said about intelligence, I could say about social skill. Some species and some individuals are simply more sociable than others.

But half-elves are a great example of a race with cultural features. Their high charisma is meant to represent their lifestyle. This should definitely be a background trait, just like the dwarven weapon training you mention later.

It's difficult to say whether certain traits, including stat boosts, are innate or cultural. High Intelligence could simply represent an intrinsic advantage, like the noted intelligence of Homo sapiens relative to other primates, but it could also represent cultural training. Intelligence represents "how well [one] learns and reasons" and "mental acuity, information recall, and analytical skill," and someone who goes through modern schooling, learns critical thinking at an early age, is exposed to a wider set of ideas, and so forth is definitely going to learn how to learn, study, memorize, and reason much better than a generic pseudo-Medieval commoner; if one were to write up a race of "Earthian Human" to represent a modern human dropped into a D&D world they'd definitely rate an Int bonus, and an Int bonus on a gnome or elf could similarly represent a cultural preference toward learning and a resulting improved education.

Similarly, a half-elf's Cha bonus could be simply a result of needing to pick up social skills quickly to deal with being an outsider to two cultures instead of one, or it could also be an intrinsic feature of human-elf crossbreeds in a "hybrid vigor" sort of way, manifesting in a mental/social bonus rather than a physical bonus due to elves' innate magical nature and humans' "will live and breed with anyone" schtick.

Heck, same thing with racial weapon training: dwarves being "good with axes" and elves being "good with swords" is probably a cultural thing, but 3e halflings have bonuses with thrown weapons that could reasonably be cultural (e.g. halflings play lots of throwing games when growing up and so end up better at that sort of thing) or innate (e.g. humans have much better hand-eye coordination than even other primates, and halflings could be similarly superior to humans in that respect) or some combination of both, and the same could potentially apply to elves being "good with bows" if that's a result of their forest-dwelling ways and/or their naturally keen senses.

So really, it's possible to justify the majority of traits as either innate or cultural, it just depends on what you want the trait to say about that race's biology and/or culture.


I think the bigger issue is the races aren't differentiated enough.
[...]
Making the playable species demi-humans is the bigger issue IMO, they would either all breed into one species or be much less similar.

Not necessarily. Ring species (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) are a thing; elves being able to breed with humans and humans being able to breed with orcs, but elves not being able to breed with orcs, is perfectly reasonable. Also, we've seen the result of all the common demihumans breeding together: the mongrelfolk race, and they're not pretty, metaphorically or literally.

Also also, it could be a magical property of humans rather than a biological one. The vast majority of [humanoid race]/[magical thing] crossbreeds are part-human, after all, so it's entirely possible that none of the common races are naturally able to crossbreed but humans are able to do it anyway because they're just that adaptable, in a similar way to how the distinctly-magical dragons seem to be able to crossbreed with practically anything as well.

[igordragonian]

If may throw a small refrence to check, if it bother you,
Check how the One Ring system handle races.
(Lord Of The Rings roleplay)

You are choosing a *culture* and in every culture there are options for backgrounds as adventurers and sub options for each option.

So one hobbit is a merchant who just happened to take part in adventure, and other is "crazy" like Bilbo.
I think there is like 8 options for each culture, and 8 sub options for each option.

[Tvtyrant]

Not necessarily. Ring species (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) are a thing; elves being able to breed with humans and humans being able to breed with orcs, but elves not being able to breed with orcs, is perfectly reasonable. Also, we've seen the result of all the common demihumans breeding together: the mongrelfolk race, and they're not pretty, metaphorically or literally.

Also also, it could be a magical property of humans rather than a biological one. The vast majority of [humanoid race]/[magical thing] crossbreeds are part-human, after all, so it's entirely possible that none of the common races are naturally able to crossbreed but humans are able to do it anyway because they're just that adaptable, in a similar way to how the distinctly-magical dragons seem to be able to crossbreed with practically anything as well.

That works for me. Explains things like Centaurs and Harpys as well :P